I cant stand REM in batch files because it easier to type :: and it's a whole lot easier to read. To skip a line (as between paragraphs or commands or sections) I remember reading somewhere long ago that the OS processes lines faster if you use :: or REM rather than just a totally blank line. Is this true? If so, why?

like you will see any difference .. maybe if you got 2000 rem statements in a single batchfile ... I guess we are talinkg bout thousands of a second here

I tested it, and it's true! I had never thought about it. This was the script I used to test it: @echo off if "%1"=="GoTo:" %1%2 echo.EXIT|%comspec%/k prompt $T$_|FIND ":" for %%? in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 GoTo: #2 %%? echo.EXIT|%comspec%/k prompt $T$_|FIND ":" goto eof :#2 for %%? in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 GoTo: #3 %3%%? goto eof :#3 for %%? in (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) do call %0 GoTo: #4 %3%%? goto eof :#4 :eof Put between ':#4' and ':eof' 10 blank lines, run the script, than change those blank lines for 10 lines with "::" and run it again. The second run will be faster! (the script outputs the runtime) With 10 lines being tested, we actually have the prefix (:: or blank line) being read 10000 times in this script. These were the results, dividing the total runtime difference by the times the prefix was read: [::] X [blank line] - 0.000031 s [::] X [REM] - 0.000136 s As you can see, not a big difference here, but the speed IS different: speed: '::' > BLANK LINE > 'REM' -- Secret_Doom - Leonardo Pignataro -- secret_doom@hotmail.com www.batch.hpg.com.br

BTW, I've tested that under Windows 98 second edition, and my computer is: PROCESSOR:PIII-700Mhz RAM:128MB I have no idea why using "::" is faster than just a blank line. -- Secret_Doom - Leonardo Pignataro -- secret_doom@hotmail.com www.batch.hpg.com.br

The reason why is that DOS still reads lines with REM in them, but :: is a "double label", which in DOS is invalid, and thus ignored.

That what chip said seems to be true. Look these two lines: REM comment > string :: comment > string The first line creates the zero-byte file named 'string', because of the ">" redirection. However, the second line doesn't do that. But there's still something in my mind: the example is valid from inside a batch file and also at the command prompt. However, look the following example: :: comment | From the command prompt, such line returns "Bad sintax", but it doesn't from inside a batch file. Why? Maybe DOS reads the double label and then ignore everything until the next line break or the next pipe. -- Secret_Doom - Leonardo Pignataro -- secret_doom@hotmail.com www.batch.hpg.com.br