default command.com environment size

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobS
  • Start date Start date
B

BobS

Hi,

Does anyone know if the default behavior for Windows 2000 of the config.nt
command line

shell=%systemroot%\system32\command.com

is still to establish an environment size of 256 bytes as specified in
KB161564?

I have some legacy apps that required a large /e=20480 under Windows NT but
now seem to run correctly only when the /e argument is removed. It appears
that under Windows 2000, the default may be 'max available' instead of 256.

BobS
 
Hi,

Does anyone know if the default behavior for Windows 2000 of the config.nt
command line

shell=%systemroot%\system32\command.com

is still to establish an environment size of 256 bytes as specified in
KB161564?

I have some legacy apps that required a large /e=20480 under Windows NT but
now seem to run correctly only when the /e argument is removed. It appears
that under Windows 2000, the default may be 'max available' instead of 256.

BobS
Click to expand...
Exactly.

See Size at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WOW
If it is zero, W2K, WinXP, etc. chooses that max available in your computer's environment.


Jerold Schulman
Windows Server MVP
JSI, Inc.
http://www.jsiinc.com
 
Great, thanks Jerold, I wanted to confirm that before something else blows.
These legacy apps are like a juggling act.

BobS
 
Jerold,

Another question please. Size is indeed zero but when I change /e=xxxxx in
config.nt I still see no change in Size. Does this mean the \e arg is no
longer useful? Do I need to set Size manually?

Well, that was two questions so two Thanks,
BobS
 
/e=nnnnn works, but only for 32bit processes.



Jerold,

Another question please. Size is indeed zero but when I change /e=xxxxx in
config.nt I still see no change in Size. Does this mean the \e arg is no
longer useful? Do I need to set Size manually?

Well, that was two questions so two Thanks,
BobS
Click to expand...


Jerold Schulman
Windows Server MVP
JSI, Inc.
http://www.jsiinc.com
 
Jerold, thanks again...that sure explains what I thought were
inconsistencies that I've been seeing.

BobS
 
Back
Top