I was just playing around with the cmd.exe file from WinXP and renamed it to command.com
and it still works as if nothing has change.
Now i was just wondering since i renamed it to command.com will it work on Win98SE?

The XP CMD.exe doesnt work for me i didnt rename it to command.com
(these are missing)

KERNEL32.DLL
GetVDMCurrentDirectories

(this i dont this is very important because it works on nt4 without these)
ADVAPI32.DLL
SaferRecordEventLogEntry
SaferCloseLevel
SaferComputeTokenFromLevel
SaferIdentifyLevel

And it was to be expected since it is no command.com

.com and .exe files are of a different format. Changing the extension of a file will NOT magically change its format!

Just for the record, there is a "cmd.exe" that works under win9x that has almost, but not quite, all the functionalities of 2k/Xp "cmd.exe":
http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=2392

jaclaz

so its safe to say this file is ok or what
how many bugs etc...
it this a replace for command.com?

Doesn't look like it'd be a replacement for command.com in that case.

Hi, PROBLEMCHYLD! This is a characteristic behaviour that is inherited from good old MS_DOS:
The command interpreter can have any name. This is "by design". Moreover, it doesn't matter
whether the extention is .com or . exe, since both are known to the SO as "executable".
But probably it will stop working if you change the extention to .pdf or .txt ...
On the other hand, from the point-of-view of the program loader, if the extension is executale
it goes ahead and tries to execute the file, then checking the file format signature, to be able to
do so: if none is found it wil assume it's a .com (executable image) format and try to execute it
from the first byte, whereas if a format signature (MZ, PE, NE, LE) is found it will take the known
necessary steps to load correctly the diverse segments of the file, and then transfer control to the
address found in the program file header. By the way, MS-DOS 7.1 COMMAND.COM is, in fact, an
.exe file, as can be seen by loading it in any hexeditor and observing that the first two bytes are MZ.
The name is just a nod to older times. All this said, there remains the question of cmd.exe's depen-
dencies, which are another reason for it not to run under Win 9x. But that's another matter entirely.
In the past, there was a "fever" for replacements of the DOS command interpreter, the best know
of which was Norton Utilities's NDOS.COM (who else still remembers of it?)... HTH

Win95cmd.exe - excellent find! Does anyone have consize.exe?

As for solution, command.com and cmd.exe can be merged so command.com will work under DOS, and cmd.exe in Windows. I'll try to do that.

No, the idea is to have under win9x/Me GUI (NOT under DOS 7.x command line) an alternate command interpreter capable of running .cmd batch scripts INSTEAD of .bat ones and take advantages of most (but NOT all) added features of batch commands from NT/2K.

For a replacement of DOS command.com, the reference is of course the JP Softwares 4DOS, which used to be Commercial, then was released as FREEWARE and recently became OPEN SOURCE !:
http://www.boot-land.net/forums/4DOS-is-no...urce-t2549.html

Start here:
http://www.4dos.info/
http://www.4dos.info/4dinfo.htm
if you do not know what 4DOS is.


I don't get it , the download on the given site:
http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/consize/
has TWO builds of it, already compiled.

jaclaz

Try consize-vc from ftp://ftp.franken.de/pub/win32/develop/gn...size/index.html

Definitely a nifty replacement tool (glad someone else noticed it). But be forewarned that certain DOS equivalent functions yield slightly different output. This means that some BAT files (or commands eg DIR) may not yield the same results if output is fed into another process. AutoPatch for 98SE is currently detecting it as a "no-no" until the work-arounds can be obtained. Best bet (if you try it out) is to install it, revert the Autoexec.bat and Config.sys files to the originals (backed up automatically BTW) and read the HELP stuff for more info (sloooow reading). Most "standard Command.com" functions do work exactly the same.

On topic, a command.com that works like cmd.exe would be better. It would allow for CMD execution instead of the 4DOS-style alternative and would retain functional compatibility for DOS-style(?) output.

Well Tihiy had a good idea about merging those two. Why bothering with 3rd party apps?

??? I thought that's what I said ??? Besides, that could also be construed as "third party"...

Let it go (big "sigh" here). Many alternatives to suit the individual requirements. Wishing success to such an endeavor. I too would use it...

thanks

Hey, I'm curious... does KernelEX have any effect on those dependencies awergh mentioned?

I'm not sure which version to install
http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/consize/index.html

if i renamed the file to Cmd.exe and run this batch file here
http://www.infionline.net/~wtnewton/batch/fixcmd.htm
can i use this as default?

Win95cmd comes in two versions: NT4 = 233k and NT5 = 307k. These were released as part of the SDK, but have become loose-distributed.

If you want functionality to match the 2K/XP cmd.exe, ye need to download the larger one (NT5). The smaller one emulates NT4's cmd.exe. In any case, putting it into \windows\command is a useful thing, because ye might want start | run | cmd.

I don't think it's a good thing to set COMSPEC globally to it, but you do need to set comspec in its session for things to work properly, ye use this reg file.



The first sets the comspec (ye need to change the path and exefile name, if Windows is not in c:\windows.) Pathcompletion sets tab to scroll through partly completed paths.

What about this reg file

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor]
"AutoRun"="SET COMSPEC=C:\\WINDOWS\\Cmd.exe"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\.cmd]
@="cmdfile"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile]
@="Windows NT Command Script"
"EditFlags"=hex:d0,04,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell]
@=""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\open]
@=""
"EditFlags"=hex:00,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\open\command]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\Cmd.exe /C \"%1\" %*"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\print]
@=""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\print\command]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\NOTEPAD.EXE /p %1"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\edit]
@="&Edit"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shell\edit\command]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\NOTEPAD.EXE %1"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shellex]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shellex\PropertySheetHandlers]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\shellex\PropertySheetHandlers\{86F19A00-42A0-1069-A2E9-08002B30309D}]
@=""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\cmdfile\DefaultIcon]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\shell32.dll,-153"

That works too. It just does not handle pipes though.

Solution: Use both.

the version of win95cmd.exe is 5.00.2144.1,seems from Windows 2000,
Can any body find one in Windows XP sp2(5.10.2600,or hihger)?
3Q!

cmd.exe in Windows 2k is the same as the one in xp. So the 5.00. version will handle all of xp stuff.

I suspect also that there is no version to match xp, since by this time, development on the win9x line had largely stopped.