Slashdot Mirror


Rumors of Cmd's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated (microsoft.com)

Senior Program Manager at Microsoft has responded to speculations that Command Prompt is going away. He writes: The Cmd shell remains an essential part of Windows, and is used daily by millions of businesses, developers, and IT Pro's around the world. In fact:
1. Much of the automated system that builds and tests Windows itself is a collection of many Cmd scripts that have been created over many years, without which we couldn't build Windows itself!
2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!
3. Many of our customers and partners are totally dependent on Cmd, and all its quirks, for their companies" existence!
In short: Cmd is an absolutely vital feature of Windows and, until there's almost nobody running Cmd scripts or tools, Cmd will remain within Windows.

202 comments

  1. as expected by rene2 · · Score: 1

    I already wondered when the rumored spread how that should work out in practice, ...

    1. Re:as expected by alex67500 · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I read the title I first thought it was about CmdrTaco...

    2. Re:as expected by war4peace · · Score: 1

      The above was probably meant to be funny, but I REALLY thought that for a second too.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:as expected by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Oh no, when I saw the headline in my newsreader, I really read rumours about Cmdr's death. Some kind of Slashdot/Pavlov conditioning I guess...

  2. WTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Where's the fucking article?

    1. Re:WTFA by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Click on the fucking link.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:WTFA by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's not on fucking Netcraft, that's for sure.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:WTFA by ls671 · · Score: 1
      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:WTFA by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      On Slashdot? You've got to be kidding!

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Good! by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad! CMD is critical in our company, too.

    MS actually does a really good job supporting things for a long time. Some other responses, I'd imagine...

    Apple: We're brave enough to stop supporting any version of CMD that came out before this year.

    Google: We killed it. Too bad.If you don't buy our ads, then we don't really care about how you use our software.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you drop something into a big pot of spaghetti and mix it up then it is near impossible to remove it. It's easier to leave it and work around it then try to remove it and only it. Thanks to Moore's Law, that pot, holding the now larger mass of spaghetti, gets larger every year.

    2. Re:Good! by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wished they just expanded the command prompt compared to putting in powershell.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Good! by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      i agree because the changes they are making to those shells should be universal--the powershell window has some features you dont get in the traditional cmd window which make it much easier to work in. i dont use win 10 at work so im not sure how many of the cmd/powershell windows changes go both ways there, but at work im stuck on win 7 and cmd sucks, but powershell is mostly good

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    4. Re:Good! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I wished they just expanded the command prompt compared to putting in powershell.

      Supposedly Microsoft doesn't pay to revise old lines of code. Hence, PowerShell with new lines of code came into existence.

    5. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wished they just expanded the command prompt compared to putting in powershell.

      Supposedly Microsoft doesn't pay to revise old lines of code. Hence, PowerShell with new lines of code came into existence.

      Microsoft didn't create Powershell. Powershell was written by an independent developer who was then bought out by Microsoft.

    6. Re:Good! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Microsoft didn't create Powershell. Powershell was written by an independent developer who was then bought out by Microsoft.

      Hence, Microsoft pays for new lines of code.

    7. Re:Good! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Microsoft seems to have been getting less reliable in terms of not killing things for novelty's sake(Ballmer may have been a jerkass; but he understood what the job of a OS company is better than the ipad-envy faction); but it seems hard to imagine killing cmd.exe About a zillion legacy customers depend on it; and, because it's a legacy dependency, they actively don't want it to change.

      It's pretty obvious that all of Microsoft's future love and attention are going toward Powershell; but what would they gain by not shipping cmd.exe until hell freezes over?

    8. Re:Good! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      MS actually does a really good job supporting things for a long time.

      While generally true, they seem to make you jump through progressively smaller hoops over time, having to fiddle with obscure settings and/or the registry at times to get older stuff to work.

      I've seen this with features from their older Dot-Net API calls or practices, 32-bit-ODBC, and ASP-Classic. More fiddling as time goes on is needed to get them to work right. Many database vendors haven't released (decent) 64-drivers for ODBC yet. (Why the ODBC standard is hard-wired to byte-word-size is odd. Bad idea. Unix's text-centric standards & conventions paid off for similar things.)

      Then there is the VB Classic (desktop) debacle. That ticked off a lot of orgs. There were a lot of code bases that had to be re-written or thrown out. MS could have split or sold desktop-VB-Classic off to another company, for example (maybe with the licensing condition that they cannot make a VB-Net IDE clone for X years.) Similar with FoxPro.

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft didn't create Powershell. Powershell was written by an independent developer who was then bought out by Microsoft.

      Source? or are we just flinging opinions as fact?

    10. Re:Good! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I do quite a bit of stuff in PowerShell, but I do a LOT MORE stuff in cmd. PowerShell is completely different, and used for completely different things. It's a mistake, I think, for MS to try to make it the default over CMD. Not yet. Maybe 3-4 years. It WAY too early for this.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the exact analogy that a friend used to describe women.

    12. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apple : You can still use CMD, you just have to dongle-chain 3+ apps to get it to work. Oh yeah, and that'll be $500. You're welcome.

      Google : We've decided arbitrarily to change CMD to DMC, but we'll probably switch it back and forth 2 or 3 times in the coming week. Business dependencies? What are they?

      Amazon : CMD will be replaced by a flying mothership powered by cosmic rays. (*Bong sounds)

      HP : We've decided to sell off CMD and focus on shit people no longer need or want instead.

      IBM : Spending 200 million on our own cutting-edge CMD app was probably not a good idea, but hell, it's just money right? We're IBM, it's fine.

      Adobe : In order to use CMD, you simply have to sign up for our $200 a month subscription service to everything else we sell. What a deal!

      Facebook : Anything you type into a CMD prompt is FB property and will be tattooed on your soul forever. #Progress. 'Zuck '2042

      WSJ : We will no longer call CMD line input "commands", we'll just fill your screen with DOS and let the reader decide what it is.

      Trump : I love CMD, it's the best for hacking. Very strong commands! Why is Bash so weak and girly?

    13. Re:Good! by deadwill69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seems someone forgot to do their homework:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Paradigm Multi-paradigm: Imperative, pipeline, object-oriented, functional and reflective
      Designed by Jeffrey Snover, Bruce Payette, James Truher (et al.)
      Developer Microsoft

    14. Re:Good! by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      I hope they don't get rid of Edlin which is critical to our operations here.

      As for Microsoft doing a really good job of supporting things for a long time, I wonder how much 16 bit code is still in Windows 10?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    15. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking forward to: "We're not killing cmd.exe, we're just no longer shipping it with home versions of windows 10. Please upgrade to Pro if you need this functionality."

    16. Re:Good! by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

      everything you said plus, throwing the person who invented the "Get-TimeZone" style of pascal-dash-double-pascal-case-wtf commads out the nearest airlock.

    17. Re:Good! by mdm-adph · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How easy would that be, though? The way cmd and powershell works is fundamentally different: cmd is string-based, like bash, but powershell is object-based. Powershell really is a different animal entirely once you start using it.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    18. Re:Good! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe they could make it so Powershell doesn't take 15-30 seconds to actually become useful.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oracle: Now that you're using CMD, we're going to shake you down for licensing fees or sue you.

      Congress: CMD is flawed so we should dismantle it without a good alternative in place. With fewer regulations and more tax cuts, the market will create a better CMD.

      Samsung: *KABOOM*

      Liberals: Trump loves CMD, so it's probably sexist or racist.

      Conservatives: Liberals hate CMD so we love CMD.

      YouTube: Please watch this advertisement before continuing to use CMD.

      Wikipedia: !!!PLEASE GIVE US MONEY!!! "Command Prompt" redirects here. For the concept, see command prompt.

    20. Re:Good! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      everything you said plus, throwing the person who invented the "Get-TimeZone" style of pascal-dash-double-pascal-case-wtf commads out the nearest airlock.

      Yep. I mean, there's an alias for dir, but does dir /h work? HELL NO! Try dir -force instead!

      dir *.txt ? FORGET IT. dir -Include *.txt or dir -Include *.txt -Recurse

      WHY create an alias for dir if nothing but the raw command works?!?!?!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    21. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then there is the VB Classic (desktop) debacle"
      From a BUSINESS perspective this debacle was responsible for attracting and locking customers into their application stack. Before VB was released software development was not for the faint hearted or those who were not a card carrying member of the "We are Nerds" brotherhood. VB made application development easy but those applications needed the MS platform. MS has always understood that in the business world if you want individuals or companies to adopt your platform you need to make application development as easy as possible and provide developer tools and developer support.

    22. Re:Good! by eedwardsjr · · Score: 1

      It is not case sensitive bob. Just realize it follows a Verb-Noun format. I started using it since pre-release and admit it is extremely powerful. Its creation was a response to the Unix community commenting that there was no shell scripting. The end result is powershell. You can do darn near anything in it. You can even call the .NET framework directly and create a front end GUI that looks like any other application. The limiting factor is how much do you want to study and research the system. I stopped around 4 years ago and forgot so much I can't even use the thing now.

    23. Re:Good! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      VB-Classic-desktop was great at smallish git-er-done applications (ignoring DLL hell for now), but didn't make large-scale and API development easy.

      Dot-Net attempted to remedy that, but also complicated things for non-specialists. It lost a lot of that git-er-done feel. I've been kicking around ways to have both in a language and related IDE.

      While it may be possible to get closer to such a goal, it's hard to make both sides happy, though. It would probably take some experimenting with multiple philosophies.

      I'd like to see a table-oriented GUI engine such that the vast majority of GUI operations can be tablized in terms of attributes and "action lists". It could also maybe be programming-language neutral since most of it is driven by tables and attributes rather than direct code. If you study GUI's, much if it can be packaged into common actions/idioms. If somebody gives me 2 million dollars to experiment, I'll retire and get right on this experiment ;-) ... honest!

      And find a way to make it http-friendly so that it can become a CRUD Browser of sorts. There's a big demand for internal-org CRUD browsing that shouldn't require mastering the screwy and overly fluid HTML/CSS/DOM stack. Internal apps don't care as much about UI fads and eye-candy.

    24. Re:Good! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well you can have the same features. It just wouldn't be trying to cram OO into everything.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    25. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you just described the new ASP .NET Core with MVC autoscaffolding... even comes with Bootstrap responsive out of the box...

      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/data/ef-mvc/intro

      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/getting-started

    26. Re:Good! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 2

      Get more RAM and a SSD. Maybe a Kirby Lake UPC!

    27. Re:Good! by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Likely M$ are pushing the retail version of Windows to be a closed box the user can not touch. Basically looking to turn the consumer PC into a XBox complete with software and content licence fees, that sells all your privacy and that you have pretty much no control over.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Good! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, replaced both by an actual shell that can do simple things in a single line rather than half a screenful of obscure code like powershell. There are many off-the-shelf shells with a proprietary-friendly license Microsoft could choose.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    29. Re:Good! by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say, but (at least prior to Win10) I never realized how spoiled I've gotten with Microsoft's support cycles. I still use software that's 15 years old on my Win7 machine, including an 18-year-old copy of Photoshop. Even most of my old games still work. My experience with Macs has been dreadful by comparison, let alone mobile devices.

      Of course, I'm still sticking with Win7, because I have little confidence that Win10 will continue the tradition. I remember how many applications were outright deleted from my test machine, with no prior warning, when I ran the Win10 installer.

    30. Re:Good! by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      What sucks about it? the most painful things is adjusting the default settings so that the window is bigger, buffer longer and quick edit is on. Other than that, it's .... well it's cmd.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    31. Re:Good! by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      I hope your being sarcastic.

    32. Re:Good! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      My being sarcastic what?

    33. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is informative, about his pc environment... but not about Powershell.
      The newest releases of powershell open very fast. Update your .net and migrate off of Windows 7 and server 2003 (it's time). .7 seconds from double-click to reach a shell prompt on my mediocre work pc.
      2.5 seconds from double-click to directory listing results. Which tells me that powershell loads in about the same time it takes me to type dir.

      If it still doesn't load fast that's because you've been messing with your profile and are loading unnecessary modules. Approach it like you would any other administrative shell, don't load libraries until you need them.
      Try this to see if you're startup speed changes: C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe -noprofile

      Here's the run string I use for deploying end-user shortcuts and running scripts as scheduled tasks.
      C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powershell.exe -noprofile -executionpolicy bypass -file "\\path\script.ps1 -parameter"

      Any environment that is tied to batch files is a limitation of the technician not the technology.

    34. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummmm....
      dir *.txt
      that works in Powershell

      as well as other core functions like:
      dir c:\path *.txt

      You're right about any /switches not being compatible. But I've used /H maybe once in the past 5 years... so I'll happily learn to type " -f " if it means gaining the ability to pipe a file object.

    35. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they could make it so Powershell doesn't take 15-30 seconds to actually become useful.

      I too find this strange why does it take so long to load. It's a terminal shell. Run cmd and its right there or on any UNIX/Linux system open a terminal and its ready to go. No wait.

      Every time I run Powershell I wonder "WTF is it doing in the background"?

    36. Re:Good! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I certainly wouldn't bet against that; I just don't think that they need to kill cmd.exe to do it.

      It's just shell, and not even a terribly good one; and the shell is only as powerful as the programs and commands you can use it to invoke. Going pure GUI tends to involve some loss of control/dumbing down, just because you can't realistically cram everything a CLI can do into a GUI that any sane person would want to look at; but if the OS vendor doesn't want you to do something, making it impossible via CLI isn't a particularly different problem than making it impossible via GUI.

  4. WTF? by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Who suggested that it dead?

    2) Oh wait, there's no link to an article to state who it said it.

    I mean really.....

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    1. Re:WTF? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      1) Who suggested that it dead?

      Typo fail.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:WTF? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Looks like the post was just edited to include the article.
      https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.c...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    3. Re:WTF? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Probably because Microsoft themselves said that they would replace CMD with powershell in newer Windows 10 builds.

      https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/11/18/1446216/microsoft-replaces-command-prompt-with-powershell-in-latest-windows-10-build

    4. Re:WTF? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      1) Who suggested that it dead?

      2) Oh wait, there's no link to an article to state who it said it.

      I mean really.....

      Welcome to the internet! Since you are apparently new to the internet and don't know how it works, I'll point out that that funny colored text you see in the article summary is a link to the article.

      Click on it and you'll be taken to the article where you'll find the link you're seeking:

      This post is in response to a story published on December 6th 2016 by ComputerWorld titled “Say goodbye to the MS-DOS command prompt” and its follow-up article “Follow-up: MS-DOS lives on after all“.

    5. Re:WTF? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      LOL, it's in the very first line of TFA: http://www.computerworld.com/a...

    6. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Who suggested that it dead?

          What? Windows is dead?

      2) Oh wait, there's no link to an article to state who it said it.

      So that means it's true! Will my computer stop working?

    7. Re:WTF? by Major+Blud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it was originally posted, there was no link. I'm not the only person here to state so.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    8. Re:WTF? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      When it was originally posted, there was no link. I'm not the only person here to state so.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    9. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft only said they were making powershell the default. They did not say there getting rid of cmd. It was the author of the Softpedia article who claimed without a source that it was expected that Microsoft would be getting rid of the cmd shell. His expectation was wrong.

    10. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

      How do they know that? Polls have been made? Oh, wait. Telemetry.

    11. Re:WTF? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      www.slashdot.org

    12. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the web, not the internet

    13. Re:WTF? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      They didn't even say that. All they said was that it was replacing CMD in the Win+X menu. How many people even use that menu?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    14. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds fishy. Who actually uses Edge or Exploder?

  5. Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GUIs can kiss my fat white ass.

    1. Re:Thank God by Maritz · · Score: 2

      I hope you uploaded that comment with hand-crafted packets or else you're a HYPOCRITE!

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using an HTTP-enabled version of EDLIN.COM. Let's not go overboard.

    3. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would first question how he could read the post. Can you get Slashdot on Gopher?

    4. Re:Thank God by tsqr · · Score: 1

      I would first question how he could read the post. Can you get Slashdot on Gopher?

      I doubt it. But you can get it using lynx (or its frames-enabled cousin links) if you use Linux.

  6. the could develop it at least a little further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could help a little if cmd would start to recognise utf-8 as valid chars instead of being ascii only.

    Full array support would be a usewful addition as well for me.

    1. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It could help a little if cmd would start to recognise utf-8 as valid chars instead of being ascii only.

      cmd has as far as I know never been ASCII only, but was codepage based in earlier versions, and UTF-16 based in newer versions.


      Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
      Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

      C:\Users\arth1>echo Encyclopædia
      Encyclopædia

    2. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Microsoft and Java, stop trying to make UTF-16 happen. It's not going to happen. Ever.

      Hint: The Internet chose UTF-8. Get with 10 years ago.

    3. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Junta · · Score: 1

      Of course UTF-16 (or is it UCS-2 in cmd?) is an annoying encoding of unicode. It's variable length like UTF-8, but not ASCII compatible.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Hint: The Internet chose UTF-8. Get with 10 years ago.

      UTF-8 has some major drawbacks. Like needing special routines to calculate string length, or having multiple encodings that give the same result, making binary comparisons impossible when the generators differ, or not being choppable at random points.
      Going to a fixed width 32-bit character set would have made life a heck of a lot easier, and conversions to and from 8-bit would have been a breeze.

      Unfortunately, the popularity of UTF-8 and UTF-16 makes it unlikely this will happen. Perhaps in another generation we can go to a 64-bit fixed width character set.

    5. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by lgw · · Score: 1

      UCS-2, unless it changed after Win7. I think .NET and thus power shell are UTF-16, but all the win32/64 stuff is UCS-2. Bit of a mess, but in MS's defense, Unicode wasn't there when this mess got started. UCS-2 was an early attempt at a fixed-width character set. It nearly worked.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking, Unicode was there, but at first UCS-2 was 'the' unicode encoding.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    7. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Junta · · Score: 1

      Well, he was saying UTF-8 instead of UTF-16 (well UCS-2...) and UTF-16 has pretty much all the same drawbacks. Of course you said 32-bit but the parent was griping about UCS-2 so there we go.

      While variable-length encoding has drawbacks, the problems are pretty well solved and baked into the fundamental portions of languages. Also, only really a challenge for initial import and final export of data, all processing of the data can be encoded in whatever way works best (e.g. I believe it's common for those languages/libraries to use a 32 bit encoding internally to make things easier. The penalty of wrangling variable length encoding on ingest is negligible (particularly compared with all sorts of other circumstances that are also likely to be in play.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by lgw · · Score: 1

      Fair point - I'd never really thought of UCS as "Unicode", but I guess it's no accident that it's so close to UTF-16.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Junta · · Score: 1

      I still have docs that refer to UCS-2 as 'Unicode encoding' (the options in that doc were ASCII or 'Unicode', which at the time confused me since I immediately thought '*which* unicode' until I realized the document in question hadn't been updated since 1995 and found out that back then there *wasn't* such a thing as alternative encodings of unicode.

      As you can imagine, I learned way more than I ever wanted to know about the history of unicode trying to support those specifications.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    10. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by lgw · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, this exists. I blame you for me learning about it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unicode has combining characters - look up "zero width joiner" or "combining accent". (Something as simple as an é has multiple renditions in Unicode -- ('LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE' (U+00E9) and 'LATIN SMALL LETTER E' (U+0065) followed by 'COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT' (U+0301)' is the same length, a single letter but unless an explicit Unicode canonicalization step has been taken, they will be a different Unicode code-point sequence.)

      Note that this is issues at the Unicode 'layer', it doesn't matter if that's UCS-2, UTF-16, UCS-4, UTF-8, UTF-32. They are different code point sequences for the same 'character'.

      Don't think 32 bit encoding fixes these issues, sadly.

      Heck, there are emjoi characters that are a sequence of many code points. The sequence U+1F469 U+1F3FD U+200D U+1F393 (FOUR Unicode code-points) is a single emjoi, of 'woman student: medium skin tone'. How many characters is that? The literal 'translation' is "woman", "medium skin tone", "zero-width joiner", "graduation cap".

      In fact, that depends on your implementation. It might recognise the sequence as 'woman student medium skin tone' and render that as a single glyph, but it might equally go "I don't understand the zero-width-joiner in there and render this as "woman medium skin tone' 'graduation cap' as two separate glyphs - a perfectly acceptable fallback for this code-point sequence. In 32 bit, that's 16 bytes for a single character. In big-endian UTF-16, that's, DC96D83D DFFDD83C 200D DF93D83C, 14 bytes.

      So... is that a string of length one? length two on fallback? Four code points? Three code points that aren't zero-width? Even in 32 bit, you cannot meaningfully tell the length of a string without specialised decoding. And you cannot arbitrarily 'chop' the string on 32 bit boundaries either - the second code point literally means 'render the previous code point with this skin tone' -- it is meaningless on its own, and the first code point on its own is a different (albeit generic) colour!

      The only thing the encoding affects is 'bytes per code-point', but the number of code-points is irrelevant to virtually everyone - it's not the same as the 'length of the string'

      And many people consider UTF-16 to be wasteful on bytes. After all, ASCII is good enough for a lot of uses..

      Summary: Nope, there's no magical fixed-width Unicode encoding either. Unicode *itself* is variable length.

    12. Re:the could develop it at least a little further by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      UTF-16 also needs special routines to calculate string length, if you get into some other alphabets. There's a lot more than 65,536 code points in Unicode. A strict 16-bit character type (UCS-2) mostly works in Unicode if you stick to certain parts of the world.

      Personally, I don't see the need for a 64-bit character set. 32 bits allows for about four billion code points, while Unicode limits itself to about a million and doesn't seen stretched.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoving edge into everything hu?
    I bet they count the advertisements edge pops up as "starting edge".

  8. This is why Microsoft is going down! by 31415926535897 · · Score: 4, Funny

    C'mon guys, have COURAGE!

    1. Re:This is why Microsoft is going down! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'll hide the headphone jack up your "courage"

  9. Proof that they're spying on you by erapert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

    The only way they could know that is if they're spying on everyone who uses Windows.
    Am I wrong? Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?

    1. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What made you think that they weren't? The ridiculous amount of phoning home data from Windows 10 is what killed the Windows phone.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could just have a Neilsen family like group they monitor but I think that it is pretty clear that is what the analytics in Windows 10 do. If you aren't at least watching usage patterns why bother watching at all.

    3. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course they are. All the time. But only if you're a member of the Customer Experience program. However, all of Windows is completely instrumented to report resource usage, event timing, and other technical data to developers using a part of the operating system called Windows Management Instrumentation and Event Tracing for Windows. WMI/ETW is used to implement Software Quality Management components that report events back home.

      All of this is completely open and documented. All the tools are available to everyone. So, you should really chill.....

    4. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

      The only way they could know that is if they're spying on everyone who uses Windows.

      Am I wrong? Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?

      They know if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!

    5. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by DogDude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The ridiculous amount of phoning home data from Windows 10 is what killed the Windows phone.

      What in the FUCK are you talking about? Apple collects EVERYTHING, but their phones are still #2. Google collects a lot, and theirs are #1.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by erapert · · Score: 1

      What made you think that they weren't?

      No, I already believed past articles that said MS were spying.
      I just find the manner in which MS is condemning themselves here to be interesting.

    7. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such data is collected all the time by any company selling to consumers. It's called consumer research surveys. Also known as annoying phone calls and survey emails.

    8. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by PPH · · Score: 1

      Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?

      Kinsey conducted another survey.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Junta · · Score: 1

      I'd normally be unambiguously agreeing with you, except that MS has been very explicit in their telemetry push. So yes, that statement by itself doesn't mean a company is spying, but there is a broader context where the spying is explicit.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    10. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft CEIP is pretty old. They were always asking for such data. I'm pretty sure some people left it on.

    11. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      They could know it (well, say it with confidence) from a limited number of users who participate in detailed opt-in telemetry. They could collect it from surveys. They could make estimations. They could infer it from indirect but related telemetry you're aware of. It's not like they said, "We know exact numbers." For the sake of the point being made, it's a claim that they can say with confidence.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    12. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Duh.
      When you install Windows 10 they tell you right off the bat that they collect data for telemetry purposes, and this is exactly what they are doing here.
      They also present you with the option to turn it off, which, I think, is for real, at least in this case.

    13. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Neither does Windows.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    14. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      The only way they could know that is if they're spying on everyone who uses Windows.
        Am I wrong? Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?

      They could have conducted a survey and made statistical inferences but why bother when they can just take what they want?

    15. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No one every denied that there's proof. Most people just agree that it's entirely benign and used for statistic gathering.

      Please don't use "spying" in this context, you're diluting the meaning of the word to suit your personal agenda.

    16. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Funny

      No one every denied that there's proof. Most people just agree that it's entirely benign and used for statistic gathering.

      Please don't use "spying" in this context, you're diluting the meaning of the word to suit your personal agenda.

      I completely agree. The word "stalking" is much more apt than "spying".

    17. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      RTFA, they clearly state that they have open stats for just about every app that runs in Windows. And that the statistics indicate CMD is equivalent in importance to Edge.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by erapert · · Score: 2

      What word would you like me to use?

      If your mother were looking through your computer and counting how many and what kinds of files you open, which programs and how often, what kind of hardware etc. ... you would call that "spying" wouldn't you? Would "snooping" be a better word?

      Whatever word you choose, it's an invasion of privacy.
      I'm not the only one who values his privacy so this is not a personal agenda; it's one I share with a great many people.

    19. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way they could know that is if they're spying on everyone who uses Windows.

      Am I wrong? Is there some other, totally consensual and benign way that they could know this?

      There is no need for speculation. Microsoft's documentation states that the mandatory Basic telemetry in Windows 10 includes "App usage data. Includes how an app is used, including how long an app is used, when the app has focus, and when the app is started"
      (source)

    20. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      In the business world, this is known as "telemetry", and it means that Microsoft watches how Windows is used so as to be able to better understand how customers are using their products, and can make decisions such as "should we kill this feature?", which depends entirely on whether a bunch of people are using it? Telemetry tracks system events in an anonymized way, typically by assigning a GUID to each users, and being careful not to unnecessarily slurp up personally sensitive user data. Lots of applications have done this for years, typically describing it as "Help user experience by sending anonymized data? Yes/No"

      What's the practical difference between "telemetry" and "spying"? If you don't trust Microsoft not to adhere to its promise of not collecting and abusing personal data, or don't want anyone tracking anything you do on your computer? Zero.

      To me, the biggest problem is that Microsoft doesn't allow a global opt-out setting for home users (although they do for businesses users). They could have made most people happy by including this option, and at the same time, it wouldn't have hurt them much at all, since most people just leave the settings at their default.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    21. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Windows phones are simply shit.

    22. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      But what would you call it if your mom asked you to provide her with a daily report of those metrics? It's not really spying if it isn't covert, and you don't have to give her the metrics. Maybe "excessive oversight"....

    23. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do not say where data is from. I am willing to bet that it comes from Windows 10 Insider builds, which indeed phones home everything Windows 10 is reported to send and way more. That would actually explain why cmd is so common - it probably is not for the entire Windows 10 install base.

    24. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by erapert · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in the scenario you described.

      But isn't it the case that having your OS send those metrics on your behalf is more like your mother asking your twin brother who shares your bedroom to provide those metrics to her?

    25. Re:Proof that they're spying on you by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If your mother were looking through your computer and counting how many and what kinds of files you open, which programs and how often, what kind of hardware etc. ... you would call that "spying" wouldn't you?

      Yes but if she did it to everyone, generically, with everyone's express knowledge, collecting only a very specific subset of data then it doesn't fit the definition of spying anymore.

      Spying implies that you're watching someone in a targeted way without their knowledge.

      Whatever word you choose, it's an invasion of privacy.

      I can't invade your privacy by asking you to send me stuff and getting you to sign an agreement up front that you will do so. That's equally abusive of the english language as the word "spying" is.

  10. Usage telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if they have this telemetry data that tells them CMD is used often, they should be able to see how often PowerShell is used too. A shell which I find virtually unusable due to lack of compatibility with CMD commands, and the very long and arcane replacements for those same basic commands, and the added difficultly in getting it open with admin rights (which would be the whole point of using PowerShell in the first place).

    1. Re:Usage telemetry by Maritz · · Score: 1

      and the added difficultly in getting it open with admin rights (which would be the whole point of using PowerShell in the first place).

      What is the difficulty exactly? Just right click and hit 'run as administrator'...?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Usage telemetry by Junta · · Score: 1

      I think the Powershell advocates would claim that the power of default carries cmd.

      As you say, the security ambitions do a pretty good job of undermining powershell versus cmd. At the same time, cmd undermines the effectiveness of the security policy anyway, since cmd scripts can do whatever they want including making powershell work, so it's both annoying and pretty much useless on that front.

      In general, I'd put PowerShell as a language in the neighborhood of Javascript, but with a less powerful syntax. It's amazingly annoying, easily can get into an unmaintanable mess, and yet requires you to 'step up' to C# to get to really useful syntax. Sure, they have a slick way of using .Net things which is really nice for that platform (python's ctypes aren't too shabby either, but compared to doing analogous effort with XS in perl, it is pretty nice).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Usage telemetry by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Oh look, another person who decides to whine instead of learn.

      You can dig deeply into the OS very easily with PowerShell. WMI, registry, ACLs, etc are all easily and cleanly exposed.

      The object-oriented nature of the environment is also a godsend for programmers, particularly those with Python/Java/C++/Ruby backgrounds. So much kludging disappears when you can pass a set of objects from one command to the next---because no one should ever forget the terrible text parsing capabilities that are native to Windows.

      And, seriously, if you have trouble opening PowerShell with administrative privileges then you need a new job. On a clean install, Server Manager opens up as soon as you login. It is elevated and has a menu to launch PowerShell, so you can open an elevated session with two clicks. Literally two clicks---Tools, then Windows PowerShell.

      CMD can do a lot, but it is really, really dated as a system management tool. If you're a Windows admin and haven't learned PowerShell, you're just making your job harder in the long run.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Usage telemetry by Junta · · Score: 1

      I think powershell is a really awkward in-the-middle.

      Yes, cmd is terrible. But powershell has issues 'scaling down'. It does a pretty good job, but pretty quickly some little quirk will pop up (like having to precede an invocation with '&' to disambiguate calling a command). Basically it's trying to provide a more capable language (more in the ballpark of python/perl/et al, but there are issues there I'll get to) but trying to be more bash-like. The issue is that no one has really done that, and powershell is no exception. A language focused on supervising external executables just has too tough a time also getting nice features and sanely presenting it all at once. Similarly, the object piping can't be the same between 'native' in-process code and legacy external executables, so you have another concept that presents subtle differences in certain scenarios despite looking the same on the face of it.

      On the flip side, it's uglier than a lot of peer interpreted languages. Every time I'm put in a position to write something in powershell, I want to scream (which is better than cmd, which I just won't do, I'll use powershell or even vbs in such a case).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Usage telemetry by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      You can dig deeply into the OS very easily with PowerShell. WMI, registry, ACLs, etc are all easily and cleanly exposed.

      Which also makes it a dream for malicious software.

      The problem with Powershell is that you learn it and get use to using it and then when you want to deploy something you find that it is removed or disabled via corporate policy because it is dangerous and you are back to cmd and batch scripts.

    6. Re:Usage telemetry by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Powershell used to be an optional addition. My wife was very frustrated by that sometime. She wanted to do something, I don't remember what, and every way she saw to do that in windows was in Powershell, which her users didn't have installed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. Wait a second. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    MS has an execution count for apps in Windows?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Wait a second. by slapout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but it's only a byte, so Windows crashes when it reaches 256...

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  12. Non-lusers will allways need it by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Sure. the typical luser has no idea what a commandline is about and how to use it. But there are a few people that know better and without them everything comes crashing down.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Non-lusers will allways need it by hackel · · Score: 1

      lol, that's pretty funny you would think a Windows user (CMD or otherwise) could ever be a "non-luser!"

    2. Re:Non-lusers will allways need it by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not everybody has a choice what to use professionally. That makes your comment basically just clueless.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows

    Possibilities:
    1. Microsoft is citing false numbers
    2. Microsoft is pulling the info via telemetry
    3. Microsoft is using numbers based on Anti-Virus vendors' stats on malware infections :-)

    1. Re:telemetry by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Possibilities:
      1. Microsoft is citing false numbers
      2. Microsoft is pulling the info via telemetry
      3. Microsoft is using numbers based on Anti-Virus vendors' stats on malware infections :-)

      2b: Microsoft is using cmd to collect the telemetry...

  14. Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

    Thanks telemetry!

  15. CMD?! We don't need no stinkin' CMD! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I haven't used CMD in years at my government IT job. Probably because everyone has PowerShell scripts to run.

    1. Re:CMD?! We don't need no stinkin' CMD! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Installers.

      You haven't directly used CMD.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Need more coffee by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anyone else read that as CmdrTaco has died, or at least as a hoax of his death?

    1. Re:Need more coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it as "McD's" -- Ronald!!! Nooooo!

    2. Re:Need more coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else read that as CmdrTaco has died, or at least as a hoax of his death?

      For a brief moment yes, ephemeral and fleeting, yet with a threat of substance.

    3. Re:Need more coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but it was spelled correctly and not a dup, so I figured I must have misread it

  17. An analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news books will be replaced with movies

    1. Re:An analogy by tsqr · · Score: 1

      In other news books will be replaced with movies

      Bzzzt! This is Slashdot, where analogies must use cars. In other news, cars will be replaced with horses.

  18. Edge..What Edge? by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

    I wonder why they included Edge. I have never seen anyone use it. Is it that popular? I don't think so and the numbers show.

    1. Re:Edge..What Edge? by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Trying to make Edge sound popular, when in reality they're just admitting how infrequently used they both are.

    2. Re:Edge..What Edge? by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Edge..What Edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edge is probably popped open by the OS every so often whether you want it or not. Microsoft counts that as a user click.

    4. Re:Edge..What Edge? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they included Edge. I have never seen anyone use it. Is it that popular? I don't think so and the numbers show.
      Flag as Inappropriate

      You are conflating launching with being popular... as intended.

      Edge gets launched by default when you click on a link in another application. You can set this, but it gets reset intermittently. Edge is also the default PDF reader. Since I only use Windows for work and I read PDFs, I get stuck using Edge for that. Every aspect of Microsoft Office appears hardcoded to launch Edge for even the flimsiest of excuses. This tells me that it will be a very important vector for attacks. (I do security).

      TL;DR, Edge may be getting launched a lot but that does not imply that it is being used a lot.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:Edge..What Edge? by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!

      I wonder why they included Edge. I have never seen anyone use it. Is it that popular? I don't think so and the numbers show.

      Tyranny of the default

    6. Re:Edge..What Edge? by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

      Also I remember in windows 8 (not sure if this is still true in 10) but when you connect to a wifi network it would open up your browser to bing.

    7. Re:Edge..What Edge? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Having dumped Windows some years ago (well done, Vista!) - and work still using WinXP and Win7 - WTF is "Edge" meant to do? (It's MS, so I assume that it does other things, including obviously "phone home" and "crash repeatedly".)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  19. Console is life for Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run daily off-site backups using nothing more than a batch script, task scheduler, and ftp program personally and professionally. I run servers with nothing more than console commands and batch scripts. It would be an absolutely retarded move for Microsoft to remove them. It's practically the core to the business world. Even suggesting such a thing is utter lunacy. Who writes these articles anyway?

  20. Riiiiight by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "The Cmd shell remains an essential part of Windows, and is used daily by millions of businesses, developers, and IT Pro's around the world."

    Yeah, whatever. Seriously, since when has dependence on a spec or tool ever stopped Microsoft from abandoning it? I'm not saying they will, but just because people use it means nothing, absolutely nothing to Microsoft. Or to Apple, for that matter. Headphone jack, anyone?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Riiiiight by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      This explains part of the inertia that prevents IT worldwide from being dragged in to the 21st century.

    2. Re:Riiiiight by avandesande · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by abandoning it? Sure, they might stop new features etc but even turds like asp still work.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Riiiiight by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft makes virtually all of their software revenue from enterprise sales. And killing a legacy tool as widely-used as CMD will piss them off.

      So while I believe Microsoft will not hesitate to give home users the middle finger, I seriously doubt they will kill CMD any time soon.

      Everything new is in PowerShell, but we have a lot of old crud that runs in CMD because no one wants to break it.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Riiiiight by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whatever. Seriously, since when has dependence on a spec or tool ever stopped Microsoft from abandoning it?

      Turn that around. When has Microsoft actively killed a tool that was highly depended upon in enterprise without offering an alternative?

      For the many years they put a phenomenal amount of effort into ensuring backwards compatibility of their products, and the heap of cruft in their bloated codebase is testament to it.

    5. Re:Riiiiight by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Turn that around. When has Microsoft actively killed a tool that was highly depended upon in enterprise without offering an alternative?

      Small Business Server (SBS). It was cannibalising sales of their more expensive low-end server offerings so it had do go despite being just the job for man-and-a-dog companies. Of course some might say that businesses like Joe's Garage isn't "enterprise"...

    6. Re:Riiiiight by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Small Business Server (SBS). It was cannibalising sales of their more expensive low-end server offerings so it had do go despite being just the job for man-and-a-dog companies. Of course some might say that businesses like Joe's Garage isn't "enterprise"...

      To be fair (or actually unfair) to MS that product was utter garbage and better served by either a proper server, or a standard windows box with some proper software. It also didn't sell very well so it wasn't really something that people built a foundation on, and it was easily bested by alternate tools (not just ones from MS that cost a bit more money).

  21. What would be the Powershell equiv. for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PUSHD serverpath
    installer.exe /arguments-galore
    POPD

    I use the above for installing numerous packages since our server admin is incompetent about things like group policy and SMS. I use CMD every single day for everything from software installs to modify system configurations without needing to logoff the current user. Software vendors like IBM have not provided documentation for automating much of AS/400 configuration with Powershell, it's all CMD scripts.

    1. Re:What would be the Powershell equiv. for this? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Both pushd and popd work in PowerShell. They're technically aliases for the real PowerShell cmdlets, but they're configured by default.

      Group Policy deployment has a lot of caveats and restrictions, so I would be understanding of issues there. Things should be a little better with SMS/SCCM though.

      Software vendors like IBM have not provided documentation for automating much of AS/400 configuration with Powershell, it's all CMD scripts.

      And this is why Microsoft is keeping CMD around. Converting complex legacy scripts is almost always a nightmare, so it will be a while before stuff like this changes over.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  22. This is Microsoft we're talking about by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 1

    The company that has made backward compatibility a core business principle jettisoning its highly mature command line interface? Only in the fevered dreams of people who still call them stuff like M$...

  23. Build automation relies on batch files from 1992 by Victor_0x53h · · Score: 1

    1. Much of the automated system that builds and tests Windows itself is a collection of many Cmd scripts that have been created over many years, without which we couldn't build Windows itself!

    I knew it; their official build script starts with MS-DOS and a batch file kicks off layers of self compilation to cloud-heights and Windows 10!

  24. Now buy the t-shirt... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 2
  25. So it is true by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    If a mindless talking head from Microsoft is publicly denying it, then it must be true.

  26. Default what? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    So, doesn't the CMD shell run by default when you execute CMD.EXE? Was someone planning on changing that?

  27. Courage! by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    I'm just glad that Microsoft didn't have the courage to make CMD.EXE work only over a proprietary wireless interface.

  28. What is to gain by dropping it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    It is a pretty insignificant part of Windows in terms of the size of the executable. We're already up to distributing Windows on DVD as it is too large for a CD, dropping Cmd isn't going to magically change that. Even for the customers who never use it in their lives, having it around doesn't hurt them.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:What is to gain by dropping it? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Generally things like this are suggested as a way to reduce support/testing obligation.

      On a less practical front, a lot of software orgs get downright *religious* about their 'new and improved way' and will counter productively screw over their existing offering to try to convert folks.

      MS tends to support stuff forever (IE will *still* run ActiveX stuff if you try hard enough, and that's only as rough as it is because there are dire security motivations to kill it). I don't like their stuff and struggle daily with mistakes, but I can never accurately accuse them of prematurely killing support off of a technology (compared to say Google and Apple, who don't care).

      Unix vendors are about the only game in town with a similarly spotless track record (RedHat arguably, though the 'backwards compatibility' of systemd has had a lot of problems. Also their rewrite of anaconda has been a bit of a mess for relatively little practical benefit, while MS has pretty much stuck with their now current installer since Vista, even though that's a nightmare of an installer).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  29. Commander Taco! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh he's not dead, what a relief.

  30. Windows 10 cmd.exe improvements by trawg · · Score: 2

    I only just recently discovered that Windows 10 has a bunch of improvements to the command line.

    Most notably (at least for me) is the addition of CTRL-backspace as well as well as CTRL-C/V for copy paste. I do a lot of stuff on the command line and the added functionality looks really great.

    It's just a shame I'm too scared to upgrade to Windows 10 because of all the additional telemetry that seems like a real pain in the ass to disable! (I did see this open source tool that looks like it might be worth keeping an eye on: https://modzero.github.io/fix-... ).

    1. Re:Windows 10 cmd.exe improvements by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      Those improvements seemed to knock my nmap install out of the water, once I discovered my shell had been torpedoed/improved. Turning them off solved the issue.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  31. Microsoft's law of perversity... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Following Microsoft's law of perverse behavior (i.e. If it's obvious, useful and well understood, get rid of it), it should be gone in a year, replaced with a version of the syntactic abomination that is powershell that doesn't support command line behavior and arguments.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  32. powershell by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    i raged so hard the other day when my w10 insider build updated and the shift+rightclick changed to "open powershell here" :( the w10 cmd.exe is actually nice.

  33. I use it all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I still write crappy batch files to automate some tasks.

  34. ignore by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

    undoing bad mod - disregard

  35. CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by emil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows NT was designed by Dave Cutler, who chose C as the language for the NT kernel. It was the most significant impact of UNIX on NT.

    Cutler also designed VMS, and likely had deep familiarity with "Digitial Command Language" (DCL) that is a well-built and powerful command processor itself (if you like writing your scripts in FORTRAN).

    Cutler wanted to "get UNIX." Why he allowed a product as shockingly poor as cmd.exe to be written for the NT command shell simply baffles me.

    The cmd.exe shell is described as a serial killer by Microsoft employees.

    I also disagree with elevating BASH. Steven Borne disliked C, and retrofitted ALGOL on it, not only for the parsing syntax that became BASH, but also on top of the C compiler itself.

    Cutler had a chance to see source code for multiple OS implementations and their parsers: RSX11, UNIX sh/csh, DEC DCL, and likely many more. How cmd.exe could have emerged from his group is quite simply beyond me.

    1. Re:CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It took Microsoft a decade and a half to produce a proper shell for Windows NT/Win32. In that time they seemed to try everything else but a shell; VBscript/Jscript, WMI objects, registry commands, but at every iteration they were told "Look at the Bourne shells, for chrissakes, that's what we want!" The deep fear and hatred of all things *nix at Microsoft inevitably lead them to just implement half-ass solutions. Even Powershell is an overly verbose and frankly rather slow shell, but at least it allows for automation of most aspects of the Windows server.

      What it really boils down to me is that Microsoft never really understood, nor did they ever really want to understand how sysadmins used and manipulated servers. Windows carried on the long-standing DOS tradition of pushing in their own direction regardless of what made sense or what the rest of the industry was doing; a willful exercise in refusing to accept long-standing principles of system administration. Everything about Windows administration always made me feel like I was using some idiot's half-ass attempt at remaking Unix, so that you could go to a point, but never beyond that. For years there was a whole industry built on filling in the holes in COMMAND.COM/CMD.EXE.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's because Windows just isn't a command-line culture at heart like *nix. I think instead it's more of a GUI/Application culture, which makes sense, if you think about it, as the focus was on visual applications from the start. As such, a typical Windows developer thinks about embedded scripts inside an application to automate things, and using OLE to inter-operate with other programs or data. *nix developers pass data (often text) from small, focused utility to small focused utility, typically with Bash or another shell as the glue, because it's legacy came from text-only environments with a powerful shell. It's just two different ways of thinking about solving problems, but server administrative problems and application solutions are not necessarily equivalent, as you indicated.

      I'd also posit that this is one reason why *nix tends to do well in server spaces, since working remotely is comfortable even through a simple terminal, and why Windows does well on the desktop, since most users are more comfortable with graphical interfaces than a command-line. That's not the only reason, of course, but I think it contributes.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The problem is that GUIs don't tend to lend themselves to automation tasks with quite the same flexibility. I remember back in the 1990s using one of those "GUI batch script" programs that would automate mouse pointer, mouse clicks and the like. It did work for automation tasks, but it was just bloody awful to develop and debug these "scripts", the source of which looked more like some insane man's version of Logo programs. These did improve a bit over time, but they demonstrated where GUIs become obstacles to rather than facilitators of productivity. Of course, in the late 1990s and early 2000s we had vbscript and jscript coupled with WMI, filesystem and registry objects, and this did fill a lot of the gaps, but of course, were only available for certain Windows system and software, not to mention that the various objects didn't expose all properties and methods, so once again you were forced into unseemly hacks.

      What Microsoft refused to acknowledge, though they must have known it as far back as NT 3.5, was that a good scripting language and a set of userland tools that can manipulate even the more esoteric aspects of the operating system are critical to the overall usefulness of a server OS. You're right that Microsoft and its users tended towards believing the GUI gospel, even as they were going into regedit to hack values that weren't supported by the GUI tools. They just refused to work within the KISS philosophy, and thus the GUI-based system tended to become far more complex and error prone than the CLI-based *nix systems (and, using GUI-based *nix tools, these tools too suffer the same problem).

      One of the things that frightens me the most about *nix's evolution, whether that be systemd's binary logging or the greater use of XML for configuration, is that it is starting to move into a more complex direction itself, relying ever more heavily on various libraries as interpreters and intermediaries between sysadmins and the configuration and control apparatuses of a *nix system. This too violates KISS, and creates unnecessary complexity, for no other purpose that I can see than someone wants to be hip and modern.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft's position for forever was that if you want to do something, it's in the API. In fact Powershell is just the fruition of that- when you're in the PS1 environment, you are inside .NET. It's all there for the taking.

    5. Re:CMD should never have existed in the 1st place. by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Windows NT was written in C specifically so it could be portable. MS was so determined that NT be portable that it was originally developed on non-x86 hardware (i860) specifically so they wouldn't accidentally build in any x86-isms.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
  36. Do us afavor, MS! by aglider · · Score: 1

    Port bash to windows and ditch that cmd.exe (aka command.com).
    You are already missing an opportunity with 4dos since 1989...

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Do us afavor, MS! by hackel · · Score: 1

      Uh...that's exactly what they did. Or are you joking? https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

  37. Old Mac OS and hyperbole by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    There was a period of a decade or two where you could do everything a Macintosh has to offer without any command line tools. So it's more than just a theory that most people don't need a command line interface. Maybe Windows needs a better GUI before it drops Cmd, but it's not even doing that, it's switching to a slightly different command line interface, PowerShell. It's hard to take hyperbolic statements like "Cmd is an absolutely vital feature" very seriously when other platforms operate with different command line interfaces or no command line interface at all.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  38. I welcome WIndows 10 to the 20th century by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    CTRL-Backspace is like Ctrl-W on unix terminals (and teletypes) some 30-40 years ago.

    $ stty -a
    speed 38400 baud; rows 54; columns 157; line = 0;
    intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^?; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = ; eol2 = ; swtch = ; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z; rprnt = ^R;
    werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; flush = ^O; min = 1; time = 0;

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I welcome WIndows 10 to the 20th century by trawg · · Score: 1

      Yeh I know! That's why I want it so bad; every time I'm on a Linux box I can delete the last word and it drives me mental not being able to do it in Windows.

  39. lol by hackel · · Score: 1

    I almost feel sorry for Microsoft developers, having to keep maintaining this garbage piece of software from the Windows NT days designed to emulate MS-DOS. Almost. I'm so glad I choose not to work in that awful ecosystem.

  40. CE / WMI / ETC / other telemetry by Hobart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Parent poster summarizes things well.

    Debian's PopCon is similar ( http://www.linuxjournal.com/co... )

    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  41. Start Menu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People were still using the start menu and they still took that away in windows 8.

    1. Re:Start Menu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if all of the flak from removing the Start Menu in Windows 8 came as a surprise to Microsoft and it is what led to forced telemetry in Windows 10. I speculate that the only users with Windows 8's optional telemetry kept turned on were also the same sorts who lets everything install an icon onto the desktop and would be less likely to use the start menu.

  42. Reasons Why by darkain · · Score: 1

    The top reasons why I personally still use the cmd shell in windows

    1) ipconfig (verify if DHCP pulled an address, and if so, is it correct with proper default route and DNS servers)
    2) ping 4.2.2.2 (verify connectivity to a known public server that will always respond to PING requests, that doesn't need to resolve a DNS name)

    Once basic network connectivity issues are address though, in this day in age, most other things have decent 3rd party tools to diagnose and fix issues. I personally keep a shitton of said tools in a folder on my cell phone, so all I need to do is plug in the USB cable and BAM, most everything I need will be at my fingertips.

    1. Re:Reasons Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I personally keep a shitton of said tools in a folder on my cell phone, so all I need to do is plug in the USB cable and BAM, most everything I need will be at my fingertips."

      So not an iPhone then :)

    2. Re:Reasons Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can manage to do it with special iPhone management software for Windows that allows to read the data from USB. This software is very hard to find though, it was taken down from all the internets. So he keeps it on the iPhone with all the other tools.

  43. It takes courage by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    More courage than taking away the head phone jack.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  44. ftp, nslookup by emil · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with you that Microsoft hated "all things UNIX." If you take the ftp.exe and nslookup.exe files from C:\Windows\System32 and run UNIX strings on them, you will see:

    $ strings ftp.exe | grep Cali
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    $ strings nslookup.exe | grep Cali
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.

    Microsoft has certainly swallowed and ingested BSD UNIX code. It would not surprise me if the FTP source code contains fragments from Bill Joy himself.

    1. Re:ftp, nslookup by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, they grabbed some chunks of BSD to build Winsock, but that was largely expediency. It's a bloody pity they hadn't just done what Apple did, and grab the whole bloody BSD userland.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  45. Why not just fully re-implement it as aliases by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    So why not both get rid of it (as a separate executable) and keep it at the same time by implementing aliases against the equivalent powershell syntax. I don't see why they shouldn't just have powershell recognize a cmd-script or statement for what it is and run the appropriate cmdlet with sensible pre-set defaults that emulate the cmd behavior. Powershell already has aliases, so this wouldn't be very hard to fully implement. It is sort of similar to the way that GNU BASH can be run in posix mode when invoked as 'sh' and recognize a slightly different syntax from the usual gnu-extended version. IIRC, most gnu utilities can be invoked in posix mode and take different argument syntax than what it normally expects in gnu-mode.

  46. Big brother watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this shows in the least is that Microsoft knows intimately every program that is run on windows, and how frequently its used. So now you know why windows 10 phones home thousands of times a day. Wouldn't surprise me if they're keystroke logging too.

  47. Similar number of launches as Internet Explorer by jira · · Score: 1

    "Similar number of daily launches as Edge and Internet Explorer." Well, if that is so, then cmd really is dying...

  48. Just without admin rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad that running cmd as an administrator will give you "command requires escalation" errors from built-in processes like netstat.

    The shortcut to avoid is (Win+X, a), but those of us who are used to running Win+R cmd still have to deal with this annoyance each and every time.

  49. Here are my opinions, shared by many others. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0

    Mod parent to +10. !!

    Microsoft:

    We are the most socially limited and socially backward technology company. Our CEO was Monkey Boy!. Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made.

    When a woman doesn't like men, but just wants someone to support her in having too many babies, she marries a Microsoft man. He'd never guess the truth.

    But our lack of ability in life didn't stop us from making a wacky new computer language!

    PowerShell is badly designed and badly documented. But that's okay, because people in the U.S. government don't have technical knowledge and the help-the-rich-get-richer U.S. government no longer cares about regulating virtual monopolies.

  50. command.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill it already, and bring back command.com

  51. Powershell is flawed in many ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like powershell but it has some serious flaws that prevent it from being my shell of choice. First of all the way it handles parameters makes it a complete PITA use utilities like bcdedit. It's tab completion functionality and help system are so slow that aren't worth using. Because of that I only ever use powershell as a scripting environment.

  52. Learn PS ffs and let cmd die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Powershell has been pushing cmd aside for years on servers, now it is built in to desktops if you did not already know.
    cmdlets are way better imo.

    PS also supports many (noteably not all) cmd commands as well. And what you can't do in command, ps does anyways in many other ways.

  53. hardcoded password in scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can only imagine how many batch files and cmd scripts have 'billgates' hardcoded into them as the password.

  54. Yet people are afraid to use Linux? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    "2. Cmd is one of the most frequently run executables on Windows with a similar number of daily launches as File Explorer, Edge and Internet Explorer!"

    Hrm, yet using the command line is an argument against using Linux... which is even more curious considering as an end user there is no real reason to use the command line on Linux these days. Only reason I ever do now on desktops/laptops is initial setup where it's just quicker for me to run a script that apt-gets everything I want vs clicking on it in Synaptic.

  55. apostrophe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Cmd shell remains an essential part of Windows, and is used daily by millions of businesses, developers, and IT Pro's around the world."

    Is it just me or are there a few apostrophes missing for the other 5 plurals here?

  56. Seems! Very! Excitable! About! An! Executable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this guy looking for a job at Yahoo!?

    Because... that's a lot of exclamation marks.

  57. whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Much of the automated system that builds and tests Windows itself is a collection of many Cmd scripts that have been created over many years, without which we couldn't build Windows itself!

    This is without a doubt the best reason to dump it

  58. bad grammar? by enrique556 · · Score: 1

    Pro's what?
    Actually I'm not 100% on this - is this valid because of "Pros" being a contraction of "Professionals"? It hurts my eyes to look at in any case.