On Thu, 23 May 2002 17:21:16 -0700, Bernie Corrigan wrote: >2000 will accept either .bat or .cmd. They seem to be functionally >equivalent under 2000.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't have W2K here, but try this, which gives these results on both XP Pro and NT 4.0: Start | run | cmd.exe And press [Enter]. That opens the NT, etc. 32-bit command processor that has been around since NT was named OS/2. At the command prompt, type PATH Then, type COMMAND.COM It may look like nothing has changed, but, in fact, CMD.EXE has "launched" the successor to the DOS command processor, command.com. Type PATH again. Chances are high that you will NOT see the same path you saw before you types command.com. Type EXIT, and you will be back in CMD.EXE. EXIT again will close the window. What is peculiar to me, is that some versions of Windows interpret 32- bit R:Base for DOS as a program that has to run under command.com, and others think it has to run under cmd.exe. That's one reason the BAT file approach gives the most standard way to get R:Base for DOS going. Bill ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
