Talk:.exe

Comments

article is sure outdated :)

You've forgot of MS.Net/DotGNU/Mono :)

Also You've forgot of OpenVMS :)

.NET executables uses PE format.

—Claunia 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Vista 64-bit sure can't run 16-bit EXE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.221.73 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't you use hex editors to change .exe files? Which .exe files are good/bad?

Pronunciation

I always thought it was pronounced ex-ee (as in 'exe'cutable). Often heard it pronounced ee -- ex -ee and other ways. Worth pointing out the acronym comes from 'executable' and is pronounced the same way as the beginning of that word? camelworks^(Mclowes) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

People pronounce it however they want. "Exe" isn't just shorthand for "executable", it is actually the three letters that people see when they are looking at their files. Thus "E-X-E", the literal reading, is just as valid and probably more common than "ex-e", which is just an incomplete word and requires that the person reading have knowledge of the fact that it is shorthand for another word. For the same reason, .BIN is usually pronounced "bin" rather than "byne" as in "binary". Ham Pastrami 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between .com and .exe

The only difference .com files and .exe files is that when you the current folder contains two files w/ the names filename.com and filename.exe and you enter filename in the command prompt, always the filename.com is executed. You can try it yourself: rename any .exe file into .com. It will still be executeable. This is even true for win32 applications. --Qaywsxedc 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

File formats and extensions shouldn't be confused. Nothing prevents you from renaming a Microsoft Word document to ".txt", for example; however, the file still isn't a plain-text file. There are multiple executable file formats for DOS and Windows; the simplest is the COM file format, and there are also several ".exe file" formats - the EXE page points to the pages for some of them. Renaming a ".exe" file to ".com" doesn't turn the file into a COM file; the file is still in whatever ".exe" format it was in.

Windows tends to use extensions as an indication of the file type; this means that it attempts to run files with the suffixes ".com" and ".exe". The various ".exe" formats all have magic numbers that indicate what type of ".exe" file it is, while a COM file has no magic number. The code in Windows that runs executable files determines what type of file it is by looking for a magic number; if you try to run a ".exe" file renamed to ".com", Windows will still recognize it as a ".exe" file rather than a COM file. Guy Harris 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the extension EXE can be substituted by the DOS COM extension. Yes, Windows will still run the program normally. As mentioned, an exact example would be: Save a copy of MSPAINT.EXE and then rename the copy, not the original, to MSPAINT.COM. You will note the paintbrush icon will no longer show as the program icon, rather the generic DOS icon will appear, however the program as named MSPAINT.COM will run normally. While this may appear a bit esoteric, bear in mind the data as stored can be manipulated to a greater degree once the Windows OS is "tricked". For instance, this could enable a script file, such as a BAT or VBS script, to contain embedded EXE code in hex form. 03:59 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.156.150 (talk)

Haven't you observed this?

but there are a few dual-mode programs (MZ-NE or MZ-PE) (such as regedit) have a usable DOS section[citation needed].

Regedit.exe in win95 did in fact have a usable dos section and was used in system repair to fix a broken registry sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.117.131.10 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So did Windows 98's ScanDisk and setup program (on the CD). Actually the setup program had DOS, 16-bit Windows, and Win32 sections. 130.101.160.219 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

but what is it?

I may have missed it but calling an exe file an executble file didn't help me. Is it the file that you download or is it the file that you get when you open that file, like from a shortcut? Sorry if this sounds stupid, but I'm not up on all this.Longinus876 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Both, in most cases. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitions may vary, but to me an executable file in a strict sense is a binary file containing previously assembled or compiled machine code for a specific target processor and operating system. It has to be loaded and relocated in a type-specific way into the computer's memory and then its entry point is jumped to by the computer's processor for direct execution of the code on the processor. Such files can be distributed over the net, but this is very bad practise and should be avoided. Typically, files distributed over the net are archives, which need to be uncompressed in order to extract the executable files inside. These archive files are sometimes executables as well (self-extractors), but typically these are data files in a type-specific format, which need to be interpreted by an application running on the operating system. This application is an executable, the archive is not, although it may contain another executable as pay-load, which can be executed once extracted. Other file types in the net include for example HTML files. These are no executable files as well, but text files (that is, data files) in a specific format, which can be interpreted by an application (that is, an executable) named web browser. In many cases, the operating system is set up to know the executables which are able to interpret certain data files, and they will automatically start the corresponding application when you click on a data file, giving users the impression as if the data file would be executable as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal by 68.173.113.106

Hi all,

I think that this article and APP (file format) should be merged into a single article, EXE and APP. There is a discussion at the WikiProject Computing talk page.

Thanks,

The Doctahedron.EXE, 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

NOT! Exe is for applications (tablets and computers) while App is for apps (tablets and mobile phones) PiotrGrochowski000 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DCS in Windows 10

Does anyone know what kind of type those .exe-files in Windows 10 are which start with "DCS" instead of "MZ"? There are some of them in the winsxs-Subdirectory, like rpcinfo.exe or nfsclnt.exe or ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.161.114 (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

These files seem to be backwards, because they end with ZM, instead of starting with MZ. Indeed more investigation needed. Ben221199 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

After some searching it has something to do with Microsoft Delta Compression API: https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/19734/dll-starting-with-dcd. It seems that the name has something to do with the fact that it was used to apply patches, hence the specification name MS-PATCH (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/exchange_server_protocols/ms-patch). Because patches are mostly differences (deltas) between the current version and the newer version and this specification describes some compression, they likely came up with the name Delta Compression, so the abbreviation would be DC, also seen in the magic. According to the StackExchange post, the S after DC would be some type identifier. Ben221199 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

History of .EXE Format

Can't find online anything about the origins of the File Extension: maybe it would be nice to see where, when and by whom was the .EXE created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:64FF:A200:7C99:D3C7:2C4:227C (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Exe

Meaning 2600:1702:480:2EC0:10F4:5DD6:1689:94C3 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the title of article (redundant dot)

Hi, like other file formats (apk, PDF, MP4, etc.), the title of article could be "EXE (file format)", and the dot in the title of this article is redundant. Please discuss. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename page and merge it with the "DOS MZ executable" page?

Both COM (Command) and EXE (Executable), and actually BAT (Batch) too, appear in the first MS-DOS: https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/master/v1.25/source/COMMAND.ASM#L884. Batch has his own page: Batch file; COM has one too: COM file. However, EXE has two pages: .exe and DOS MZ executable. It seems to me that it is better to merge those two pages together, because EXE files are always MZ files and in case of newer operating systems this MZ header will always be used to find the location of the PE header (or NE, LE, LX, etc.) using e_lfanew. The new page will describe the MZ header in the first place and can have some section called Extension, Extended EXE or something else to explain what has been added in Windows 1.0 and OS/2. I suggest the page name Microsoft Executable (file), because the file is a executable developed by Mark Zbikowski at Microsoft for MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2, which are all Microsoft products. I suggest the name Microsoft Command (file) and Microsoft Batch (file) for the other two file types, but that should actually belong to their Talk-pages. Ben221199 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

.exe creepypasta?

Should we include some info about .exe creepy pastas in case someone is researching them? I was, and went here, but there wasn’t anything. Edit: Or is Wikipedia not the correct place for that? 98.97.34.38 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The use of DOS stubs in _all_ later formats?

Hi @Stevebroshar, I saw that you reverted my edit that rephrased a statement in order to make it verifiable with current sources. I do appreciate the informative edit description, and I wanted to follow up:

• The original phrasing was profound, but that in itself is not grounds to keep it in the article without a reliable source to support it. I can conjure up a number of profound but unverifiable statements about .exe that we can both agree shouldn't be added to the article.
• The WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability for the stronger, more general statement is on whoever wants to keep this statement in the article.
• This citation needed tag has been around for almost 4 years, so I assumed people had plenty of chances to find a reference for this statement if they could. I think it's probably time to weaken the statement to a form that is supported by reliable sources.

Let me know what you think. eyal (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad we're discussing since I'm sure your change is well intentioned even though I think it is not a good change. I added a lengthy comment and wanted to add more but the comment entry is only a single line. My reply here is lengthy since this touches on a much larger issue than what formats have MZ in them. Not trying to yell or anything like that.

Didn't intend to imply that the profoundness of the original is reason that is should be kept as-is.

My point is that you changed the meaning dramatically; from a definitive statement to something so weak that it adds little value. To say that something might be the case means almost nothing. I might win the lottery. I might wake up tomorrow. Not very interesting, right? But if I win the lottery every time I play, then I can plan my finances accordingly.

I think that changing the meaning requires knowledge of the facts. By the book, that would mean you found a source that backs what you changed it to or maybe contradicts the original statement. But you didn't identify a source in your comment or in the content. You said that it's citable with existing references, right? I assume you didn't actually find a source that backs the statement -- either the original or updated. My assumption of course may be wrong. Did you find a source for the updated statement?

... what follows is based on my assumption that you didn't.

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" That means you are responsible to ensure the verifiability that MZ might be in later formats; not "whoever wants to keep this statement in the article". Thing is, regardless of verifiability, the updated statement is on its face correct, and therefore doesn't really need to be sourced, right? Even if later formats don't have MZ, the statement is not wrong. The updated statement follows the citation rules via a loophole.

I think that, in general, we should not simply water-down a statement so that it's not wrong. Being not wrong is far from being useful, valuable. Useful information is bold and strong, not watered down.

TBO I've seen other examples of changes that water-down content on wikipedia; I guess to make it not wrong. But, that diminishes the usefulness of wikipedia. If all it contains is maybe this and maybe that, what value is it?

If one follows rules too closely, without considering other aspects, the result is often not good. In this case, your change follows the rules, but the result is loss of information. There's probably no wikipedia rule about watering down. But, writing is like that. There are rules and then there are other aspects to consider. I'm not a great writer, but I do know a few things about writing ... and rule following.

"This citation needed tag has been around for almost 4 years, so I assumed people had plenty of chances to find a reference for this statement if they could. I think it's probably time to weaken the statement to a form that is supported by reliable sources." Thanks for sharing that. Well intentioned. In general, there is many, many, many citation issues in wikipedia, right? I don't know how to fix that. But I do think (very strongly) that watering down the info so that it follows the rules is not the right approach.

We could write a bot that removes all citation needed markers by adding 'maybe' into the text. Is that a good thing to do? I think not.

Is 4 years long enough for someone to fix the citation needed issue? Not sure time has much bearing.

I'll bet what happened is that someone reviewed this article 4 years and added the citation needed marking -- with good intensions. But, the author(s) of the article are long gone. Either dead or not interested in wikipedia anymore. It's an old and rather obscure tech so I'm not surprised no one has tried to add a citation. Frankly, I'm fine with removing the marking from the original statement. As you say, doesn't seem likely someone will fix it properly after all this time. And I think it better to assume something is correct than to water it down to make it useless. I also see value in leaving the citation needed marking for the rest of time :)

- Stevebroshar (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that your response is properly addressing the concerns that I listed above. The statement that a DOS stub appears in all later formats isn't supported by any RS that we have, and this has been the case for 4 years now. My understanding is that you essentially agree with this assertion, but still think that we should keep the unsourced statement in the article anyway. This approach is contrary to wikipedia policy guidelines (WP:VER).

"That means you are responsible to ensure the verifiability that MZ might be in later formats"

The source that I used to make the "may" statement is which says that the PE format (which came after DOS MZ executable) has a DOS stub.

"In this case, your change follows the rules, but the result is loss of information."

Yes, this loss of information is intentional. If a statement has no demonstrable basis in reality then it shouldn't be included in the article.

"I think it better to assume something is correct than to water it down to make it useless"

From WP:VER: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

Let me know what you think. eyal (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, since there's no response I'll go ahead and re-apply this change for now. eyal (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I got busy. ... I'm not going to a make big deal about it. I do think it's an interesting thing to consider. As is common, the _rules_ though well intentioned can have less than desirable results. In this case I think we may be losing valuable information since it's not cited. Another thing I see often is information included in an article that is off topic but well-cited. So although the _rules_ say it's OK, I want to remove it since it's off topic. What I'm getting at is that sometimes there are things more important than the stated rules ... here in wikipedia, in writing, in life. Stevebroshar (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References