Path:
eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!a
u2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.astraweb.c
om!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: [OT] Yet another Microsoft documentation inconsistency
Newsgroups:
alt.msdos.batch.nt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsx
p.help_and_support
References: 
From: foxidrive 
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:25 +1000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Message-ID: 
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ae41f01f.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace:
DXC=AX{at}]39B=5CbJRZZkg^aP1jL?0kYOcDh{at}jZD3?OaX:SkmNUD]k];EK]nl9B_G1R=S=gTe7ZV7ei[
nh^3bOi5 These two TechNet pages describes the VERIFY command of CMD.EXE, but one of
> them lies.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491029.aspx>

This one is right.  Back in MSDOS days we knew that verify didn't actually 
test that the data was written correctly either.  In Batpower forum on 
Fidonet there was discussion of batch files and command.com galore.

A MUF V1.7 file exists from Mr Bat Lang in that forum and explaining the 
Microsoft Undocumented Features.

It was great fun then too.


> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754978.aspx>



--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1