Talk:Text mode

PC Common Text Modes

Moved here from the article:

Clarification request and warning: If this table refers to text modes (as the title of this page states), listing graphics resolution just as a character generator's property, there is something wrong with the 640×480 modes, because on VGA at 80×25 (video mode 03h) we have 9×16 character matix, thus giving 720×400 dot resolution. I am not sure about 80×50 mode if it uses 8×8 characters or 9×8, but anyway the resulting resolution would be 640×400 or 720×400 — not 640×480! If we are talking about graphics modes, which also have some standard text resolutions, 640×480 mode (video mode 12h) uses 8×16 (or 8×8) characters, so the text grid is 80×30 (80×60), not 80×25. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.172.21.161 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC2)

The table is accurate. The text screens of the era were 4000 characters=80 characters wide (a punch card width) x 25 lines high. You might have to think of it from the text-based point of view to see this. --Ancheta Wis 04:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this comment you just show that you don't even nearly understand what is being discussed. Please don't post dummy comments nor try to cease dispute if you are not aware of the topic. --217.172.21.161 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta Wis, if you like the arithmetics, you can try to divide 480 dot lines by 25 character lines and think a little about the result. Hint: the character cell can't have fractional height (19.2 dots) nor width of course.

You call that a text mode table? This is a "text mode table". I took the liberty of adding the proverbial 80x30 (8x16 pixel chars) text mode, used that on all IBM PC compatibles without problems since the dawn of Dos Navigator... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.104.205 (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That font

What is the name of the font used during booting (see here) and used in the BIOS (see here). It seems to be the same font across all BIOS / mainboard manufacturers. I guess it is stored in the Video BIOS. --Abdull 12:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to the IBM PC compatibles, right? The font is stored in the display adapter, and in modern adapters it's more or less the same as the VGA ROM font. There is actually some minor variance among manufacturers. And yes, in each VGA-compatible card there are at least two size variants of the font, i.e. 8x8 and 8x16. 8x16 is the one used in the default 80x25 text mode. --Viznut 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For IBM PC compatibles it is the code page 437. --Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCGA

I think mcga should be mentioned. 640x400 8x16 Font. Isn't it the default IBM PC compatible mode mentioned up there? -- 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wordperfect-5.1-dos.png

The image Image:Wordperfect-5.1-dos.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse arrow cursor in textmode in FreeBSD

How it is possible that in FreeBSD in text mode mouse cursor has shape of arrow like in graphic mode? In Linux when GPM is running there is also mouse cursor but it is rectangular. 148.81.137.4 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, in many VGA text modes the cursor is actually independent of the video mode, and is similar to the "hardware sprites" used in older home computers, the "text mode cursor" simply doesn't use this cursor mechanism available in the VGA hardware, but simulates a cursor with a block graphics character, similar to how old terminals worked.

The textmode cursor in FreeBSD is handled by syscons and the information on how it works can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/syscons/scmouse.c?rev=1.44 173.81.25.50 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Restriction of VGA text mode

I recently wrote a new article with a section Linux console#Hardware restrictions of VGA text modes devoted to VGA text mode; note that I wrote almost all this from my head and I apparently made a mistake with “8192” (is 16384 a correct value?). Now I think that that piece of text would fit better to this article rather than to a Linux-specific one. Maybe even in a table format, not for VGA+ only but as a comparison between various hardware platforms. Any objections? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather specialized, whereas this topic was more general. Though it seems that it's become focused on the VGA stuff... However, the Linux console's use of VGA mode is just one example of how it's adapted (there are other operating systems, and they do things differently). Splitting off that aspect into a new topic would improve this one. Tedickey (talk)

Do you suggest creating an article like VGA-compatible text mode? Or what topic do you mean? BTW I made SVGATextMode redirected to Linux console#Text modes but now I realized that it was another mistake. If such article on VGA+ text modes existed, it would be a right target to redirect SVGATextMode: I think that no separate article is needed, because virtually same things need to be described. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, something like that. The beginning (almost half) of this topic is fairly general, but then becomes very specific to VGA-compatible text mode. Tedickey (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interlaced or progressive

Were text modes and their associated graphics modes interlaced or progressive on the display when connected through native connectors (not composite video outs), was there any difference between CGA/MDA/EGA (digital) and VGA (analog) conectors? --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably all these used progressive video, interlace was only used for PAL/NTSC/SECAM compatible video. MDA/Hercules/CGA/EGA did not used converted TV's but real monitors, and all used a 9-pin DE9 connector (often called a DB9 connector) . VGA (still) uses a 15-pins (3 rows) DB15 (actually a DE-15F) connector. except for the size of the shell a big difference. Mahjongg (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, both VGA and earlier "digital" interfaces like EGA/CGA (which basically required a "smart" monitor with a DAC and singal generator) essentially used progressive scan in text modes, and interlaced scan was briefly used for high-res graphics modes like SVGA, XGA, UXGA etc. because some monitor makers wanted a cheaper solution? --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 13:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

advantages of text modes as compared to graphics modes

The "clarification" is true in a limited sense, but ignores the last twenty years or so, to put the digression into context TEDickey (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the article to make sense, I felt we needed to explain a little bit how text mode developed as an intermediate stage between teleprinters and modern PCs where there is enough video memory to store 24 bits of RGB color values for every pixel on the screen, and why despite all the revolutionary work going on with GUIs in the mid-1970s, GUIs didn't become established on PCs until the mid-1990s (because that's when the cost of computer memory finally came down from stratospheric levels to reasonable levels that made 8-bit VGA 256-color displays widely affordable). I remember when I was a teenager in the late 1990s and finally figured this all out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but in the lede? That's undue focus on an aspect which is not as relevant as other issues mentioned there, and detracts from the discussion by making it more obscure due to the relative amount of text TEDickey (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norton 80×50?

Norton Commander supports a command, Alt+F9, that halves the vertical size of all characters in a weird manner to stuff twice the amount. In Windows Console, this mode simply stretches the console window. Norton Menu (part of Norton Utilities) uses a graphical cursor in 80x25 mode, however it uses a standard cell highlight cursor in 80x50 mode. Also, independent of being in Text or GFX mode, MINUET browser supports the double vertical density as a sort of flag. The browser is text-mode, but uses graphical mode overlay for stretching the grid. Any more comments, and other tools that did weird things to the text mode? Yura87 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norton commander would be using a text mode but the font is redefined at a lower vertical resolution (8x8 instead of 8x16) to create a double width screen, there is a BIOS call for this. I did notice a mouse in the screenshot, it must be using some witchcraft to get this. Windows console would use a graphical mode and not a text mode; It is just a picture of text. This makes it easier to support any size given.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources

Essentially this is one of Wikipedia's many WP:OR topics. TEDickey (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you are welcome to do this, rather than harassing other editors TEDickey (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome to do it, rather than harassing me. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were first, and continuing. Have an appropriate day. TEDickey (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm? ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use and value of this kind of tags has been explained to you at length. Your continued removal of such tags, accompanied by disparaging "thanks for nothing" comments, is starting to become disruptive. Please stop. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you can prove they actually accomplish article improvement more frequently than I can prove they actually do nothing at all (other than clutter up articles), I’ll potentially change my behavior. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please think for a moment: If your opinion were the consensus on WP, these tags would not exist. Neither would there be a warning tag to warn editors not to remove valid maintenance tags. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the value of maintenance tags and nobody obliges you to add them to articles that are problematic. However, you are not entitled to forcing your point of view on the rest of the project. Your edits are against project-wide consensus concerning the value of maintenance tags. Continued removal of valid maintenance tags is disruptive. Your disparaging edit summaries are not very helpful either and don't show a lot of respect for your fellow editors. If you don't change your behavior, this will end up at WP:ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concensus and raise you WP:CCC, WP:BOLD, WP:IGNORE, WP:TAGGING. What’s disparaging is editors coming to articles and doing nothing but marking them (redundantly) as lacking without contributing to them whatsoever. Knee-jerk reverting to prop up this behavior isn’t far behind. Again, if you can show me such templates further Wikipedia’s cause, I dare say I will stop removing them when I encounter them on I’m guessing over 75% of articles I happen upon. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Utilities screenshot

According to the file description of the Norton Utilities screenshot, the uploader drew it himself and scaled it to 4:3. This last step, in my opinion, wasn't needed. It makes the image blurry compared to all other screenshots on the VGA-compatible text mode page, takes 256 colors for what could've been just 8... and isn't crunched. Therefore, I remade the image in a sharp 640×400. I don't know if the original really isn't actually a screenshot but mine isn't -- I used the current version as a base. Now, if it were just an actual but messed-up screenshot I'd have uploaded my version already. But now that I read the file description I have my doubts on whether I should. Regardless, this would be my version, awaiting judgment from those better informed. --Kawachan (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if any editor who has research library access could look into the justification for text mode

I don't have the time right now but I'm flagging the issue for anyone who can. The problem is that all the best sources for why text mode exists to begin with are under full copyright and Google Books can't show them. The fact that text mode even exists to begin with is bewildering for the vast majority of ordinary laypersons. From their point of view, the obvious question is why doesn't one just keep adding memory chips until the computer can store every pixel on the screen. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Text mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080213005117/http://www.digitalhermit.com:80/linux/hiresconsole.html to http://www.digitalhermit.com/linux/hiresconsole.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early milestone and utility

This article could benefit from additions on 80-column text modes on non-IBM PC-compatible computers and TTYs, as well as on how the achievement/general adoption of a decent 80-column text mode was a significant milestone due to its utility for VisiCalc, etc. and for producing typewriter-like text output, cf. Characters per line. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]