Talk:CONFIG.SYS

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

CONFIG.SYS directives

In standard DOS, COMMENT and REM do the same thing, there is no redefining of the character for inline comments. Also I really think that the non-standard DOS directives should be put in a separate section from the standard DOS (MS-DOS and PC DOS) directives. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even myself was fooled to believe that COMMENT would be the same as REM for a long while ;-) (probably caused by misleading documentation on Microsoft's side). However, it isn't (and this holds true for at least MS-DOS 6.00 to 6.22, but probably also for older (since 4.0) and newer versions, I just don't know for sure right now - I also assume it is the same for PC DOS, but as I mentioned before there /are/ some very subtle differences even between "same" versions of MS-DOS and PC DOS and if you are not aware of this COMMENT thing in PC DOS, this might be one of these differences, I don't know - but I may look it up). Try:

DEVICE = C:\SYS\MYDRIVER.SYS ; inline comments

COMMENT = //

DEVICE = C:\SYS\MYDRIVER.SYS // inline comments

Since not all characters are accepted, COMMENT may even work as alias to REM in many cases, so that many people never saw a difference. This is also documented in at least two books (DOS Internals by Geoff Chappell and Dissecting DOS by Mike Podanoffsky, whereas in my own publications I erroneously still wrote it would be the same as REM). It is not only supported by MS-DOS (presumably PC DOS as well), but also by RxDOS.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the COMMENT thing. With DOS 5 the differences between MS-DOS and PC DOS were minimal. Note Microsoft and IBM still did code sharing for DOS 6 so INTERLNK, INTERSVR and POWER from PC DOS 5.02 appear in MS-DOS 6 while CHOICE, DEFRAG, DELTREE, MOVE, MSCDEX, SMARTDRV.EXE and the CONFIG.SYS menu stuff appear in PC DOS 6.1.

Prior to DOS 5 there were more differences between the two. There is a README.TXT from the DOS 3.2 OAK floating around the web listing the differences.

--(unsigned) 2012-07-12T17:29:34‎ Asmpgmr

Regarding SWITCHAR and AVAILDEV. As far as I remember (without looking this up again), IBM was expressively against them, and that's why they were removed again later on. Out of the back of my head, I'm not sure if these directives were only supported by MS-DOS 2.x, not by PC DOS 2.x. If they were supported by PC DOS as well, we could change the "MS-DOS 2.0-2.1 to DOS 2.0-2.1). Do you happen to know for sure? (I can look this up in my archive, but it will take some time.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AVAILDEV and SWITCHAR are in MS-DOS 2.0 to 2.11 and are in PC DOS 2.x but not in either version of DOS 3.

--(unsigned) 2012-07-12T17:29:34‎ Asmpgmr

Example?

A (small) example would help to see the file format — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied one from Configuration file, but we need a better example with a suitable source — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"CONFIG.331" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CONFIG.331 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22 § CONFIG.331 until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Directives section is too long

IMO As this is about CONFIG.SYS, a list of directives should focus on that; not every Tom, Dick and Harry variation of the file. As is, it's way to long and boring. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DEVICE= is not a directive

A line like DEVICE=... is not a directive! A directive sets a value. A DEVICE= line specifies a file to load. This is generally _not_ called a directive even though it is a name-value pair ... formatted just like a directive. Therefore, it should not be listed under a section titled directives. I think there are other names that are file-load specifications like DEVICEHIGH (which also should not be listed as a directive). Stevebroshar (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned redirects to CONFIG.SYS listed at Redirects for discussion

Unmentioned redirects to CONFIG.SYS have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meet the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 6 § Unmentioned redirects to CONFIG.SYS until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]