From: Vic <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: .COM's with DJGPP?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:20:42 +0300
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3537B99A.6460@cam.org>
References: <35379F0B DOT 6F79F86F AT indigo DOT ie> <3537F565 DOT 3C1CCCA2 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <3538D4C4 DOT 6919240 AT lr DOT net> <3538F4EF DOT A11E233D AT a DOT crl DOT com> <01bd6a50$8a708600$3048a5c6 AT technoid> <35395468 DOT F8F390B2 AT a DOT crl DOT com> <3537A575 DOT 1485 AT cam DOT org> <35395E48 DOT AAC5849E AT a DOT crl DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-548.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Weiqi Gao wrote:
> Oh-oh, intellegent life detected!

:) he he
 
> > renaming the exe to com will NOT crash the computer.
> > Why don't you try for yourselves? It's THAT easy. It works on my machine
> > anyways.
> 
> But why?

I think the win95 loader scans the file, it no longet looks at the
extention. I think it looks for the EXE header, and if it doesn't find
it, it assumes it's a com. Just relying on the extention would be stupid
(but we ARE talking about microsoft)