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!) .