Subj : Re: REPOST: Re: 4BATFAQ Update To : Steve From : R.A.G. Seely Date : Tue Jan 29 2002 07:16 pm From: "R.A.G. Seely" "E. S. (Steve) Fabian" wrote in news:3C56F7BA.FB659E26@BellAtlantic.net: > Just because MS hardcoded COMMAND.COM, the name of their command > processor into the operating system as the DEFAULT command processor, it > does not make it part of the OS. If I rename COMMAND.COM to some other > name, it will still be a command processor, and if I point the > environment variable COMPSEC to it, any program can invoke it. If you > look at Microsoft's own book, "MS-DOS Programmer's Reference" (subtitled > "The Official Technical Reference to MS-DOS"), its over 500 pages have > just 3 references to COMMAND.COM. That should be conclusive proof that > not even Microsoft considers COMMAND.COM to be PART OF MS-DOS. Would you > consider DELTREE.EXE or SCANDISK.EXE as part of the MS-DOS _OPERATING > SYSTEM_? For many MS-DOS releases before Win95 both were part of the > software bundled with MS-DOS, but not essential to its functioning. I was discussing this with a collegue today, who still has a copy (archived - I wouldn't want you to think he still uses it! :-)) of the (un-numbered) MSDOS v.1 (it was so numbered only when the next version appeared!), which came with very complete documentation. In that documentation, there is apparently considerable explanation of how one might write a command interpreter to replace the one that was supplied with that version of DOS, and it was clear that that was expected to be something many/some users would want to do. (The command.com that came with it was about 5K in size - not a lot of utility there!) He also recalled that the machine came with a cassette drive, and if you booted without attaching an (external) floppy, the UI you ended up with would be what they called "cassette BASIC" (there was also a "Floppy BASIC" which you would use off a floppy). From this UI, you could write and run BASIC programmes, of course - not a lot else ... So: not only did they envisage that users might write their own command interpreter, but the UI one frequently ended up with wasn't COMMAND.COM. I'd take all that as a strong indicator that from the start, COMMAND.COM wasn't seen by its creators as an integral part of MSDOS, but just as an add-on which made DOS immediately usable. -= rags =- -- To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__" Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. --- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-2 * Origin: Mach2 Systems (1:342/3) .