Tamas Rudnai wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> I guess I'm missing something. =A0

Probably... :)

>> Yes CMD.EXE is a lot more capable than COMMAND.COM, the DOS command
>> line processor. =A0However, files for CMD are still named .BAT as far
>> as I know. =A0Is there some different suffix that turns on more
>> extended features by default?
> =

> There is no suffix that would turn extended mode or anything like
> that, however, you can put an extension of CMD there instead of BAT
> -- basically BAT is for backward compatibility only. =


There are some subtle differences between how .bat and .cmd files are
handled. I don't know all the details, but the "native" extension for
cmd.exe is .cmd, whereas .bat files are intended for backwards
compatibility with command.com. They work mostly as .cmd files do but
not in all aspects. Unless you want backwards compatibility with
command.com, using .cmd is safer.

> Other (non-Microsoft) command processor may be more picky like 4NT,
> which accepts only CMD as far s I remember. =


4NT has its own extension (.btm) and can be used with both .cmd and .bat
files if you want to. =


Gerhard

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist