If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- need a replacement
Hello All,
I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? Regards, Rudy Wieser |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- need a replacement
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:10:04 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello All, I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? Regards, Rudy Wieser Mine works fine. XP SP3, MORE.COM version 5.1.2600.5512. Some console programs output text to the error handle in addition to the output handle. MORE.COM only captures the output handle. One example of this program is ffmpeg. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- need a replacement
JJ,
Mine works fine. XP SP3, MORE.COM version 5.1.2600.5512. Same version here. And it bugs repeatedly. Some console programs output text to the error handle in addition to the output handle. In that case I should be seeing a mixed-up, rather unreadable combination of both, which has not happened. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: JJ schreef in berichtnieuws ... On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:10:04 +0100, R.Wieser wrote: Hello All, I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? Regards, Rudy Wieser Mine works fine. XP SP3, MORE.COM version 5.1.2600.5512. Some console programs output text to the error handle in addition to the output handle. MORE.COM only captures the output handle. One example of this program is ffmpeg. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- need a replacement
R.Wieser wrote on 2016/01/14:
I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? In what path (folder) is the more.com that you call? If you are using the PATH environment variable to specify executable paths, perhaps you are using a more.com other than what came with Windows. XP, and later, also use the registry to specify appPaths. Used regedit to look at: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\App Paths Each subkey is the name of the executable and a data value tells where to find the executable. more.com should be under %windir%\System32 and that should already be specified in the PATH environment variable, so there should not be a registry AppPath for it; however, the rules for executable search is to use the current folder first, so if you have a more.com there then that one gets used. You sure the file contains only *printable* TEXT characters? No printing or control (hidden) characters? Are you using the command-line to more.com to specify the file? Or are you piping or redirecting the output of another console-mode command (output goes to stdout) into the more.com program (e.g., program | more)? If you are specifying the file(s) as an argument to the more program then it should have only printable ASCII8 characters. If you are piping the output of a program into more.com, the program may issue output to stdout and stderr. The standard piping only redirects stdout. Standard redirection () only redirects stdout. For stderr, you have to use "2", as in "program 2 stderr.txt". You didn't say HOW you are using more.com so I don't know if you are piping stdout into it or redirecting its output to a file or what. more.com is designed to paginate the output. Do you really need it paginated? If you redirect stdout to a file then pagination means you might not get all of the file redirected into another file. Have you tried using "type" command (internal command inside of cmd.com) if pagination is not needed? Does the file look okay when you load it into Notepad? Does it look okay when you run "type file otherfile & notepad otherfile"? I haven't been on Windows XP for a few years but I don't remember encountering what you describe back when I used Windows XP (unless there were non-printable control or print characters within the file). You aren't using the +n command-line argument that says to skip n lines in the file, are you? What is the command line you enter? You can pipe into more.com. You can redirect into more.com. You can redirect out of more.com. more.com has command-line arguments. Just saying "more.com" doesn't tell us HOW you are using it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- need a replacement
R.Wieser wrote on 2016/01/14:
JJ, Mine works fine. XP SP3, MORE.COM version 5.1.2600.5512. Same version here. And it bugs repeatedly. Some console programs output text to the error handle in addition to the output handle. In that case I should be seeing a mixed-up, rather unreadable combination of both, which has not happened. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: JJ schreef in berichtnieuws ... On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:10:04 +0100, R.Wieser wrote: Hello All, I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? Regards, Rudy Wieser Mine works fine. XP SP3, MORE.COM version 5.1.2600.5512. Some console programs output text to the error handle in addition to the output handle. MORE.COM only captures the output handle. One example of this program is ffmpeg. No. Console output (stdout) is a separate stream from error output (stderr). Normal redirection (program file) only includes stdout. There won't be any stderr content in the target file. To get stderr redirected into a file, you use "2" (program 2 file). program file program 1 file Only stdout goes into file. program 2 file Only stderr goes into file. program 1 fileA 2 fileB program fileA 2 fileB Stdout is redirected into fileA. Stderr is redirected into fileB. program 1 file 2&1 program file 2&1 Stdout goes to file. Stderr also goes to the same file. &1 is the placeholder variable representing command line argument number 1 (which is the file). &0 is arg0 (program), &1 is arg1 (first arg to program), &2 is arg2, and so on. Redirection operators are not arguments. However, I've also seen "2&1" described as "stream2 redirected to stream 1 (so stream 1 must already exist)". There must NOT be a space between the redirection character () and the argument placeholder (&1). The redirection operation for stderr (2) *must* follow the one for stdout ( or 1). "prog 2 err.txt 1 ok.txt" and "prog 2&1 file" are invalid. Only in this case would you get a mix of stdout and stderr in the same file. Likely you are defaulting to just specifying stdout so that is all that gets redirected to the file. If a program, for example, outputted both non-blank stdout and stderr streams and you wanted to ensure to squelch all output: program nul Only squelches stdout. Error messages (stderr) still go to the screen. program nul 2 nul program nul 2&1 Squelches both stdout and stderr. Nul is not an actual file so there is no conflict on trying to write multiple streams into it. program 1 file 2 file program file 2 file Results in a "file inuse" error. Rather than redirect 2 streams concurrently into the file, you are trying to first write into the file and then write into it again but the file handle is still open from the first write operation. is an overwrite operation: if the file does not exist then it is created and do the write, if the file does exist then overwrite it. The stdout redirect is still open so you are not allowed to write on an already open file for stderr. I have not tried the 1 (stdout) and 2 (stderr) prefixes on redirects that append (i.e., using to append output into an existing file). For example: programA file programB file file gets overwritten with programB's stdout. Nothing of programA's stdout remains in file. versus program file programA file file has stdout from programA followed by stdout from programB. To capture stderr along with stdout into the same file, I suspect you could use: program file 2&1 Overwrite stdout to file, append stderr to file. program file 2&1 Append stdout to existing file (or create file), append stderr to file. However, it seems unnecessary to append stderr since: program file 2&1 and program file 2&1 do the same thing. The stream identifiers of 1 or for stdout and 2 for stderr are for when redirecting them to the specified target (after the character). I'd have to research to find out if stream identifiers are applicable when piping (using the | character); i.e., where programB has a stdin stream that will accept stdout or stderr streams from programA. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
JJ, VanguardLH,
I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. I threw together a small program emulating a basic MORE program, and noticed it failed pretty-much the same way. Either my OS has got problems or, more likely, there something wrong with my video card and/or driver ... I've already tried to disable hardware accelleration, but that did not seem to help. Oh well. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: R.Wieser schreef in berichtnieuws ... Hello All, I've noticed that my XPsp3 has got a version of MORE.COM which, in circumstances, skips the first set/page of lines. That means I need a bug-fixed replacement. Does someone have it for me ? And outof curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same ? Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
R.Wieser wrote on 2016/01/14:
I threw together a small program emulating a basic MORE program, and noticed it failed pretty-much the same way. Either my OS has got problems or, more likely, there something wrong with my video card and/or driver ... I've already tried to disable hardware accelleration, but that did not seem to help. Alas, we still don't know what you are doing. Skipping lines could be at the head (start of stream), tail (end of stream), or within the stream. We don't know if you are redirecting or piping a program's output or using command-line args to more.com to specify a file. I don't see how anything video card related would affect the content of a stdout or stderr stream. Those don't even require video. Those are data streams, not video streams. I don't even need a video card connected to a monitor for more, type, Notepad, or any other program to work correctly. Me not seeing it does not equate to the program not producing expected results. What are you running? What is the command? Are you running it in a console (command shell, cmd.exe) so the console remains after the program ends? Does "skipping" mean you don't see the lines on the screen or that they are truncated in the console window? Does the console's window have scrolling enabled? If so, does scrolling still have the missing lines? is the console's window partially offscreen? Have you yet tried booting into Windows' safe mode to make sure something you load on startup and login are not affecting however you are trying to view output from more.com? Have you tried "more.com file otherfile & notepad otherfile" to see if all the lines are there when viewing the stdout stream in Notepad (instead of on the screen within the console window)? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:18:59 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
I threw together a small program emulating a basic MORE program, and noticed it failed pretty-much the same way. Either my OS has got problems or, more likely, there something wrong with my video card and/or driver ... I've already tried to disable hardware accelleration, but that did not seem to help. Oh well. The skipped line might actually be a single long line which is broken into two lines because it's longer than the number of console buffer columns. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
JJ,
The skipped line might actually be a single long line which is broken into two lines because it's longer than the number of console buffer columns. When I look at the contents of the file I redirected the output to all I see are short lines. Also, my own version of the program stops reading after 80 chars and calls it a line (so I can count 24 displayed lines and than wait for a keypress). Also, XPs MORE.COM allows you to advance a single line by pressing SPACE. The problem remains the same. But I realized something: I said "skipped", but did not describe *how* it was skipped (didn't think it was neccessary when I asked for a replacement). The funny thing is that sometimes it actually skips the lines with nothing on the screen indicating it hapopened, but sometimes it just scrolls the screen up (as if only a CRLF is printed), line-by-line. Also, the /C (clear screen before displaying output) didn't work when I tried it. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: JJ schreef in berichtnieuws ... On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:18:59 +0100, R.Wieser wrote: I threw together a small program emulating a basic MORE program, and noticed it failed pretty-much the same way. Either my OS has got problems or, more likely, there something wrong with my video card and/or driver ... I've already tried to disable hardware accelleration, but that did not seem to help. Oh well. The skipped line might actually be a single long line which is broken into two lines because it's longer than the number of console buffer columns. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
VanguardLH,
Skipping lines could be at the head (start of stream), tail (end of stream), or within the stream. As far as I can tell they are always skipped from the start of the stream. Sometimes with no effect on the screen, sometimes I see the screen being scrolled up. We don't know if you are redirecting or piping a program's output or using command-line args to more.com to specify a file. I'm piping the output of another command into it. No arguments. I don't see how anything video card related would affect the content of a stdout or stderr stream. Why would you think it does or should do ? All I see is that output directed at the screen disappears, sometimes without a trace. Mind you, when I redirect the output to a file instead of to the screen I see all the data I expect. Are you running it in a console (command shell, cmd.exe) so the console remains after the program ends? Yes. Does "skipping" mean you don't see the lines on the screen or that they are truncated in the console window? See above. Sometimes I see nothing, sometimes I just see the screen scrolling up or the cursor moving down. And by the way, pressing "=" to show the line number displays, AFAIK, the correct one, 24. Does the console's window have scrolling enabled? No. I've used MODE CON to set an old-school 80x25 screen. Have you tried "more.com file otherfile No, but I just have (good catch btw). A filecompare with an earlier outputted file (no MORE, directly to file) shows no differences. Hmmm... odd .... I saw you asking about what commandline I ran, and skipped answering it because the piping should isolate the two programs from each other (using an intermediate file). Nevertheless, I seldom let such questions go without trying to make sure I'm right. So, I also ran the command "... bla & more bla". That worked every time I tried it. Which, I might say, is quite unexpected. What is going on here ? I could point fingers at the specific program sourcing the piped text, but I'm a lot more interrested in knowing what causes MORE's behaviour, and how I can fix it (instead of compiling a list of programs I should not use in combination with it). Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: VanguardLH schreef in berichtnieuws ... R.Wieser wrote on 2016/01/14: I threw together a small program emulating a basic MORE program, and noticed it failed pretty-much the same way. Either my OS has got problems or, more likely, there something wrong with my video card and/or driver ... I've already tried to disable hardware accelleration, but that did not seem to help. Alas, we still don't know what you are doing. Skipping lines could be at the head (start of stream), tail (end of stream), or within the stream. We don't know if you are redirecting or piping a program's output or using command-line args to more.com to specify a file. I don't see how anything video card related would affect the content of a stdout or stderr stream. Those don't even require video. Those are data streams, not video streams. I don't even need a video card connected to a monitor for more, type, Notepad, or any other program to work correctly. Me not seeing it does not equate to the program not producing expected results. What are you running? What is the command? Are you running it in a console (command shell, cmd.exe) so the console remains after the program ends? Does "skipping" mean you don't see the lines on the screen or that they are truncated in the console window? Does the console's window have scrolling enabled? If so, does scrolling still have the missing lines? is the console's window partially offscreen? Have you yet tried booting into Windows' safe mode to make sure something you load on startup and login are not affecting however you are trying to view output from more.com? Have you tried "more.com file otherfile & notepad otherfile" to see if all the lines are there when viewing the stdout stream in Notepad (instead of on the screen within the console window)? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:13:00 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
I could point fingers at the specific program sourcing the piped text, but I'm a lot more interrested in knowing what causes MORE's behaviour, and how I can fix it (instead of compiling a list of programs I should not use in combination with it). Have you tried using the Unicode mode of CMD? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
JJ,
Have you tried using the Unicode mode of CMD? No, I haven't. I was not even aware that it's there ... But, I think I've narrowed down on the cause: By replacing the text sourcing program with something else the problem disappears. Also, that program is legacy, traveled with me from my DOS times ... It appears to somehow either interfere with the screen, or, as VanguardLH suggested, with the stream outputted by the MORE program (gobbling-up its stdout stream as long as it runs ?). In short, its appears not to be either the "more" program nor the display driver, but just a legacy program being oblivious to the possibility that a piped-to program can run while it itself is also (still) running (which was not possible in the era of DOS, nor of the command consoles of earlier versions of Windows). So, it looks I have to replace that legacy program. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: JJ schreef in berichtnieuws ... On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:13:00 +0100, R.Wieser wrote: I could point fingers at the specific program sourcing the piped text, but I'm a lot more interrested in knowing what causes MORE's behaviour, and how I can fix it (instead of compiling a list of programs I should not use in combination with it). Have you tried using the Unicode mode of CMD? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
Slightly OT, but you get unix/linux under XP if
you install Cygwin, if you'd prefer a nicer shell. /cygdrive/c gets you to windows drive c I've run it since 2005 without problems. Use .profile as usual to set the shell up the way you want. -- On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
Piping uses a buffer to pipe data from stdout to stdin. Redirection
uses a file pointer (not necessarily a file in the file system) to transfer data. With redirection using file pointers, the file has to get closed to reuse it in another redirection (except as noted when using &1 to merge data streams by having the output from one handle write into to the input of another handle). So I have to wonder if the problem isn't with the program generating the stdout stream. stdin for more.com looks to be working because you tested with "... file & more file" and that works (all lines are captured). Not all programs work with pipes. Note: Although I've mentioned stdin, stdout, and stderr, cmd.exe actually permits up to 10 handles. 0 = stdin, 1 = stdout, 2 = stderr, and 3-9 are defined by the program and are specific to it. To specify which handle, put a number before the redirection character. No number defaults to 1 (stdout) for and defaults to 0 (stdin) for . You can specify a file or handle for the stream source. For example, "1&2" redirects from handle 2 (stderr) into handle 1 (stdout) while "dir path file 2&1" sends the dir's stdout and stderr to the same file. See: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...direction.mspx Piping uses a buffer while redirection uses file handles. I have read that using | is that a command can produce enough output to fill up the pipe's buffer which causes a block on the next program to read it. That is, for "programA | programB", programA might fill up the buffer and still be in write mode so programB cannot read the buffer. The size of the pipe's buffer differs with different operating systems. There are bunch of rules as to size and it can change within an OS. I read where Mac OS/X has a pipe buffer capacity of 16,384 bytes but will switch to 65,336 bytes (although since Linux 2.6.11 it defaults to 65.336) if a large write is made to the pipe, or switch to a single system page if too much memory is already used by the pipe. fcntl is called by a program to change the pipe's buffer size. win32api calls are used in Windows. So a program could adjust the size of the pipe. Alas, I don't know if a console-mode program can adjust the size of cmd.exe's piping buffer. As I recall, cmd.exe's pipe is only 512 bytes. Very small. And probably why piping is slow. So perhaps you are hitting against the pipe's max buffer size versus using redirection with file handles since files are rather indefinite in size (with restrictions within the OS and hardware). With the mode command, it looks like the args specify the buffer size. "mode con:cols=80 lines=25" only gives you a 2000 byte buffer. If instead you used "mode con:cols=132 lines=2500" then you would get a 322kB buffer (and use scrolling in the console window to get at scrolled off output - but then you are using more.com to paginate that output). I don't bother using MODE to define the buffer size for the console (cmd.exe). I might if I needed in in a script (.bat file). Instead I load the command shell and click on its control menu to select Properties where I set the buffer size (and window size) under the Layout tab. Because I don't want a huge window size (I set it at 132 x 50) which would end up with much of it being offscreen, I set a larger buffer size (132 x 5000) and use the vertical scroll bar to move up and down through the output. I could set width to 80 and use horizontal scrollbar to move left and right for output greater than 80 characters but the screen is usually wide enough that I can set width to 132 (few DOS-mode programs ever exceed that line length). So move away from using MODE to define some ancient 80x25 screen size (whether by using mode.com or setting properties of cmd.exe's window) and up the buffer size and use scroll bars. After all, you are using more.com to paginate, anyway, so scrolling or not shouldn't be a concern to you. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
XP's "more.com" skips first lines of output -- a bigger problem
VanguardLH,
Piping uses a buffer to pipe data from stdout to stdin. Redirection uses a file pointer (not necessarily a file in the file system) to transfer data. In this day-and-age ? True. But only when the consumer can run at the same time as the sourcer. So I have to wonder if the problem isn't with the program generating the stdout stream. Possible. But in that case, how would you explain that just the first few lines go wrong -- and in different ways -- with the rest going fine ? Not all programs work with pipes. I'm not quite certain how that applies to a program which expects a write-only handle to the console. As far as I'm aware a handle to a file, a device or a pipe respond the same in that regard. That is, for "programA | programB", programA might fill up the buffer and still be in write mode so programB cannot read the buffer. :-) That would cause any program using a blocking read or write to permanently freeze within seconds (which does not happen). As far as I know a pipe is just a FIFO with a write, and a read end. If it gets full the writing end cannot place more data into (the write blocks) it until the reading end removes some data from its end. As I recall, cmd.exe's pipe is only 512 bytes. Very small. And probably why piping is slow. Such a small buffer means that the writing program might need to do a *lot* of small writes, and what you than see is probably the overhead of it all. I don't bother using MODE to define the buffer size for the console I don't either. What I do use it for is not having a windowed console. Ofcourse, the fact that 80x25 is what most legacy console apps expect to see is a factor too. :-) After all, you are using more.com to paginate, anyway, so scrolling or not shouldn't be a concern to you. Huh ? I like my daily shower just after getting outof bed. I would not like it if that shower is cold, of a natural origine or when I'm clothed. :-) In other words: I want to have scrolling when *I'm* ready for it, not allways. Besides, the scrolling buffer of a windowed console is limited too, and stuff could scroll outof that buffer without me having a chance to see it (yes, I sometimes have that much output to look at). I've created (somewhat of) a solution though: I've taken a 16-bit environment MORE.COM, removed the version check and use it in the console window. The only drawback is that I have to wait for the sourcing program to finish before the 16-bit MORE program gets its first data and thus can display it. It will do for now. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: VanguardLH schreef in berichtnieuws ... Piping uses a buffer to pipe data from stdout to stdin. Redirection uses a file pointer (not necessarily a file in the file system) to transfer data. With redirection using file pointers, the file has to get closed to reuse it in another redirection (except as noted when using &1 to merge data streams by having the output from one handle write into to the input of another handle). So I have to wonder if the problem isn't with the program generating the stdout stream. stdin for more.com looks to be working because you tested with "... file & more file" and that works (all lines are captured). Not all programs work with pipes. Note: Although I've mentioned stdin, stdout, and stderr, cmd.exe actually permits up to 10 handles. 0 = stdin, 1 = stdout, 2 = stderr, and 3-9 are defined by the program and are specific to it. To specify which handle, put a number before the redirection character. No number defaults to 1 (stdout) for and defaults to 0 (stdin) for . You can specify a file or handle for the stream source. For example, "1&2" redirects from handle 2 (stderr) into handle 1 (stdout) while "dir path file 2&1" sends the dir's stdout and stderr to the same file. See: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...l/proddocs/en- us/redirection.mspx Piping uses a buffer while redirection uses file handles. I have read that using | is that a command can produce enough output to fill up the pipe's buffer which causes a block on the next program to read it. That is, for "programA | programB", programA might fill up the buffer and still be in write mode so programB cannot read the buffer. The size of the pipe's buffer differs with different operating systems. There are bunch of rules as to size and it can change within an OS. I read where Mac OS/X has a pipe buffer capacity of 16,384 bytes but will switch to 65,336 bytes (although since Linux 2.6.11 it defaults to 65.336) if a large write is made to the pipe, or switch to a single system page if too much memory is already used by the pipe. fcntl is called by a program to change the pipe's buffer size. win32api calls are used in Windows. So a program could adjust the size of the pipe. Alas, I don't know if a console-mode program can adjust the size of cmd.exe's piping buffer. As I recall, cmd.exe's pipe is only 512 bytes. Very small. And probably why piping is slow. So perhaps you are hitting against the pipe's max buffer size versus using redirection with file handles since files are rather indefinite in size (with restrictions within the OS and hardware). With the mode command, it looks like the args specify the buffer size. "mode con:cols=80 lines=25" only gives you a 2000 byte buffer. If instead you used "mode con:cols=132 lines=2500" then you would get a 322kB buffer (and use scrolling in the console window to get at scrolled off output - but then you are using more.com to paginate that output). I don't bother using MODE to define the buffer size for the console (cmd.exe). I might if I needed in in a script (.bat file). Instead I load the command shell and click on its control menu to select Properties where I set the buffer size (and window size) under the Layout tab. Because I don't want a huge window size (I set it at 132 x 50) which would end up with much of it being offscreen, I set a larger buffer size (132 x 5000) and use the vertical scroll bar to move up and down through the output. I could set width to 80 and use horizontal scrollbar to move left and right for output greater than 80 characters but the screen is usually wide enough that I can set width to 132 (few DOS-mode programs ever exceed that line length). So move away from using MODE to define some ancient 80x25 screen size (whether by using mode.com or setting properties of cmd.exe's window) and up the buffer size and use scroll bars. After all, you are using more.com to paginate, anyway, so scrolling or not shouldn't be a concern to you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|