Talk:COMMAND.COM

message: In MS-Dos Win XP version the standard error can be redirected using 
command 2> filename.  The text states dos does not provide for this. 
I am not sure if it is possible to redirect both error and stdio to a file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk • contribs) 
: Are you sure? I have no quick way to tell, but that looks like bash syntax. And if it is XP only, it is likely cmd.exe; this ability is documented there. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, just use: myapp > somefile 2>&1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grawity (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in regard to redirection 

message: I think that this article should be named COMMAND.COM instead of Command.com/command.com because this is the real name of the program as stored in the FAT filesystem and as shown by the DIR command. If no one has objection I will move it in a few days (or months). Olivier Mengué | ⇄ 22:48, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
: It's myopic to think that FAT is the only filesystem where one will find command.com.  On OS/2, command.com might be found on an HPFS filesystem.  On Windows NT, command.com might be found on an NTFS filesystem.  Uncle G 01:07, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
: But anyway, saying "The correct title is command.com." is incorrect.  We should better say something like this:  command.com can be also spelled as COMMAND.COM, as DOS filesystem is case-insensitive."  Why should we write internal commands such as DIR, CD, COPY etc in capital letters and to write command.com - also a command, but an external one - in small letters? Crocodealer 11:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, personally, I wouldn't write any of them in capital letters - you never type them in capital letters, after all, and MS-DOS doesn't display input auto-converted into caps. But since it seems to be an established convention to write them like that, that's fine by me. As for how it's displayed by the dir command, that would be COMMAND  COM, since IIRC the names and extensions are displayed in adjacent columns of a table format. So I see no real reason why "COMMAND.COM" is any better or worse than "command.com". - IMSoP 13:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have moved the article from command.com to COMMAND.COM to make it consistent with other filenames with articles listed on :Category:DOS_on_IBM_PC_compatibles (AUTOEXEC.BAT, ANSI.SYS, XCOPY, etc.) —Psychonaut 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name: COMMAND.COM 

message: Are batch files processed by COMMAND.COM a turing-complete programming language? If not, what are the limitations? ralmin 07:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turing complete? 

message: Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia? Or has it become so much of a how-to that major chunks should be transwiki'd to WikiSource? There's a similar discussion at 4DOS... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it accurate?  Is it legal?  If the answer to both is yes, then AFAICS it is appropriate to Wikipedia.  On the other hand it would perhaps not be welcomed in WikiSource, on several grounds (original, evolving, reference material) as per the WikiSource inclusion policy.  At this point, my (newbie) opinion tends toward 'leave it'.  Charles dye 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup / tear-down? 

message: The section "Limitations" reads as follows:
The command line length in interactive mode is limited to 128 characters. It always returns a true value upon executing a command.
This is wrong at least under MS-DOS 6.22, because the limit is 127 characters. --MrBurns (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the value to 127 charakters. --MrBurns (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the general limit is 126 characters, as COMMAND.COM uses both a length byte and a delimiter. Under some circumstances, it is possible to go beyond that limit, but then some programs won't be able to cope with it. A detailed discussion of the limit, the reason, the implications and possible workarounds was added as a ref by me some years back. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "" is incorrect, because in MS-DOS 6.22 the maximum command length in interactive mode is 127 characters. If we want to highlight the fact that some programs may not work correctly with 127 characters, then we should say so explicitly, for example: "The maximum command length in interactive mode is 127 characters, but some/most programs require a maximum of 126 characters to operate correctly." I have changed the article to mention the maximum command length in interactive mode in MS-DOS 6.22. It would be great if you could add details about which programs may/may not work with 127 characters, since you're an expert on the issue. Thank you. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

text:  (Forgot to ping you.) — UnladenSwallow (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command line length 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on COMMAND.COM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://command.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029140802/http://www.allenware.com:80/mcsw/errorlevels.zip to http://www.allenware.com/mcsw/errorlevels.zip
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know that I am definitely talking about another article here, but the article for cmd.exe has a comparison to COMMAND.com, and I think this would be a good feature in this article. I am still not fully sure how one would go about doing this, (perhaps copying from the article for cmd,) but I thought I would share this.
Qwerty3521 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  cmd.exe article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There should be a link to COM file somewhere in this article. 217.169.17.163 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  .COM file