Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-tis!oodis01!dsachg1!zdb1526
From: zdb1526@dsachg1.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Another twist on DOS environment sizes.
Summary: Works fine for me ...
Message-ID: <564@dsachg1.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jun 88 10:59:39 GMT
References: <629@fxgrp.UUCP> <4598@dasys1.UUCP> <835@acornrc.UUCP> <849@acornrc.UUCP>
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Ogden, UT
Lines: 30
Posted: Thu Jun  2 06:59:39 1988

In article <849@acornrc.UUCP>, bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) writes:
> In article <14488@mirror.TMC.COM>, jvc@mirror.TMC.COM (Jim Champeaux) writes:
> > I must be missing something.  Why patch command.com when you can use
> > the config.sys file to specify an environment size larger than the 
> > default (versions 3.xx and up, maybe not 3.0)?  I ....               

> 
> Because, as mentioned in an earlier article today, specifying
>   shell=command.com /e:nnnn
> in config.sys prevents execution of autoexec.bat.  I too tried
> various combinations of /e, /c, and /p but could not get the default
> behavior to occur.

I have SHELL=C:\COMMAND.COM C:\ /E:62\P in my config.sys file on my Z248
running under MSDOS 3.0.  This takes care of my environment space problem
and my AUTOEXEC.BAT file runs just fine.
  
> Also because I enjoy hacking on this machine :-) and feel that
> MicroSoft's default of only 160 bytes is too low and a one-word patch
> takes care of the problem once and for all.  I.e., why *not* patch
> command.com?
> 

Some people DON'T enjoy hacking on their machines :-).     
.
.
.
.
.(I hate this fill, fill, fill!)
.