Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OV%237Jl8tIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Has anyone played around with this extensively to know just what DOS
>> applications "command.com" (16 bit shell) will run successfully, that
>> "cmd.exe" (32 bit shell) cannot (under XP)?
>>
>> Note: "cmd.exe" is newer and more "featured", of course (and also
>> handles
>> long filenames), but isn't quite as compatible for running some DOS apps.
>>
>> Just wondering if anyone has any personal experiences they can share on
>> this. I seem to have noticed a few already, but was curious.
>
> Cmd.exe is the Windows XP command processor. Command.com
> is a legacy processor that you should only use for 16-bit applications
> that won't run properly under cmd.exe. Avoid it if you can!

I know that, but I was curious as to which apps someone had problems with
(that worked fine under "command.com" under XP, but not under "cmd.exe")

There are plenty of apps that won't work with either, however (and HAVE to
run under REAL DOS).