Microsoft Replaces Command Prompt with PowerShell in Latest Windows 10 Build (softpedia.com)

Bogdan Popa, writing for Softpedia:The latest Windows 10 insider build brings a change that puts the Windows PowerShell in the spotlight, as it replaces the super-popular Command Prompt in some essential parts of the operating system. Command Prompt has been around for as long as we can remember, but starting with Windows 10 build 14971, Microsoft is trying to make PowerShell the main command shell in the operating system. As a result, PowerShell officially replaces the Command Prompt in the Win + X menu, so when you right-click the Start menu, you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app. Additionally, in File Explorer's File menu and in the context menu that appears when pressing Shift + right-click in any folder, the old Command Prompt will no longer be available. Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Comments

Don't forget...

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.

Usable!

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it

Re:Don't forget...

[Pseudonymous Powers]

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it

Interesting, if true. However: command text or it didn't happen.

To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think before posting. But it wouldn't /. then.

Re:Don't forget...

[FreelanceWizard]

Open Powershell as administrator and type:

set-executionpolicy unrestricted -scope localmachine -force

Alternatively, set it through Group Policy (Policies\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Windows Powershell\Turn on Script Execution, set to "Allow all scripts").

Re:Don't forget...

[lgw]

Usable!

Now MS has reached the level of usability of naming commands intuitive things like "grep", only with lots more typing.

Re:Don't forget...

[The-Ixian]

You can always set aliases for any cmdlet. There are many aliases which come out of the box with PS. For example: wget is the default alias for Invoke-WebRequest

I personally like the verbosity of the commands. Of course, I am always the guy who uses the logopts in Linux commands anyway (--verbose).

Besides, if you are using the ISE or the PS console, you can tab complete the cmdlet names as well as the arguments so it is not a lot of extra typing.

Re:Don't forget...

[bdh]

You think Betty Sue is not capable of running anything more than one command-line tool and will be befuddled by this change, yet you think Linux is the alternative?

People who have trouble with "copy", "type", and "dir" rarely find "cp", "cat" and "ls" easier or more intuitive.

Re:Don't forget...

[PsychoSlashDot]

>> set it through Group Policy nope, that won't won't be allowed either.

Right. Of course it won't. Because... reasons.

Re:Don't forget...

[PsychoSlashDot]

Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.

If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of. Just running commands interactively doesn't require this at all.

As has been explained elsewhere, it's a one-time thing per account, and can be administered globally in multiple ways.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

which ain't gonna happen on tens of millions of corporate desktops...

Millions of corporate desktops won't need it. How many accountants do you know that regularly use the windows command prompt? This is a power-user feature, and if there is a business justification for allowing it, it will be set as a Group Policy on the desktops of the people who need it.

nope, that won't be allowed either

Why not? Every IT organization I'm aware of evaluates requests based on their business need. Which means that if you have a legitimate business need to run unsigned powershell scripts, it will be enabled. If you want to run unsigned powershell scripts "because I'm a l33t hax0rz", then yeah, they'll deny you as well they should.

You're also forgetting the third option: Create a personal signing certificate for yourself, add that certificate to your local Trusted Publishers store, and you're off and running just fine with anything you want to sign locally. Which is arguably a better solution than "allow any script whatsoever", and certainly gives the local "power user" the ability to do what they need to.

Re:Don't forget...

[__aaclcg7560]

>> Open Powershell as administrator

which ain't gonna happen on tens of millions of corporate desktops...

I work in government IT and admins have full access to PowerShell scripting.

>> set it through Group Policy

nope, that won't won't be allowed either.

Admin accounts should be separate from ordinary user accounts. I access my admin account with a security token and my regular user account with my PIV card.

I see only pain ahead, and it's going to be felt worst by Betty Sues' who run this one command-line tool once a day/week on their shitty seven-year-old Dell desktop to their job, and the managers who will ask IT why they are getting screwed again. Maybe this is how the "year of the Linux Desktop" finally gets going?

Love it when users and managers play the victim game and blame IT. Even more funny when I replace their computer with a box of crayons.

Re:Don't forget...

[nine-times]

But let's not forget that doing this is considered a security risk, which is why it's disabled by default. Basically, the message from Microsoft is, "We created this great new scripting language, but you really shouldn't use it because it's insecure."

Re:Don't forget...

[Creepy]

Opening powershell scripts global execution policy all the time seems dangerous, kind of like running as root all the time. I recall scripting that in a bat file or something and running the bat as administrator (to do powershell installs on Windows 10 beta), but it's been a while. I've been on web dev for the last year and a half, so that stuff is long behind me.

Re:Don't forget...

[lgw]

You can always set aliases for any cmdlet.

Which does wonders when sharing scripts with your team/friends.

Heck, think of this in terms of what you're going to have to repeat 3 times over the phone to elderly relatives. (OK, I just tell them "get a Mac" and then "oh, I know nothing about Mac, try my brother", but my solution may not be general.)

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Betty Sue (BS), will call the help desk and they will tell her to open Settings, go to Personalization, TaskBar, and turn the Powershell replaces CMD option off. Problem solved. Or does nobody realize that the option is right there in settings? I turned it off right away. If I want to start powershell I will. Normally I just want CMD.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which hackers, bad guys, bad code, evil X will adore and is as far as I can see the next mega-wave of nightmares. Even when you restrict PS now, I know of multiple methods round it, because 'execution policy' isn't a policy, 'isn't a security barrier'.

Windows scripting host and other things have had to be turned off/blocked forever on Windows. The idea people will have open 'glue' powershell set lose with poor sec should fill people with dread.

I'm seeing unending nightmares from people churning out POC powershell own the universe, so this is just one more step to the next MS security cataclysm.

Re:Don't forget...

[tepples]

If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.

Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I use "set-executionpolicy RemoteSigned", so I can run my own scripts just fine, but remote downloaded ones won't run unless signed.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it

Interesting, if true. However: command text or it didn't happen.

To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.

I've used PowerShell exactly once.

One of the drawbacks of Windows is the way they put logout, sleep, hibernate, reboot, & shutdown on the same popup menu off the START button. Hit the wrong one often enough, you start looking for alternatives...

There used to be a workaround: ...\\rundll32.exe PowrProf.dll, SetSuspendState 0,1,0 --- put on a shortcut, but that seems to cause memory corruption. This being windows, you have to take folks word for it, that some of your many blue screens are caused by this...

Anyways, another option is PowerShell. A sleep.ps1 file containing:

Add-Type -Assembly System.Windows.Forms
[System.Windows.Forms.Application]::SetSuspendState("Suspend", $false, $true)

You can run it via:

powershell.exe sleep.ps1

But first you need to run:

Set-ExecutionPolicy RemoteSigned

In PowerShell at least once (first). Just once will suffice. It's a permanent change.

Now that does work to put your computer to sleep (suspend/hibernate). However, it will randomly & infrequently turn your computer off instead.

Welcome to Microsoft. Now you know why I installed Cygwin & mintty. Night & freaking day!

Re:Don't forget...

[cyberchondriac]

Glad to hear that, because I hate the syntax of PowerShell.

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

bunch of old documentation on the internet now rendered obsolete

Re:Don't forget...

[ColdWetDog]

This is such an old complaint. These days you send your relatives (especially your relatives) to the very friendly Windows telephone support folks who called you the other day.

Win, win. So to speak.

Re:Don't forget...

[chipschap]

Even more funny when I replace their computer with a box of crayons.

I have to remember this trick. I think it would make many users far more productive.

Re:Don't forget...

[chipschap]

Now you know why I installed Cygwin & mintty.

Now you know why, on every new computer I've had for years now, right out of the box I've wiped the hard drive and installed Linux.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.

Usable!

Isn't RemoteSigned a much more sane setting than Unrestricted? At least that will work for most use cases.

Re:Don't forget...

[PsychoSlashDot]

If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.

Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.

1} You don't. I'm not a dev, but I'm pretty sure you pay to sign your code if you need it signed. It's interesting. On a platform I administer and the right and need to run scripts on, I have the ability to temporarily or permanently permit unsigned to code to run. On systems where I don't have the ability to set execution policy, what business do I have running arbitrary unsigned scripts?
2} More importantly, my point was that using interactive commands doesn't require changing execution policy.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

The execution policy can be set per user. This doesn't require administrative rights.

Set-ExecutionPolicy -Scope CurrentUser Unrestricted

Most desktop users will never need to run a script on their computer and literally wouldn't recognize one if they saw one. The default choice made by Microsoft is a sensible one, which can be trivially changed on a needed basis.

Re:Don't forget...

[MightyMartian]

The operating system's permissions model itself is supposed to prevent stupid or evil users from doing stupid or evil things. The execution policy is just security theater.

Re:Don't forget...

[trogdor8667]

Serious question...

Starting with Windows 10, I've found that Microsoft seems to reset a lot of security preferences with every single windows update that runs. Case in point: UAC. It turns back on each time.

Does this stick around past an update?

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unrestricted is foolish advice. Use RemoteSigned at the least. You can still run any scripts you create.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

or you set it globally, once, and you're done with it

Interesting, if true. However: command text or it didn't happen.

To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.

But in spite of knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, you feel free to make a bad suggestion on the topic and demand proof that you're wrong.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, they're not wrong. It is insecure.

Re:Don't forget...

[oh_my_080980980]

Thank you!

Re:Don't forget...

[oh_my_080980980]

Love it when ass-holes post bullshit. You seem to assume that non power users or non-admins don't use the command prompt or wouldn't have the need. You also assume powershell isn't bloatware.

Re:Don't forget...

[__aaclcg7560]

Love it when ass-holes post bullshit.

I wouldn't be working in IT if I wasn't an asshole. Someone has to get the job done.

You seem to assume that non power users or non-admins don't use the command prompt or wouldn't have the need.

Non-admin users have no use case for PowerShell scripting, as 99.9% of them are non-technical. The few power users we have are masters of the Excel spreadsheet macros.

You also assume powershell isn't bloatware.

PowerShell is an IT tool.

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an awful lot of excuse.

You know what CMD let's you do?

Run an application by typing it's name.

Re:Don't forget...

[Man On Pink Corner]

It's called "Breaking things that work." It's not OK when Linux does it, and it's not OK when Microsoft does it.

Re:Don't forget...

[sexconker]

When you write your script, you can name your shit properly and describe it properly.
Then anyone using it will get a friendly error message saying their usage was wrong and showing what the correct usage is.
You also get tab completion for commandlets and arguments and even options for arguments.

I rarely use powershell but when I do I always appreciate the fact that it's actually pretty great. This is coming from a STRONK hater of nearly everything MS has done in the last 4 years.

Re: Don't forget...

[fisted]

The irony.

Re:Don't forget...

[Pseudonymous Powers]

To be honest, I've never messsed with PowerShell much, because previously, cmd, you know, was there, and, you know, works fine.

But in spite of knowing that you don't know what you're talking about, you feel free to make a bad suggestion on the topic and demand proof that you're wrong.

Yes. Because my point was that it's not exactly the height of usability to force the user to learn a magic incantation that they have to invoke before they can invoke any of the other magic incantations they need to invoke to get back to where they were before some jagweed at Microsoft decided to replace all the ancient, just-as-arbitrary-but-at-least-widely-understood incantations with a new set of incantations for no real reason.

Re:Don't forget...

[FictionPimp]

Fine then, go edit your powershell profile, put the command in there. Now every time you open powershell it will be done for you. It's how I handle vmware's powercli extensions to powershell and the AD extensions, and my own extensions.

Re:Don't forget...

[FictionPimp]

No, they are saying "We created this great new scripting language, but you really shouldn't run unsigned untrusted scripts without acknowledging you are taking a risk"

You can do anything you want at the prompt, only scripts require you to change these settings. If you turn on developer mode then all local scripts can be trusted by default as well. You could also sign your scripts to ensure this is not a problem.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny story. My last new computer, first thing out of the box I booted Linux and backed up the harddrive (dd, ntfsclone). Only the backups wouldn't work. So I booted into Windows, ran every test I could find, everything checks out perfectly. No problems what so ever. Back to Linux, I've got 10,000 errors in the SMART log on the drive and a large chunk of the disk is unreadable (media errors). Called the vendor. Ran their tests (from BIOS). Me: "How long does this take to run?" Vendor: "Several Hours" Me: "Umm, it just finished in seconds. What does ______ error mean?" Vendor: "You want us to send you a new drive and install it yourself, or send your computer in?" Followed by "How the heck did you find that problem under Windows?" "I ran Linux" "Oh." Caveat Emptor indeed.

For windows, dual-boot is mandatory. I've had to revert back to ntfsclone/dd images so many times... Much better than trying to virus scrub.

Re:Don't forget...

[Darinbob]

Everywhere else the history of Windows is about getting it dumber and dumber over time, assuming that the user doesn't know advanced stuff or doesn't want to deal with it. And then suddenly, bam, let's make an obtuse and complex command line tool the default. Not sure what they're thinking other than to ensure more attendance at Microsoft training and certification classes.

Re:Don't forget...

[Darinbob]

Yes, yes, one can always do things in powershell. But it is STILL one of the most complex command lines out there. It feels bizarre that the OS that assumes the user is dumb in almost every decision they make would make a more complex command line the default. Anyone who knows how to use powershell *already* knows how to open it up quickly and easily and probably have it as their default anyway. The fall out is that now a lot of more casual users are going to be completely baffled.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Generate your own certificate, sign your scripts using the cert, and then add that certificate to your Trusted Publisher store.

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/...

Or, fucking set your Execution policy to "RemoteSigned," and anything you develop locally won't have to be signed.

Or, fucking stop FUCKING WHINING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

If you don't know the answer to these questions, you DO NOT have a need to do this, and you're just bitching to bitch. I'm an infrequent and occasional PowerShell developer (e.g., it's only tangentially related to the work I do day in and day out as a Release Engineer), but I found answers to this question with exactly 50 seconds of fucking web searching.

Jesus christ.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never used powershell, so I opened it up to see if it was at least backwards-compatible before I decided how outraged to be.

cd, del, and mkdir worked as normal, but 'fc' ran something called 'Format-Custom', which made me shit myself a little until I looked it up and saw it was harmless...

Anyway, one more reason to stay on Win <= 8.1 and/or Mint for the foreseeable future.

Re:Don't forget...

[bobmajdakjr]

win+r "cmd" for lyfe.

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now MS has reached the level of usability of naming commands intuitive things like "grep", only with lots more typing.

The PowerShell equivalent of grep is the even shorter-named sls. Yes, it has the long form of Select-String too, but you aren't forced to use it if you are worried about how much typing you need to do.

The benefit of using the long names is that you can guess what command names are based on the other ones you know because they are descriptive and generally consistent. As a simple example, we all know that cd will change the directory, but how do you tell what the current directory is? Nothing about the name cd would make you even think of typing pwd. In PowerShell, cd is an alias to Set-Location. Similarly, pwd is also an alias, but can you guess what the long name of the equivalent command is?

Re:Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

The setting hasn't been reset for me, even when upgrading from Windows 8 to Windows 10. This mode is set and forget.

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you want to run scripts from any location, local or network. Cmdlets work just fine.

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what, you cannot just use rundll32 on any random api! You have been passing random parameters to that function all along. You are also corrupting the stack but rundll32 has been coded to forgive people like you...

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Abort, Retry, Fail?

Re: Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to actually back up my claims:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee649171%28v=ws.11%29.aspx says "Rundll32 can only call functions from a DLL that are explicitly written to be called by Rundll32. For more information about Rundll32 requirements see article 164787 in the Microsoft Knowledge Base (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=165773)"

and https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/164787 says the function has to look like this: void CALLBACK EntryPoint(HWND hwnd, HINSTANCE hinst, LPSTR lpszCmdLine, int nCmdShow);

So you see, if the function you are calling does not take these exact four parameters then you are fucked.

Calling SetSuspendState is extra retarded, it will hibernate OR suspend the system depending on the parameters and you are passing in parameter values you don't control. The lesson is, don't copy rundll32 commands you see posted on the internet unless you actually know what you are doing!

what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get rid of COMMAND.COM, I'm going straight back to CP/M.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[unixisc]

Will the DOS commands I so know and love still work under POWERSHELL.EXE? If I type CMD in the search panel in the taskbar, will POWERSHELL be what pops up?

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Missing your old interpreter? Visit us online at COMMAND.COM".

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

sort of.

dir, yes.

dir /s /b, no.
granted, there are usually equivalents, but the terseness is gone.
but some things are better too, like working directly in & with UNC paths w/o mapping a drive letter...
so it will require learning a lot of things...

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[sims 2]

I'm not sure if I should be surprised or annoyed to find that COMMAND.COM is owned by 3M.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

the DOS commands I so know and love

I know them too, but I certainly wouldn't say I love them.

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you didn't notice, allow me to inform you that command.com was replaced by cmd.exe quite some time ago. About 16 years ago, if memory serves.

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooosh

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, what about *.bat scripts? We've a ton of them, they'd better still work.

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[ColdWetDog]

so it will require learning a lot of things...

There's always a catch.....

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, "dir -r -n" does work

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[The Raven]

If they get rid of COMMAND.COM, I'm going straight back to CP/M.

Spoken like a true, future focused IT professional willing to learn new things.

Or, you know... not.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

I on the other hand approve of this change. Soon I will be able to boot directly into BASIC again!

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple rule of thumb - if something is very useful or essential, Microsoft will hide it or delete it in the next version of Office or Windows

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[RKThoadan]

The vast majority of the commands are aliased so that they do work. However, the switches and options for the commands are all messed up. dir works fine. dir with any options does not. (same for ls) There are some edge cases where you'll have to put .exe in so it knows what you want. I use sc (service controller) from cmd all the time, but in Powershell that's the short version of Set-Content, so If I want to use it in Powershell I have to specify sc.exe.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[unixisc]

So dir /w/p won't work? Okay. What about if I type 'help'? Will I get the full list of PowerShell commands?

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[hAckz0r]

8080 > PIP C:COPY.COM=C:PIP.COM

Gates: There, fixed it to work better! (CP/M ==> QDOS Quick and Dirty OS, aka. PC-DOS).

IBM: Well, except all the arguments are all backwards. How do we ever fix that? How will we ever sell this thing? Nobody will ever figure out how to use it now...

Gates: Easy, I'll write a contract to force everyone to buy a copy along with the machine. Just like selling a car with an engine.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[afidel]

However, the switches and options for the commands are all messed up

The worst in that regard is netsh where there are things you simply can't do through the aliased version.

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

wooosh down your rectum, fucker

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[RKThoadan]

Nope. To get a list of all powershell commands you use 'get-command'. Mine shows 465 commands, but I have a few additional providers installed. Usually the real help is opening a browser and typing 'Powershell x' into your search engine of choice.

For your enjoyment here is the really horrible output of 'help'.

TOPIC
Windows PowerShell Help System

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Displays help about Windows PowerShell cmdlets and concepts.

LONG DESCRIPTION
Windows PowerShell Help describes Windows PowerShell cmdlets,
functions, scripts, and modules, and explains concepts, including
the elements of the Windows PowerShell language.

Windows PowerShell does not include help files, but you can read the
help topics online, or use the Update-Help cmdlet to download help files
to your computer and then use the Get-Help cmdlet to display the help
topics at the command line.

You can also use the Update-Help cmdlet to download updated help files
as they are released so that your local help content is never obsolete.

Without help files, Get-Help displays auto-generated help for cmdlets,
functions, and scripts.

ONLINE HELP
You can find help for Windows PowerShell online in the TechNet Library
beginning at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink....

To open online help for any cmdlet or function, type:

Get-Help -Online

UPDATE-HELP
To download and install help files on your computer:

1. Start Windows PowerShell with the "Run as administrator" option.
2. Type:

Update-Help

After the help files are installed, you can use the Get-Help cmdlet to
display the help topics. You can also use the Update-Help cmdlet to
download updated help files so that your local help files are always
up-to-date.

For more information about the Update-Help cmdlet, type:

Get-Help Update-Help -Online

or go to: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink...

GET-HELP
The Get-Help cmdlet displays help at the command line from content in
help files on your computer. Without help files, Get-Help displays basic
help about cmdlets and functions. You can also use Get-Help to display
online help for cmdlets and functions.

To get help for a cmdlet, type:

Get-Help

To get online help, type:

Get-Help -Online

The titles of conceptual topics begin with "About_".
To get help for a concept or language element, type:

Get-Help About_

To search for a word or phrase in all help files, type:

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does pip still work, or are we going to be forced to learn something less intuitive?

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[RKThoadan]

It took it a few seconds but it eventually displayed what I'm assuming is the standard help screen for pip. 'pip list' worked fine and recommended upgrading pip with 'python -m pip install --upgrade pip' I tried that and it worked fine.

That was an interesting question though. I've never run any other scripting language from a powershell prompt. I'm a ruby guy myself. I don't even remember why I have python installed.

Re:what about COMMAND.COM?

[fedos]

Curmudgeon.

Re: what about COMMAND.COM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, I thank you for sharing this.
Now please pardon me while I scrape my jaw off the floor.

Once accomplished, I will proceed directly to my nearest Linux box, wrap my arms around it and profess my undying love for its generous and bountiful ability to instruct with ease.

And may I add, in conclusion, Fuck Microsoft and your decades of bullshit. You've been a great source of income to me only because your products are such crap.

Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's been around for a long time doesn't mean it's popular. Thank goodness for cygwin and bash.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try the new linux subsystem. I've stopped using cygwin.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try the new linux subsystem. I've stopped using cygwin.

what a great idea, rewrite all my scripts for no good reason

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to do technical support, having a powerful tool that works the same way in every version of Windows is invaluable. Every tech worth its salt is proficient with the traditional command line and has a set of scripts built over the years to automate common tasks and troubleshooting.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

what a great idea, rewrite all my scripts for no good reason

Are you talking about the Cygwin vs linux subsystem or CMD.EXE vs powershell issue?

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Anonymous Coward]

The more I read of the fucked-up-ness of Windows now, I am ever so glad I moved to Linux about 6 years ago.....

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Rob Y.]

This. There's nothing wrong with providing a powerful new scripting language - for y'know, scripting. But there's also a need for a simple way to string a bunch of commands together in a file and execute them all. Why on earth would they remove that - or make people re-string the commands they've 'scripted' and used for years? Not all command-line users are using it for System Administration. They sysadmins can already find their way to powershell. Why inconvenience the rest of us - just to try to get bash programmers to think Windows has something as good or better. Because, face it, that's what's driving this.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[phantomfive]

Not to mention powershell can mess up redirects (especially with binary files) in ways that cmd.exe won't.......

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[dwillden]

It may not be popular but people know it. We've got over three decades of using those commands and that interface. If all cmd commands work, great. If not I foresee many complaints.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[Junta]

I never was a fan of the cygwin setup, I'm a much bigger fan of the way git for windows does bash. Then I don't have a distinct 'linux' environment from the 'native' environment.

Re:Ubiquitous != Popular

[MightyMartian]

And not to mention when I click on my CMD.EXE link, a CLI window with a command prompt appears almost instantly, but with Powershell, I can wait several seconds while it gathers together all the .NET bits it needs to run before I can actually enter a command. Whatever else one may think of Powershell (and I think it is overly verbose and just plain fucking awful), resource friendly it most definitely is not.

If they really wanted to fix it...

[yorgasor]

... they'd just replace the command shell with the linux bash shell they just added!

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the current year, "Linux" now means "*nix". Get with the times grandpa.

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[slashdice]

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever..you know you go get cash out of the ATM machine like everybody else.

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[The-Ixian]

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."

Did he officially change his name or something?

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[beernutz]

Hmmmm.. Pretty sure it is a recursive acronym: Linux = "Linux Is Not UniX" Kind of like GNU = "GNU is Not Unix".

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a Snickers, RMS.

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bash shell"? Clearly it's "Ba-shell" Geez.

Re: If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lunix users mental health group.

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[strikethree]

If you mean backronym, then maybe. I read what you said and knew it was wrong immediately but I went ahead and looked it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The relevant section is this:

Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention Freax, a portmanteau of "free", "freak", and "x" (as an allusion to Unix).

...

Ari Lemmke, Torvalds' coworker at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) who was one of the volunteer administrators for the FTP server at the time, did not think that "Freax" was a good name. So, he named the project "Linux" on the server without consulting Torvalds.[12] Later, however, Torvalds consented to "Linux".

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[fisted]

Actually, "Lunix" means "Linux Torvaldes's Unix."

Actually, "Lunix" stands for "Losers' unix".

Love from BSDland

Re:If they really wanted to fix it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's Linus Torvalds' first name, with the s changed to an x.

So what's the secret ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to get the beloved command prompt back?!?

As long as cygwin works

[Snotnose]

they can do whatever they want to the command line.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think cygwin is the answer, you are asking the wrong questions.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Austerity Empowers]

If you're asking the wrong questions about Windows, you're studying for a liberal arts degree.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have a particular answer (Windows) forced on us regardless of the question.

In that context cygwin is like being sent to hell but being allowed to wear an air-conditioned suit. Sure, it's still hell, but at least you can mitigate the problem a little.

Powershell is nice in principle but until August it didn't run on any of the other platforms I regularly use. Bash has been there for ages. As nice as Powershell is I don't feel like reinventing the wheel and making the the inevitable discovery that it's probably a second-class implementation on anything but Windows. Oh, wait, scratch that -- I already know it's second-class, being only "Powershell Core". Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it will take years before it is truly cross-platform, if it ever happens. Whereas I can port bash or most other script languages between cygwin, OS X and Linux with few issues.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Anonymous Coward]

As nice as Powershell is

No. Whatever problems a command-line interface might have, encapsulating everything into objects only added to those problems.

The niceties in Powershell are its windowing and command-line editing features, not from its syntax or encapsulation.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[DrXym]

Msys Bash is better than Cygwin for anyone wanting to run bash on Windows. Best out-of-the-box solution so far is probably Git for Windows installer which includes bash and a bunch of other stuff required to keep git happy. It works regardless of someone using Windows 10 or something earlier.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[angel'o'sphere]

Using the 'git environment' is actually what I do most of the time when I'm forced to use Windows.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[thegarbz]

Cygwin? Why use that when you can run Linux natively?

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're asking the wrong questions about Windows, you're studying for a liberal arts degree.

There is nothing inherently bad about a liberal arts degree if you are required to take a few mathematics and statistics courses as part of the degree. While a liberal arts might or might not get you a job, most degrees these days suffer from the same fate.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Ash-Fox]

Msys Bash is better than Cygwin for anyone wanting to run bash on Windows.

Honestly, I think Microsoft's "Bash on Ubuntu on Windows" is one of the best so far.

Best out-of-the-box solution so far is probably Git for Windows installer which includes bash and a bunch of other stuff required to keep git happy.

You do know that's actually just a small cygwin distribution, right?

Re:As long as cygwin works

[DrXym]

Microsoft's Ubuntu only works on Windows 10, not much use on older versions of Windows.

Git for Windows uses an MinGW / Msys dist, not Cygwin.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Ash-Fox]

Microsoft's Ubuntu only works on Windows 10, not much use on older versions of Windows.

I guess you have a point for people that run outdated software, fortuantely I don't subscribe to that mentality.

Git for Windows uses an MinGW / Msys dist, not Cygwin.

I never really poked it very much, but I just installed it to check again and I don't really believe you when you say it doesn't use Cygwin for anything?

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Ash-Fox]

Also it seems the vast majority of executable are statically compiled with cygwin references?

Re:As long as cygwin works

[DrXym]

I'm glad that you're in a position to dictate precisely what development environment your company uses and what your customers use. I'm not. Aside from that the Bash runs over Windows subsystem for Linux. It is not a set of Unix tools that have been ported, compiled and running natively as Windows executables, rather it is a virtualized environment for running Linux binaries.

Secondly, Git for Windows DOES use Msys/MinGW. This is as easy to confirm by just installing it and looking at the directory called "mingw64" with all the Unix commands in it. Or typing "uname -a" from bash itself. The only references to cygwin are some minor interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support and suchlike for people in mixed environments.

Re:As long as cygwin works

[Ash-Fox]

I'm glad that you're in a position to dictate precisely what development environment your company uses and what your customers use.

Honestly, if a large multi-national corporation like Deloitte can stay up to date much like my local dry cleaners, there is no excuse.

But yeah, obviously if you're going to use outdated software, you may as well use less efficient and other outdated software to get it working. I just won't subscribe to that mentality.

The only references to cygwin are some minor interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support and suchlike for people in mixed environments.

That's a lot of references... Seems a bit weird that even 'clear' needs "interoperability tools for converting cygwin paths, cygwin terminal support" considering it's meant to just be a series of printfs...

Re:As long as cygwin works

[DrXym]

*Sigh* give it up. Git for Windows is built with MinGW and accompanied by MSYS binaries. The only reason cygwin is mentioned is for the reasons I cited, for compatibility / detection. If this is too much to take in, I suggest you email their mailing list and run your theory by them.

bash it!

[guygo]

I see bash for Windows becoming a lot more popular in the near future.

Re:bash it!

[YrWrstNtmr]

No, bashing Windows has long been a staple theme in here.

Re:bash it!

[squiggleslash]

That was, to be fair, true anyway. Powershell is supposed to be an improvement on cmd.exe, but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it or tried to find out what it can do, so I'll reserve judgement.

Re:bash it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I must be in the 1%.
Not because I use it, but because I tried it and quickly ran away.

Re:bash it!

[afidel]

but like 99% of Slashdotters, while I've heard of it, I've never actually used it

If that's even close to true then Slashdot has REALLY gone downhill from the early days. This used to be a place for geeky technical people who were into computers, even if you're not a primarily Windows person I would still expect you've run into them enough to have used Powershell (I'm primarily a Windows guy but I still know bash, tcsh, grep, tar, etc). If your job involves Windows to any degree beyond a groupware client and you don't know Powershell you're at a major disadvantage from this point forward as it's completely the direction that Windows and Microsoft server software is going (heck, they're now designing most of their stuff for o365 first and on-prem second so it's only natural that they want a powerful and robust CLI and API).

Re:bash it!

[squiggleslash]

In my experience, most of us learn huge amounts of stuff relevant to our little silo, but only have passing knowledge of advanced features of stuff outside of that silo.

Whenever the subject of Java comes up, for example, most of the responses about how well it works assume that Java is used to build desktop applications, and applets that run within web browsers. Java is almost never used in either platform, it's primarily used either on servers (at all levels, from data management to web services), or on Android phones (in its Android version.) [In my experience, it seems to be stagnant, perhaps even dying, on the former, but if you're looking for a Java job, most of the time you'll be offered work maintaining or extending backend software infrastructure.]

Powershell suffers from being an enhanced shell on an operating system whose native command line is so crude and ugly, the rest of the system has been built to work without it. So even programmers who primarily use Windows (albeit don't develop for Windows) don't spend much time even investigating stuff like Powershell, as they've already gotten used to using the point and click shell instead.

It's understandable. If it's a choice between learning how to use an advanced command line on an operating system designed not to use one, or a new Python programming framework, which do you think most readers here would spend their time on?

Re:bash it!

[afidel]

It's understandable. If it's a choice between learning how to use an advanced command line on an operating system designed not to use one, or a new Python programming framework, which do you think most readers here would spend their time on?

Except as I said Windows and the larger MS ecosystem are moving to require Powershell knowledge to be effective. Many, many things simply can't be done through the GUI anymore, in fact that are quite a few that can't be done with any combination of batch, gpo, and GUI, you MUST use Powershell to do them as the management interface layers aren't exposed any other way. Just because it says Windows on the tin doesn't mean it's the same thing as Windows of old, MS is moving slowly but surely to a much more scalable management system (CLI and API's) because their own ambitions to be the hosting provider for the small to midmarket companies has forced them to face the limitations of their legacy model.

Re:bash it!

[squiggleslash]

Many, many things simply can't be done through the GUI anymore, in fact that are quite a few that can't be done with any combination of batch, gpo, and GUI, you MUST use Powershell to do them as the management interface layers aren't exposed any other way

OK, but if you're not a Windows programmer, how many of those things are things you actually have to do?

I've been using GNOME in one form or another (sometimes GNOME-derived UIs like Unity) for the best part of 10 years. All this time I've been aware of gconf, and on one or two occasions I dove into it to try to fix a problem or two. But despite the fact it's where you have to go to change much of how GNOME works, I barely know it, and I find it almost impossible to get around it.

In the end I just want to get my work done, so I live with the slightly shitty UI (or use bash) rather than spend time learning how to customize it.

That's not to suggest the situation might not change, but literally nothing has come up that's ever required I learn Powershell - or if it has, I wouldn't have known it was Powershell I needed to look at in the first place.

Re:bash it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, until you need to do something in Exchange. PowerShell 4lyfe!

re:hemorrhoids are swollen asshole veins

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it on the taskbar. As everyone knows, according to msft, no one starts programs from the start menu besides, left ofs, the artist formerly known as the live prince, persia is not a rug, and then god told me to tell you this, that I have a disc in my leg, and that damn sheriff really is after me.

It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[slaker]

I know Powershell and it has been around for a while now, but it's almost always less mental effort on my part to string together shell commands than to open the Powershell ISE and read up on keywords and object attributes. It's habit, but I'd rather keep the thing I'm used to. I know bash scripting and perl too and I can be productive in perl but it's almost always faster for me just do what I need with bash, so I suppose the analogy is similar.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[Oswald McWeany]

Yes, I've learnt a lot of languages and syntaxes over the years so I know I'm capable of learning powershell too. That said, working with command prompt has always been second nature to me over the last few decades. Adjusting will be a little awkward.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[avandesande]

Then just type in 'cmd' and you are set. They aren't removing the application.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just type in 'cmd' and you are set. They aren't removing the application.

...SNIP...Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

From TFS...

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[The-Ixian]

I tend to agree.

When writing Windows scripts I always ask "Can I accomplish this with a simple batch script?" If no, I then move on to PS.

So, I have a lot of batch scripts out there. I would hope that explicitly calling the cmd.exe would still execute the actual cmd shell. If not, this will almost certainly break a lot of existing stuff. But MS would, of course, know this...

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[nine-times]

I honestly think it's worth getting some passing familiarity with Powershell. If you're just running one-off commands, then most of those commands will still work in a Powershell window. If you're scripts to do much of anything, you can do more, better and more easily, once you get used to Powershell.

I'll grant you it's a bit of a learning curve, but it's worth it.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[Anonymous Coward]

dir [pattern] /b /s /p

One simple command (with variants) I use very very often. If this one command is broken that's enough of a reason for me to hate the change and want the old command shell back. Guess I'll have to write a dirbsp cmdlet (or whatever it's called) to do the same thing.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[The-Ixian]

If you already know Perl, it is pretty easy to pick up PowerShell. There are enough similarities that it makes it seem familiar. At least that was my experience.

Example:

PowerShell: function myLog{ (Get-Date).ToString() + ' - ' + $msg | Out-File $logFile -Append }

Perl: sub myLog{ open (LOG,">>$logFile"); print LOG `date`, ' - ', $msg, "\n"; close LOG; }

PowerShell: if ($something -eq 1) { Write-Host "yes" }

Perl: if ($someThing == 1) { print "yes\n"; }

PowerShell: foreach ($thing in $things) { Write-Host $thing }

Perl: foreach $thing (@things) { print $thing, "\n"; }

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[unrtst]

Then just type in 'cmd' and you are set. They aren't removing the application.

From the fucking summary, "Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well".
It'll still be fairly trivial to launch it, but not via any of the readily available and used methods.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[fnj]

So in other words Powershell is NOTHING WHATEVER LIKE perl.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[skids]

eww! They used "eq" for numeric comparisons? Gross.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[ruir]

Change to FreeBSD and be done with it. At least what you will learn will be valid many years to come. MS has not the best interest in providing business continuity, and they interest now is ramming powershell down the users throats simply to leverage a monopoly and have less people objecting to use the language that controls their cloud services.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[ruir]

Errrm...what prevents me from copying the cmd.exe binary and calling it ... sane_cmd.exe?

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you have to figure out how to do that through powershell, so there's that...

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[Oswald McWeany]

That's not exactly my call... I'm unlikely to ever be in a corporate environment where FreeBSD is used. Sure, if I were so inclined I could install it at home, but I hardly touch a PC outside of work hours.

Re:It's hard to get over 25 years of habit

[ruir]

Some of us are more lucky. I have been using Linux/*BSD as servers since 1996 and Apple as desktop/notebook since 2005 in a corporate environment.

Powershell is the devil's work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft registered WindowsPowersHell.org for a reason, people!

Uhh, just add it back in.

[SlithyMagister]

There are a few 3-rd party tools that will add items.
I can't see them removing cmd.exe altogether

As for adding items to the Explorer context menu, that is just a matter of editing the registry.

This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Powershell, but half the "admins" I've worked with still don't know how to really use it. It's not an enhanced command or command+, it's a completely different product that unfortunately looks similar enough that non-technical people are going to have no frigging idea what's going on.

This is going to cause a nightmare for call center staff who all have scripts that say something along the lines of "Open a command prompt and ...".

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[guruevi]

The problem is we don't need a Python-esque shell for C#, us admins just need to be able to run "ipconfig" and "shutdown -r" on a Windows box and perhaps the command to re-register the freaking serial code every other month.

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[unixisc]

I think Microsoft should make an offline PDF manual available w/ the next update, which one can pull up if one needs to look something up. Accompany that w/ an online help if one wants to know WHICH powershell commands to use to fix something, such as, say, the number of rows of icons in tablet mode on a small tablet, if one wants >4.

Re: This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

not too hard to google that stuff (stackexchange).

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

OP: That's all you need to do? Where do you work so I can apply for a job? :-)

Re: This is a BAD idea support wise

[unixisc]

Yeah, but what if you're offline?

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

i know powershell exists, but i don't use it.. at all. i think one time i ran a powershell script off a support site to fix a fucked-up windows.. but that might have just been script host, not powershell. that's it. for everything else, there's cmd. command prompt and batch files i've been using since DOS 3.

fuck microsoft. it's not like i needed another reason to hate win10.. but i'll file this one away too.. why not give me something to actually make me consider using the piece of crap instead?

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is all you need, then why would you care what shell you use? All those commands will still work exactly the same from PowerShell as they do from CMD.exe.

Re: This is a BAD idea support wise

[tepples]

not too hard to google that stuff from your cell phone with a $50/mo voice and data plan

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Junta]

Of course, it's not python-esque, it's much worse. It reminds more more of javascript or perl, but with less power than either in terms of syntax (yes, feature wise you can access all kinds of .net functions, but structuring your pure powershell is very limited and the syntax can be very hard to maintain).

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Darth Twon]

Make yourself familiar with the help system in PowerShell. Just like any decent Linux admin should be adept with man, any decent Windows admin should be adept with Get-Help.

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[ruir]

You do not speak for myself, yeah. Us admins run Linux and *BSD ;-P

Re: This is a BAD idea support wise

[Overzeetop]

Spoken by someone who has never been under the gun to get the network back up while trying to download information from the internet via single bar 1G connection, which is all you'll get in the basement of a large building, where all the servers are.

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[guruevi]

That's all I do to a Windows box before it needs wiping. We only run Mac, Linux and BSD boxes.

Re:This is a BAD idea support wise

[Nethead]

You do not speak for myself, yeah. Us admins run Linux and *BSD ;-P

I'm a BSD head too but I did find that there is a lot of unixness in Powershell. Bruce Payette, co-designer of the PowerShell language and the principal author of the language implementation is also a Unix guy.

Try ls, cat, rm,mkdir, echo, more, chdir, etc in Powershell and you'll see that they are already aliased from the factory.

PowerShell is different but a very powerful tool when used on a networked system. You can fire off commands and inquires to the whole network with a single line. The add-on for Exchange can do some really cool things.

  It's really one of the better things to come out of MS if you in an Active Directory environment.

Re: This is a BAD idea support wise

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you have no cell reception?

Is it still slow to launch?

[Anonymous Coward]

It it still slow to launch? Every experience I've had with it is that it takes several seconds to become usable, even on a very fast machine.

Re:Is it still slow to launch?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has always been my hangup - I hate the delay when starting up powershell (I think it's gotten a bit better, but it is still slower than cmd.exe)

Re:Is it still slow to launch?

[Junta]

Yes, and rather than impreving the performance for real, they do things to try to cheat and cache.

Amazing given their situation that they are so much slower than any other scripted runtime to start.

Re:Is it still slow to launch?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I heard so many good things about PowerShell as a scripting language. Being from the old C64 days I really like the idea of having a powerful built-in language, so I tried it. The slow launch turned me off, and I was already not that interested in MS-only stuff anyway. I'm sure it has its place, and the slow-start isn't a problem if you're doing some admin chore that's going to take a few minutes anyway; but I'm not in that category so I just moved on. It's one more reason for me to never deal with Win10. For my few shell scripting needs, the old command prompt or a 3rd party shell starts faster than you can blink and does everything I need.

Why would a friggin shell take so long to start anyway? Is it contacting something over the network? Please wait while PowerShell sends your browsing history to MS and its affiliates... ERROR: time-out contacting NSA, please retry...

This will be a fun surprise

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Well, this will be a fun surprise for millions of people running command-line tools. Maybe that'll be my retirement career: "converting" CLI instructions and tools to the new world in Windows 10+.

Re:This will be a fun surprise

[__aaclcg7560]

PowerShell is older than dirt. Nothing new there. I work in government IT and we use PowerShell on Windows 7. I personally would like to use Python but that's not on the approved software list.

Re:This will be a fun surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to you impersonally?

Re:This will be a fun surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a strange concept of how old dirt is. Some of us remember using operating systems before Windows 7.

Re:This will be a fun surprise

[__aaclcg7560]

You have a strange concept of how old dirt is. Some of us remember using operating systems before Windows 7.

I made two separate statements about PowerShell. Your reading comprehension (or lack thereof) combined the two statements into one statement. Something can be older than dirt while still being in use today. The oldest operating system I've worked on was DOS 6 (pre-Windows). So get off my lawn!

I still don't want it

[DrXym]

The normal command prompt is simple, stupid and does what it's told. Powershell is like some esoteric, incompatible, overly complex thing that claims to do anything via cmdlets, scripts, functions etc. but ends up just complicating everything including the simple stuff. It doesn't even have the good grace to be a superset of command prompt or bash which would at least make it familiar.

I don't see how forcing people to use it is supposed to win people over or fail to piss off people who want the old command prompt.

Re:I still don't want it

[SuiteSisterMary]

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?

Here's a hint: works great. Powershell isn't a superset of cmd, but it implements cmd commands. You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.

This is kind of like complaining that your Linux distro is replacing sh with bash; all your old stuff will keep working, but now you have new options and abilities that you can slowly migrate to.

Re: I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

I was like you.
but...
o Powershell ISE... kinda cool.
o working in & with UNC paths w/o drive mappings... major good.
o out-gridview... good.
o SQLPS & SqlServer modules...good (for me)

Re:I still don't want it

[DrXym]

You can't issue dos/cmd commands. The likes of "dir" are aliases onto things in powershell which superficially resemble the old commands but function differently.

For example I can type "dir", but "dir /?" doesn't do a thing. So maybe the syntax is a bit different. Typing "dir -help" or "dir --help" issues an enormous error message that apparently I've done something wrong. Not helpful. Typing "help dir", tells me about something called "get-childitem" but essentially doesn't help at all except tell me to type "get-help Get-ChildItem -detailed". Eventually I get a wall of text which STILL doesn't correspond to the old syntax.

Would it have really killed Microsoft to make "dir" function like "dir"? Maybe later on when I'm comfortable and familiar with the powershell I might want call get-childitem for something. But it is FAR more important to me during transition that the thing is familiar and all the various .bat / .cmd scripts that I have actually survive the transition.

I should add that the command "ls" also aliases to "get-childitem". So Microsoft are equal-opportunity confounders.

Re:I still don't want it

[bdh]

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?

Yes.

Personally, I don't use either PowerShell or command shell, much preferring JPSoft's far superior Take Command to both of them. However, when I have had to use PowerShell, I've often used the "help" command, which is markedly different from the command shell's.

In PowerShell, type "help" and then type "cmd /c help" and see the difference. For those who rarely use the command shell, switching to PowerShell will not make life simpler.

Re: I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

If PS runs unmodified bat files with no problem, then please explain how it isn't a superset of cmd? Do you not know what superset means, perhaps?

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

much preferring JPSoft's far superior Take Command to both of them

so spending $100 to "fix" yet another boneheaded decision by microsoft is your proposed solution? and then what about fixing uncle joe's desktop during the holidays? another $100 there so i can run the same thing i'm now "used to" at home on his pc? fuck that shit.

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

Use TCC/LE. It's free and (for me) better than the paid version.

Re:I still don't want it

[macklin01]

Its built-in linux-like commands don't appear to work as expected, I guess due to aliasing. "ls" is fine. But with any arguments, and I get stuff like this:

PS C:\mingw\bin> ls -l
Get-ChildItem : Missing an argument for parameter 'LiteralPath'. Specify a parameter of type 'Sys
again.
At line:1 char:4
+ ls -l
+ ~~
        + CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (:) [Get-ChildItem], ParameterBindingException
        + FullyQualifiedErrorId : MissingArgument,Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.GetChildItemCommand

I've been happy enough with cmd + mingw/msys. That got me ls, make, and all the same goodies with the same syntax as linux. But if Windows PS is going to have "ls", it should work like "ls" or get out of the way. (Just like they evidently do in linux and macos powershell.)

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

My major concern is that PowerShell takes 6 seconds to load on my Windows 10 laptop (if it hasn't been used recently), while CMD.EXE is always instantaneous. Will they fix that delay?

Re:I still don't want it

[tepples]

You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine.

Wouldn't that try to render a page in a PostScript interpreter and then send it to the printer (or vice versa, depending on the printer model)?

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

They cant, as its .NET based it has to warm up just like C# or Java.

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even have the good grace to be a superset of command prompt

It's much more than the prompt. You can manage whole systems with it without the GUI, bringing the Windows server nearer to the Unix comfyness and flexibility. Another thing is that writing scripts is much more pleasant with Powershell compared to cmd.exe.

Re:I still don't want it

[bdh]

No, I spend $100 back in 1989 (when it was called 4DOS) because it allowed me to do a lot of things that the DOS command shell couldn't. And then 4OS/2 came out, and I could use the same scripts on my DOS and OS/2 boxes. And then 4NT came out (before it evolved into Take Command), and I got that.

I said I prefer it, because it allows me to use the strengths of the platform I'm on. Things like korn and bash are great on Solaris or Linux, but ports of them to Windows are dependent on the underlying tools that come with them, such as Cygwin. I can do more, faster, in TCC on Windows than I can in bash on Windows.

If your uncle Joe is using the command line and Windows 10, switching to PowerShell is probably a lot more painful than switching to TCC/LE. There is a free lite version. It's not as powerful as the commercial edition, of course, but it's still better than the default command shell, and, IMO, better than PowerShell.

But it you want to continue cursing the darkness, go ahead. It's your choice.

Re:I still don't want it

[SuiteSisterMary]

If you're using cmd in 2016, chances are you don't need help using the 'dir' command.

Re:I still don't want it

[Wolfrider]

+1 for jpsoft. From the first time I used NDOS from Norton Utilities, then moved on to 4DOS, I *instantly* preferred it to "command.com" and "CMD.EXE". Left it largely behind when I went to Linux as my primary OS, but still install it on all my Win7 legacy stuff.

The free version is called "tcc/le" on the site and there is also a 64-bit version "tcc/le x64".

Hopefully he will get more business from this (yet another!) asinine decision by MS, they have been really overtly stupid since Win8 came out and are continuing to get worse every month from the news I've been paying attention to. Honestly don't know why anyone would still plan to stay on a Windows platform after Win7 drops support; long-term, would be better to transition to Linux or Mac in the next 3 years and pay for software you need to be ported over.

There needs to be end-user outrage and blowback over crazy, out-of-touch decisions like this. NOBODY I know prefers Powershell over CMD, and older users are going to go nuts with frustration.

Re:I still don't want it

[DrXym]

My point if it wasn't clear was there was no reason for incompatibility in the first place. If "dir" can be aliased to something called "Get-ChildItem", then it could have been aliased to something called "Get-Dos-Dir" which implemented the same arguments and behaviour as the CMD dir. The same applies for the other commands built into CMD - popd, pushd, cd, goto, if etc. plus any syntax for environment variable expansion, pipes, redirection etc. Even invoking the command "cmd" itself could have been implemented such that it correctly parsed and executed .bat and .cmd files all from Powershell.

If Microsoft had done this, then it wouldn't even be a point of discussion because cmd would be long gone. The problem was that Microsoft *didn't* do this. Cmd and Powershell ran in parallel, incompatible worlds and anyone concerned with all-too-real bullshit of different versions of .NET or Powershell on some random PC would have written their scripts for cmd as the lowest common denominator. And that's exactly what actually happened.

Meanwhile in Unix-land, bash was largely a superset of ksh was largely a superset of sh so migrating was easy and natural. Everyone uses bash and there's a reason for that. Can you guess?

Re:I still don't want it

[clovis]

Out of curiosity, have you ever opened powershell and started issuing dos/cmd commands?

Here's a hint: works great. Powershell isn't a superset of cmd, but it implements cmd commands. You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.

This is kind of like complaining that your Linux distro is replacing sh with bash; all your old stuff will keep working, but now you have new options and abilities that you can slowly migrate to.

Powershell launches cmd.exe to execute .bat files in the same way that typing "names.txt" opens "names.txt" in notepad.

Re:I still don't want it

[clovis]

You can't issue dos/cmd commands. The likes of "dir" are aliases onto things in powershell which superficially resemble the old commands but function differently.

For example I can type "dir", but "dir /?" doesn't do a thing. So maybe the syntax is a bit different. Typing "dir -help" or "dir --help" issues an enormous error message that apparently I've done something wrong. Not helpful. Typing "help dir", tells me about something called "get-childitem" but essentially doesn't help at all except tell me to type "get-help Get-ChildItem -detailed". Eventually I get a wall of text which STILL doesn't correspond to the old syntax.

Would it have really killed Microsoft to make "dir" function like "dir"? Maybe later on when I'm comfortable and familiar with the powershell I might want call get-childitem for something. But it is FAR more important to me during transition that the thing is familiar and all the various .bat / .cmd scripts that I have actually survive the transition.

I should add that the command "ls" also aliases to "get-childitem". So Microsoft are equal-opportunity confounders.

Yes, what you said about dir etc being aliases in PS and not the "real" commands.
Presently you can run .bat file in powershell just fine because powershell spawns a cmd.exe to run that bat file in the same way that opening a .txt file opens notepad.exe.
Oddly enough though, as you pointed out, running single cmd.exe commands doesn't work under powershell in many cases.
Most of the non-text characters, @, $, | and so on, have different meanings in cmd and in powershell.
From the PS prompt "@echo Hey!" fails, but put "@echo Hey!" in a .bat file and it works because PS launches cmd.exe to run it.

However, if you really want to do things from the command line and you're in a PS prompt, you can type cmd.exe and then dir /? or anything works just fine in that shell. Notice that the prompt changes when you do that.

Re: I still don't want it

[tangent]

I mostly agree with you, but to me, the major problem with PowerShell is that it's basically a REPL for a C#-like programming language. If I wanted to write C#, I'd launch Visual Studio.

Take the GetChildItem and error message reportage you brought up. The fact that "dir" is implemented in terms of GetChildItem and it's easy to discover that accidentally is a *good thing*, the same sort of thing that so many of us geeks used to praise Smalltalk for. The real downside here is that PowerShell errors are basically stack traces, and successful returns are full-on .NET objects, which turns shell use into a kind of software development activity.

All of that would be fine if what I was trying to do is write durable software. The thing about Unix-style interactive shell use, though, is that it's ephemeral. I'm not after a durable, clean, long-lived solution. I just need a command I can type in a second or so, and as soon as that command has successfully executed, I can forget it.

I think PowerShell is great *technology* but a bad user experience.

The Unix community said, "Look, the shell is a great programming environment, you can whip ad hoc things up quickly and easily," so Microsoft said, "Hey, we know how to build programming tools. We've got this great .NET thing sitting right here...let's make a shell out of that!" The problem is that C# was designed to be written down into *.cs files, saved into a version control system, and compiled to executables. It is not particularly well-suited to interactive, one-off, ad hoc shell commands.

Re:I still don't want it

[Lord Crc]

You can likely take a .bat file, rename it to .ps, and have it run just fine. I've never had a problem doing so, at least.

Almost all my batch files, and most of my interactive cmd sessions involve "for" in various ways.

I just tried the following basic "for" statement in PowerShell:
for /d %a in (*.*) do ehco "%a"

I got this message back:
At line:1 char:4
+ for /d %a in (*.*) do ehco "%a"
+ ~
Missing opening '(' after keyword 'for'.
        + CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
        + FullyQualifiedErrorId : MissingOpenParenthesisAfterKeyword

So for me at least, it seems highly unlikely that my batch files will work with PowerShell.

Re:I still don't want it

[Yunzil]

Powershell is like some esoteric, incompatible, overly complex thing that claims to do anything via cmdlets, scripts, functions etc. but ends up just complicating everything including the simple stuff.

So it's just like a Linux shell then?

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone uses bash and there's a reason for that. Can you guess?

Because zsh is too difficult for most people to configure to make it nice to use?

Re:I still don't want it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, try running command "set" in command prompt and powershell, the end result is quite difference. There are thousands of other commands that do not work in Powershell.

This change will break many manual processes, instructions, cmd/bat files, anything that uses "cmd /c command", etc..

The usual Microsoft confusion-fuckup

[Anonymous Coward]

On my current Windows 10, there's no less than 4 different PowerShell version that I can invoke, and presumedly they work different, and a script may or may not work depending on what PowerShell you invoke. Is this how it's supposed to work?

Use TCC LE instead

[meadwizard]

Don't bother using command.com, download TCC LE from JP Soft. Its free. Works like cmd but adds lots of great extra features.

Re:Use TCC LE instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it pronounced "Tickle"?

Re:Use TCC LE instead

[Anonymous Coward]

adds lots of great extra features.

what a great way to assure that nobody will ever use your program, make it incompatible for no good reason

Re:Use TCC LE instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Command.com? Have you ever tried to run it in a 64-bit Windows?

That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[ErichTheRed]

As a long-time Windows admin/systems guy, I think it's definitely time to do this. The batch language is very easy to use for procedural scripts, but in the world of things like desired state configuration, API-driven everything, etc. it makes sense to have a scripting language that basically makes the same calls a compiled program would.

I think the two major drawbacks that are presenting a learning curve are the syntax and the "scripting Legos" aspect. Syntax is...interesting. I have tons of cross platform experience so I have good understanding of lots of command languages. PowerShell's syntax is like DCL (the OpenVMS script language,) Bash and Perl got together and had a 3-parent baby. It's extremely verbose a la DCL, yet extremely symbolic like Perl, and has Bash-like constructs in there as well. Once you get used to it it makes sense, but there's definitely some learning before you're proficient enough to write full redistributable tools in it. The other thing that puts a lot of people off, but that's actually great about it, is that commands don't output text and you have to think things like object types. Bash, batch files or VBScripts have to include tons of logic to parse output, read/write INI files or XML data, etc. That gets reduced to a single statement -- want a CSV of the output? Export-Csv replaces tens of lines of function code to open a file, construct the strings and write them out. It's awesome but very different from the craft-your-own days....just like writing modern software, it's just gluing someone else's code Legos to each other and interfacing with APIs. It's hard to tell what you should be writing and what is already written for you and you're just assembling if you're used to building it all yourself and manipulating stuff with sed/awk/grep and friends.

That said, it's definitely time for Windows admins to get on board with PowerShell. Admins that survive the next transition are going to be managing thousands of servers or microservice instances at some IT provider. You can't manage systems at that scale by manually connecting to them and tweaking things. It's the same thing with Microsoft's Azure service -- it's been developer focused from Day 1, and admins are just now getting documentation that's even somewhat tailored to their experience. I know DevOps is the cool new buzzword, and every admin should have some basic coding skills under their belts, but it's hard to take someone who's been taking care of systems and telling them to treat them like software deployments. This is going to be the next big leap for systems guys now that software defined everything is pretty mainstream.

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Admins that survive the next transition...

It's more like mass extinction for the admins :)

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[MightyMartian]

Powershell is a shitty scripting language, but it's the only one that puts all the admin capabilities I need under one roof, so I use it. But I loath it intensely, and wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[Nethead]

.. wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.

Bruce Payette is a founding member of the PowerShell team at Microsoft. He is a co-designer of the PowerShell language and the principal author of the language implementation. Prior to joining Microsoft, he worked at Softway Systems and MKS, building UNIX tools for Windows.

I highly suggest his book: https://www.manning.com/books/...

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree with you... if it were usable. First... the learning curve is steep! The syntax is terrible. There are so many objects available that there's no way that anyone could memorize that beast. You've got to look it up any time you have to do anything (with the exception of things that you might do all the time). Second... security sucks. You either have to leave it wide open or sign every iteration of every test that you do while creating a script. No thanks. I'll write something in C# first.

Re:That's one way to increase adoption :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains it. If he made is easy to use he wouldn't have sold half as many books.

Re:Windows 10 what a joke

[unixisc]

Ok, then what are you doing here in this thread?

Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that the batch files (.BAT) will stop working? What will happen with the makefiles and other utilities that explicitly call CMD.EXE? This sounds like a really awful idea, if Microsoft doesn't take measures to ensure full backward compatibility.

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

You can call *.BAT and *.CMD files from PowerShell and they work fine. CMD.EXE still exists, so any makefile will work unchanged. Both shells were installed before, but you could select which one would appear on the Windows-X menu in the properties on the taskbar. This just changes the default setting.

To show how much Microsoft cares about backwards compatibility, VBScript and JScript also still work. Even the original COMMAND.COM works on 32-bit Windows - at least it does on my system that was upgraded from Windows 7. I can't vouch for new installs, but then who would get a new 32-bit installation of Windows 10?

Hit me, go on, I dare you

[fyngyrz]

No, bashing Windows has long been a staple theme in here.

Windowing Bash is where the real challenge is, though. I'm just the type of person willing to shell out for that. It'll make history, too.

What would Trump do?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how would Trump feel about this? Would he use cmd.exe or command.com? Or maybe bash? or cygwin?

PowerShell
Making shells great again. :-)

Re:What would Trump do?

[__aaclcg7560]

Trump reportedly doesn't use computers. He will probably have his maid print out any classified emails he needs to read.

Re:What would Trump do?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Trump reportedly doesn't use computers

He hasn't found one yet with a keyboard that is small enough.

Re:What would Trump do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's "best people" will carefully measure how many jews were involved in writing each shell before deciding who has to wear a star of David on their clothing.

So much for compatibility

[Dwedit]

So much for compatibility.
In powershell, you can't type in "cd\directory".
Not to mention that any shortcut to "CMD /C" or "CMD /K" will break overnight.

Re:So much for compatibility

[__aaclcg7560]

On the bright side, PowerShell has alias for most commonly used Linux shell commands. I'm always typing in ls instead of dir for a directory listing.

Re:So much for compatibility

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably just hijacked run to load powershell if asked for cmd.

Re:So much for compatibility

[Anonymous Coward]

What was wrong with doskey ls=dir

Re:So much for compatibility

[Anonymous Coward]

And what does ls -lasrht do then?

I'm imagining it produces a very helpful error.

Re:So much for compatibility

[Dwedit]

You get linux-like commands with Cygwin or Msys, so ls will still work from the command line.

Unfortunately, creating any cygwin process adds over 1/3s of startup time, so commands called by scripts like ./configure that should be instantaneous are slow instead.

Re:So much for compatibility

[Poohsticks]

Here's your powershell error for that command (FYI - there is no option for "-lasrht" on the ls command: [PS] C:\temp>ls -lasrht ls : A parameter cannot be found that matches parameter name 'lasrht'. At line:1 char:11 + ls -lasrht + CategoryInfo : InvalidArgument: (:) [Get-ChildItem], ParameterBindingException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : NamedParameterNotFound,Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.GetChildItemCommand

More BloadWare

[Anonymous Coward]

Take Command Console - TCC/LE
https://jpsoft.com/comparison-...

Since the times of 4DOS/4NT microsoft command console has been uncompetitive

Even for scripting: is much more lighter and easier to use sax basic from command console than powershell bloadware

ipython saved my life to "script" under Windows

[christophe2893]

I once had to work in a place where only Windows computers were available and to perform typical admin tasks such as searching for files, moving them around or renaming them, etc. I installed Python and wrote a few command that I could run from an Ipython shell. The experience was actually quite pleasant (Under linux, I do pretty much everything in bash, but I find that scripting in Python made Windows sufferable. Yes, I also know cygwin)

Re:Windows 10 what a joke

[LVSlushdat]

Probably the same thing I'm doing here.. Laughing my ass off at the shitstorm that is Windows 10.. Like the AC, I used/supported Windows from Win311 to Win7, but when I retired in 2010, I decided I was done with MS.. All of my personal systems had been dualboot Linux/Windows, and I did spend a lot of time in Windows, but I decided to cold-turkey when I retired.. One day I decided to end it once and for all.. I deleted the Win7 partition, and haven't looked back since... Now I just sit back with popcorn and watch MS abuse those who still use their products.. Great entertainment, let me tell you...

"cmd.exe" not going anywhere anytime soon....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think it extremely unlikely that MS will ever *truly* get rid of command prompt as it would break compatibility with the vast trove of third party apps that expect "cmd.exe" to exist and behave as it currently does.

At the end of the day, you may have to create your own shortcut to "cmd.exe", but the utlity itself is going nowhere.

Have they actually fixed PowerShell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the Preview builds back in the Windows 8.x era had Powershell as the default command shell option. The biggest problem I ran into then was that interacting with BCDEDIT was basically broken. This is a complete non-starter for anyone who needs to configure multi-boot or enable kernel debugging. Another nasty bit is the fact that Powershell is not compatible with remote shell tools like Sysinternals PsExec for interactive sessions (are there better Powershell remoting tools? Sure, but old habits and legacy tools die hard).

Be a man and make an alias

[tepples]

You could try making an alias that gets detailed help. Call it man.

Re:Be a man and make an alias

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that then be mansplaining?

Re:Be a man and make an alias

[ColdWetDog]

You could try making an alias that gets detailed help. Call it man.

Are you kidding? Call it MAN? Do that and you're gonna have a herd of SJWs down your neck in a flash.

Besides, MAN does not ask for help. Where do you get these ideas anyway?

Re:Be a man and make an alias

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ you whiny white nerds are scared shitless of SJWs like nothing else.

"Tcl" is taken

[tepples]

And does it have a toolkit (TK) for making graphical interfaces to your scripts? Then it'd be TCC LE/Tk.

Batch Files

[bigal123]

What about all the different batch files people have for simple tasks that have been brought up from one system to another over the years.

Terrible idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Powershell is orders of magniture less user-friendly than cmd.exe or command.com. It daresay it is even less friendly than Unix commands that at least support "--help" in a consistent manner.

Embrace, extend, extinguish

[gmiller123456]

I can only assume this is Microsoft's final attempt at killing off the command line. So much for hoping one day they'd actually provide a usable one.

If they really wanted to provide an enhanced, programmable shell, then provding a good, lightweight programmer's editor would be the first step. As it stands, Notepad doesn't even recognize Unix style line endings.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really wanted to provide an enhanced, programmable shell, then provding a good, lightweight programmer's editor would be the first step. As it stands, Notepad doesn't even recognize Unix style line endings.

Try Notepad++. https://notepad-plus-plus.org/ It's a good, free, lightweight programmer's editor, in the style of Notepad.

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

The editor is called Powershell-ISE

Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish

[gmiller123456]

Try Notepad++. https://notepad-plus-plus.org/ It's a good, free, lightweight programmer's editor, in the style of Notepad.

Yep. I use notepad++ on pretty much every machine I work on, usually as a general text editor. And Sublime for actual programming.

    The difference is having on installed by default, like Powershell is. Sure I can install python, perl, or whatever. But there's a big difference in having something that's the same for everyone performing a similar task.

Microsoft needs better managers.

[Futurepower(R)]

"... I hate the syntax of PowerShell."

Agreed. PowerShell is the Zune of syntaxes.

Microsoft needs better managers. Former Microsoft CEO Monkey Boy, was the least respected CEO of a big company. Ballmer was rated the worst CEO in the United States: Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today." Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

This story doesn't even mention the Zune: Microsoft's 10 biggest failures.

Re:Microsoft needs better managers.

[MountainLogic]

Have to disagree with, "destroying ... jobs." Microsoft's dismal quality has created a whole industry of IT folks to keep microsoft's cruft even halfway working. Now that's a jobs program.

Re:Microsoft needs better managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like power shell recall that MS has provided a bash shell on windows 10 as well. So if you would rather ls,mv,cp, grep, awk .. than dir,move,copy etc you are now free to do so. Having to powerful shells makes sense (of course most of these tools already existed in windows downloadable from the web.

Re:Microsoft needs better managers.

[MikeTheGreat]

I know that it's a tradition here on /. to never read TFA, but Zune is actually #2 on that list.

This is what I hate about Microsoft

[JustNiz]

"you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app"

Hey Microsoft, please remind me: who owns my PC?

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. That is part of the EULA and something you have to agree to if you intend to run Windows.

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Wolfrider]

...If you REALLY want to own your PC, you don't run Windows. But take a look at jpsoft.com as mentioned above, they have a free CMD replacement called tcc/le.

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[JustNiz]

Agreed. I only have Windows installed at all for gaming reasons. I wish games developers would take Linux more seriously then I could blow Windows away entirely.

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I thimk they just did

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

"more powerful"

If the replacement shell is so ridiculously esoteric that it's basically unusable, I don't count that as being "more powerful", I count it as being a near-worthless piece of shit.

And simplicity. What would you rather type, dir /od, or Set-ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted | command-folder servlet get-child-object for %($c.-t) load-control-module-order

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

...If you REALLY want to own your PC, you don't run Windows. But take a look at jpsoft.com as mentioned above, they have a free CMD replacement called tcc/le.

Ah yes, another proprietary tool. The command line is supposed to be free and universal across a vendors os range within limits. Is there nothing Microsoft can't fuckup?

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

"you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app"

Hey Microsoft, please remind me: who owns my PC?

What is wrong with the people at MS who make these changes? Please stop taking away tools that we have learned to use over the years. This is not our main job as it is MS programmers and we do not want to be forced to learn how to redo everything. ADD Don't Change. Are you trying to force us all to switch to Linux?

Re:This is what I hate about Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Master Blaster run PC Town.

It's Hammer time...

[HBI]

because Hammer don't use nails.

cmd

[johnwerneken]

run cmd.exe looks 'normal'

Super-popular?

[wonkey_monkey]

it replaces the super-popular Command Prompt

Super-popular? That's pushing it.

Most people pay tax, but that doesn't make it super-popular.

so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Everything said before this indicates they've completely replaced it. I'd say that's a fairly significant step, I guess.

Re:Windows 10 what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not retired, but I retired from windows back in about 2000.
It is kind of funny to watch these first years of the long, slow, Microsoft collapse. It doesn't have to happen, but it is clear that they are incompetent and are only surviving on momentum.

Thanks, Microsoft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Microsoft, you make it easier for me to hate you and work to minimize using you EVERY DAY! You make it easier for me to want to move to Linux with your every "improvement!" Please, keep it up so I'll finally get so frustrated that I'll forego the couple of applications that I haven't found replacements for in the Linux world yet.

edis

[edis]

I bet it is still configurable, like it was last time I was digging how to switch default shell in Win10. It must only be that PowerShell became default that is shown for user in interactive dialogs, and only that fact of default change is bit surprising, as preferences are up to user to decide. If we are talking default in newly deployed system - it's OK, if any update would trigger default - that would mean problem in MS thinking.

Then what's the point?

[tepples]

The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".

So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?

Re:Then what's the point?

[sexconker]

Create your own cert and sign it, then the user can set the powershell policy to prompt for untrusted certs.
The prompt lets them choose whether or not to run shit each time. They also have the option to accept a particular cert permanently via that same prompt.

Re:Then what's the point?

[PsychoSlashDot]

The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".

So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?

First of all, given the choice between CMD.EXE which can only do file type activities and PowerShell which can perform those plus a massive number of other things, worrying about (default) script policy isn't worthwhile. With CMD.EXE you can do so much less that you might as well be running with a policy of "there are no scripts".

Secondly, most people - by far - will never have need to run a PowerShell script. If they do, they're the sort of people who can read "step 1: set your execution policy". Joe Average has no business running PowerShell scripts that they don't know what they are and how they work. Which is why a default policy preventing unsigned scripts from running is a good idea.

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.

Re:Then what's the point?

[tepples]

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.

Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?

Re:Then what's the point?

[PsychoSlashDot]

Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.

Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?

Theory: because they're different products that do different things and run different kinds of scripts?

Re:Then what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?

Because that is the reasonable defaults. Most users don't care about scripting, and the best practice for security is to default what would be used as a potential security hole to off. You don't want *.ps1 files being emailed around that can easily infect people's computers because PowerShell is so powerful.

On the other hand, people do assume that scripting will be on in a browser because so much of the Internet would simply stop working without it. Frankly, I can't think why you would have a problem with this, other than to take any opportunity to stick it to Microsoft (no matter how unreasonable it is).

Screws up putty

[Paul Carver]

I just opened power shell and typed the number one most common thing I type at the cmd prompt: "putty @session" and it opened the putty configuration window rather than launching an ssh connection to the designated server. That's a non-starter for me.

Oops!

[Futurepower(R)]

MikeTheGreat,

Greetings from a lesser Mike.

My response: Oops! Didn't see it.

Thanks.

Re:Oops!

[MikeTheGreat]

LOL - no worries. Given the 'no reading the TFA' I did think it was funny.

Side-note: One personal metric for how mature a web site is is whether or not the username "MikeTheGreat" is taken. I was MikeTheGreat on BitBucket but had to fall back to MikeTheTall on GitHub :)

Boo

[DriveDog]

Only thing I want ordinary command line replaced with is BASH. If I have to do something that's difficult or messy with MS batch stuff, I just use JScript.

Article is wrong

[clovis]

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

I just upgraded my Insider preview to 14971,

As a result, PowerShell officially replaces the Command Prompt in the Win + X menu, so when you right-click the Start menu, you'll only be allowed to launch the more powerful app.

This is true.

Additionally, in File Explorer's File menu and in the context menu that appears when pressing Shift + right-click in any folder, the old Command Prompt will no longer be available.

This is false.

Typing cmd in the run dialog will launch PowerShell as well, so Microsoft has made a significant step towards phasing out the traditional Command Prompt.

Wrong again. Typing "cmd" into the run dialog launches "C:\windows\system32\cmd.exe"

"For those who prefer to use Command Prompt"

[trawg]

... Yeh I "prefer" to use it, largely because I've got like 20 years of accumulated batch files and command line applications, as well as the knowledge of how to use them expertly to be productive.

And I bet I'm lightweight compared to thousands of people who actually do real shit at large scale on Windows!

I think PowerShell is pretty cool (I've been writing scripts to consume an API this week actually and have been impressed with how easy it is to bang out stuff quickly), but removing the option for it in Windows 10 is just another reason for me to avoid upgrading for even longer.

They're making it more tempting to look at Macs than ever for me. And I'm one of the few nerds that actually likes using Windows!

Replacement Script

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone write me a script to replace all copies of Powershell on my PC with copies of CMD renamed in their place?

Thank you.

PowersHell

[Anonymous Coward]

Fitting name. Spending eternity using this must be the worst punishment.

CAPTCHA: madman. Sounds about right regarding whoever approved these changes.

"If it ain't broke, break it"

[Tablizer]

-MS

You Can Restore the Command Prompt

[Nitrobob]

The Windows blog has the official announcement about this change and you can restore the command prompt if you so desire. Here is what they posted: PowerShell in the Shell: In an effort to bring the best command line experiences to the forefront for all power users, PowerShell is now the defacto command shell from File Explorer. It replaces Command Prompt (aka, “cmd.exe”) in the WIN + X menu, in File Explorer’s File menu, and in the context menu that appears when you shift-right-click the whitespace in File Explorer. Typing “cmd” (or “powershell”) in File Explorer’s address bar will remain a quick way to launch the command shell at that location. For those who prefer to use Command Prompt, you can opt out of the WIN + X change by opening Settings > Personalization > Taskbar, and turning “Replace Command Prompt with Windows PowerShell in the menu when I right-click the Start button or press Windows key+X” to “Off”. The full announcement is available at https://blogs.windows.com/wind.... Fact-checking is a wonderful thing. :>)

Wait!!!

[WindowsStar]

Are the idiots that made this change also going to make it so it just works! So you don't have to activate it, force it work without all the security locks! Are they going to add all the parts you need without having to go find them all over the internet and install them. MS should make every part of PowerShell part of the load. I hate having to go and get the Exchange parts when I need to do something on a machine that is don't normally work on. Until MS can get their act together with PowerShell they will have to do stuff like this and ram it down our throats instead of fixing it and making it work correctly. Pisses me off.