cmd vs batch

[Howard Brazee]

I read some instructions telling us to name a batch file with .CMD for
Windows 2000 or Windows XP, or to name it .BAT with older windows.

I've been running .BAT files from Windows XP just fine. Would I gain
anything by renaming them?

 

[Guest]

I don't believe you'd gain anything as such, no.

Whether or not to use a .CMD or a .BAT extension would depend on what
operating system your DOS / batch file is intended to run on, and what
commands the file contains.

Generally if the file contains commands that may cause issues under Windows
9x, then a .CMD extension is used. Where the batch file contains commands
that will happily run on both Windows 9x, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 and
Windows XP then a .CMD extension is recommended.

See the following links for more information:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/21110/21110.html
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t198313-cmd-vs-bat-for-winxp-batch-file.html

I hope you find this useful

Regards

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I read some instructions telling us to name a batch file with .CMD for
Windows 2000 or Windows XP, or to name it .BAT with older windows.

I've been running .BAT files from Windows XP just fine. Would I gain
anything by renaming them?

Under WinNT/2000/XP it does not matter which extension you use.

Win9x can only process .BAT files.