Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

What is the difference between COMMAND and CMD DOS Virtual Machine in Windows XP?

0
Posted

What is the difference between COMMAND and CMD DOS Virtual Machine in Windows XP?

0

[Posted in Bootstrike Forums by wmccain] Windows XP includes TWO command-line processors, CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM. The second one, COMMAND.COM, is a stripped-down version of the command processor from DOS. The Windows XP version of COMMAND.COM is severely restricted in its capabilities (lacks long filename support and many other features familiar from Windows 98SE), so it is all-but-unusable. Furthermore, it turns out that there are TWO ways to run CMD.EXE in Windows XP, although this fact is not documented anywhere. CMD.EXE can be run from a shortcut (a .lnk file, which is the way that the Command Prompt window is set up “out-of-the-box” in Windows XP) or from a Program Information File (a .pif file). (COMMAND.COM, on the other hand, can ONLY be run from a .pif file, since it is a .com program and not a .exe program.) I have found the .pif file method for running CMD.EXE to be superior in most respects. For one thing, the .pif file “Properties” dialog gives you control of a lot more o

0

A. Windows XP includes TWO command-line processors, CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM. The second one, COMMAND.COM, is a stripped-down version of the command processor from DOS. The Windows XP version of COMMAND.COM is severely restricted in its capabilities (lacks long filename support and many other features familiar from Windows 98SE), so it is all-but-unusable. Furthermore, it turns out that there are TWO ways to run CMD.EXE in Windows XP, although this fact is not documented anywhere. CMD.EXE can be run from a shortcut (a .lnk file, which is the way that the Command Prompt window is set up “out-of-the-box” in Windows XP) or from a Program Information File (a .pif file). (COMMAND.COM, on the other hand, can ONLY be run from a .pif file, since it is a .com program and not a .exe program.) I have found the .pif file method for running CMD.EXE to be superior in most respects. For one thing, the .pif file “Properties” dialog gives you control of a lot more of the “compatibility” options. More im

0

Windows XP includes TWO command-line processors, CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM. The second one, COMMAND.COM, is a stripped-down version of the command processor from DOS. The Windows XP version of COMMAND.COM is severely restricted in its capabilities (lacks long filename support and many other features familiar from Windows 98SE), so it is all-but-unusable. Furthermore, it turns out that there are TWO ways to run CMD.EXE in Windows XP, although this fact is not documented anywhere. CMD.EXE can be run from a shortcut (a .lnk file, which is the way that the Command Prompt window is set up “out-of-the-box” in Windows XP) or from a Program Information File (a .pif file). (COMMAND.COM, on the other hand, can ONLY be run from a .pif file, since it is a .com program and not a .exe program.) I have found the .pif file method for running CMD.EXE to be superior in most respects. For one thing, the .pif file “Properties” dialog gives you control of a lot more of the “compatibility” options. More impor

Related Questions

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.