Arlen,

Holy ****, Rudy Wieser.
o I'm shaking my head in serious amazement.
....
Dammit' Rudy. You actually _can_ add value!
o Hooray! I mean this.

Cut it kid. We both know that you acting all surprised is fake (I've posted
pretty-much the same before, IIRC even about the same subject), and the only
reason you're currently sucking up to me is because you want me to do
something for you.

The one thing you missed, interestingly, is that the multiple line
command fails to work for some syntactical reason, unknown
to be at the moment:

Thats really you, isn't it ? You've build a tutorial in which the single
most important item *does not actually work* (read: you either didn't use it
yourself or forgot(?) to test it before writing the "tutorial"), and than
trying to blame someone else for not double-checking it.

Than again, you already did the same with your "change an executables icon"
tutorial ...

And no, thats not "interrestingly". You've made that part very specific to
your own situation (veracrypt - which I do not have) which ofcourse means I
/couldn't/ test it. And yes, I did think of doing it.

Q: What syntax change is needed for that multi-line comspec cmd to work?
....
Do you, or anyone else, know what's syntactically wrong in the query
above?

And there we are, the reason of your sucking-up.


4. But it doesn't seem to work in multi-command shortcut comspec syntax:

Kiddo, after having written 10.137 tutorials (or thereabout) and you *still*
do not seem to realize that "it doesn't seem to work" is an empty, wortless
statement ? Really ?

But, here goes the spoon-feeding again.:

#1: what is it supposed to do ?

#2: what does it do instead ?

Although I can make a fair /guess/ to what that "veracrypt" is supposed to
be doing, I would still be guessing - and that with the person who actually
uses it and knows for sure is talking to me.

Also, I've met a fair number of people who simply expected something quite
different than what could possibly be happening as a result of what they
where doing. Like those numbsculls who expect a "pull here" door to open
when they push against it, and get all confused when the door stays shut.

Thats two reasons why you should always include #1

As for #2 ? You did not include that *at all*, robbing us of the
possibility to zero-in on the problem. You know, like how a car mechanic
can just listen to the sounds a (stationary running) car makes and from it
determine whats likely to be wrong with it.

Thats the reason you should *ALWAYS* include /how/ something doesn't work.


But, lets go on with the show - bughunting :

1. This works from the Windows command line to kill all the users' tasks:

In points 1. thru 3. you have made sure that the "taskkill" command works
when used on its own. Good. Thats at least something.

In point 4. you have determined that it /doesn't/ seem to work in
combination with *two, at the same time present* sub-commands.

Congrats. You jumped from "lets check /one/ command" to "lets check three
of them together!".

Where is your checking with just the first and the last, and the second and
last ? Do you spot any differences ? And how did you determine those
differences ?

Also, what happens when you precede that "taskkill" command with something
else (to make sure its actually the syntax that is to blame) ? What can
you conclude from that ?

And there is something else : If its a syntax problem than normally you get
an error message about it somewhere. I have not seen you mention getting
any... What does that tell you ?

In short, there is a /lot/ you could have done yourself.

Q: What syntax change is needed for that multi-line comspec cmd to work?
....
Do you, or anyone else, know what's syntactically wrong in the query
above?

There is nothing wrong with that syntax. Its *your expectation* that is
to blame here.

Yes, I think I've got a pretty-good idea to what "goes wrong" (it doesn't,
it does /exactly/ what you told it to do) and how to "fix" it. (though I
have to be carefull there, as I do not run W10).

And no, I'm not going to present it to you on a silver platter. You lost
that privilege long ago. Lets first see you put some effort into
clarifying that "does not work" blurb (what is it supposed to do and what
does it do instead) as well as a bit more tests and conclusions thereof.

.... Or you can wait for someone else to tell you. :-p

Strike that "tell". Replace with "fix it for". I do not think you actually
care about how something works, as long as it does. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Did you know that most of the current OSes multi-task ?