"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23QTkwV%23tIHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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).

Consider installing DOS in a Virtual PC. It's free.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx