PD43 wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> PD43 wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Google (it's your friend) "XP command line commands"
>>>
>>> First reference listed:
>>>
>>> http://www.ss64.com/nt/
>>
>> Did you READ what I wrote? I have already *read* plenty about it, know
>> the differences, and have worked with both of them, but I wanted to hear
>> some case histories (as I WROTE) of what some had found they had
>> incidents
>> with (i.e., not running well on CMD.EXE, but running well under
>> COMMAND.COM).
>
>> Reading 101.
>
> Bite me you fool.

OK, I give up. You apparently can't really comprehend what I said, and
I'll just have to accept that.

Still, it is a bit disappointing. But maybe it's just (yet another) sign
of the newage times, though.