Message-Id: <200007232044.WAA13126@mailgw3.netvision.net.il> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:44:01 +0200 To: Jason Green X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b From: "Eli Zaretskii" CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <2ckmns8aetk0bh03gggf84ao27422qcpmc@4ax.com> (message from Jason Green on Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:19:50 +0100) Subject: Re: to del a window ... References: <2ckmns8aetk0bh03gggf84ao27422qcpmc AT 4ax DOT com> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: Jason Green > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:19:50 +0100 > > > I think versions of COMMAND.COM from DOS 5.0 and later all honor the > > number of screen lines as it is known to BIOS. If you can switch into > > 80x60 in a way that causes the BIOS to know you have 60 lines, > > COMMAND.COM will DTRT. > > I have managed to switch into 80x30 and 80x60 text modes but > unfortunately the BIOS reports these as 80x25 and 80x50. So the > result is a 25 or 50 line screen with a blank area at the bottom where > the extra lines should be. You could try poking the BIOS data area with the correct values. The addresses of the relevant BIOS variables are documented in RBIL. > The Linux code knows about this BIOS bug and ignores the BIOS values > for screen dimensions, using its own values instead. Linux ignores BIOS, period. In contrast, DOS functions that write to the console device eventually call BIOS functions to produce the character on the screen. Thus the difference in behavior.