Re: CMD.EXE for Win9x

["Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to message from Harry Binswanger  on Sun, 01 Feb 2004
00:04:35 -0500


> I see. It's not putting down CMD.EXE as the OS underneath Win9x, it
> just sits there as any other program, ready to be called...
> acting as an app not an OS.

Exactly. And for most users, U2 is probably the only thing that would ever
call it. But if, for example, one does a "DIR /X" under this CMD.EXE, one gets
consistent predictable behavior across the board, across *all* Win32
installations, from 95 to XP; whereas the regular DIR command reports long file
names (the purpose of the /X switch) differently in the various flavors of
Windows, especially 9x. Also, because 9x is a dead letter - won't be further
developed -- it's OK to go with this version of Win95CMD.EXE and stick with it.
When you think about it, from a programmer's perspective that's been one of the
few upsides of the death of TTG/XyQuest: we have a stable engine that doesn't
change, so you can write applications that are reliable or good "for all time".
In the old days, "the rules" changed subtly and constantly with each new
release (which drove me right up the wall). It is difficult to maintain a
large library like U2 if the rules are very fickle or inconstant.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------