On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:05:07 -0500, Ted Davis < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > put
finger to keyboard and composed:
I just tried full screen DOS mode on a Win98 socket 7 desktop PC with
a 15" 1024x768 LCD monitor (with an analogue interface).
For 80 cols x 25 rows, my LCD reports that my graphics card resolution
is 720x400. This would equate to a cell size of 9Hx16V. Allowing for a
single pixel between characters (have I got this right?), that would
mean a font size of 8Hx15V.
Doing the same for 80Cx50R, we get 720x400 resolution, a cell size of
9Hx8V, and a font size of 8Hx7V.
Again for 80Cx43R (mode co80,43), we get 640x350 resolution, 8x8 cell
size (with 6 pixels left over in the vertical direction), and a font
size of 7x7.
I obtained identical results on a 486 Win95 box when booted in real
DOS mode (different graphics chipset). I presume the fonts (and font
sizes) are hard coded into the video ROM BIOS of the graphics card.
Would it be possible to experiment with an external monitor that could
detect the resolution being output by the laptop's graphic subsystem?
Would that reflect the resolution being used by the internal display?
BTW, in Win98SE, the font size selected in a windowed DOS box (eg the
OP's 8x14) is ignored when switching to full screen mode. I have no
idea whether Win2K behaves the same way.
I suggest that the OP takes accurate measurements of the width and
height of a DOS text screen in full screen mode. Maybe the measured
aspect ratio will give a clue as to what is going on.
Could the OP's issue be addressed by means of a .cpi file?
Would command.com and cmd.exe produce different results?
- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.