I am using a DOS based text editor, Aurora, which I am totally devoted
to. When run from a CMD prompt or even a Run command, the cursor
movement is painfully slow! In my previous version, Windows 98, I used
the MODE CON: command to set the typematic rate (at 32) which made the
cursor move very quickly. This does not work with Win XP CMD.exe.

Can someone tell how to speed up the cursor movement?

Thanks so much.
Michael

Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?

Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK

Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]

mode /? for help.

Aurora32???

<quote>
Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the File
Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File" pull down
menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the opening screen will
lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the File Manager and you
stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed to run under previous
versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be updated to deal with known
Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility issues have been introduced in
Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to edit files once they were loaded
via the "File|Open" menu using an explicit path and filename. Another way I
was able to load and edit files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to
the file. Tree can be found either in the Macro List or in the File
pull-down menu. Although Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running
and probably uses many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for
me instead of crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the
File menu (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have
Aurora32 open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS
version of Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative
(but it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003].
<quote>
from...
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:eCxw4jWIHHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
Michael C. <michaeljnc@bellsouth.net> hunted and pecked:
> I am using a DOS based text editor, Aurora, which I am totally devoted
> to. When run from a CMD prompt or even a Run command, the cursor
> movement is painfully slow! In my previous version, Windows 98, I used
> the MODE CON: command to set the typematic rate (at 32) which made the
> cursor move very quickly. This does not work with Win XP CMD.exe.
>
> Can someone tell how to speed up the cursor movement?
>
> Thanks so much.
> Michael

Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?

Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK

Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]

mode /? for help.

Aurora32???

<quote>
Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the File
Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File" pull down
menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the opening screen will
lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the File Manager and you
stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed to run under previous
versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be updated to deal with known
Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility issues have been introduced in
Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to edit files once they were loaded
via the "File|Open" menu using an explicit path and filename. Another way I
was able to load and edit files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to
the file. Tree can be found either in the Macro List or in the File
pull-down menu. Although Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running
and probably uses many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for
me instead of crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the
File menu (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have
Aurora32 open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS
version of Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative
(but it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003].
<quote>
from...
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:eCxw4jWIHHA.1044@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
Michael C. <michaeljnc@bellsouth.net> hunted and pecked:
> I am using a DOS based text editor, Aurora, which I am totally devoted
> to. When run from a CMD prompt or even a Run command, the cursor
> movement is painfully slow! In my previous version, Windows 98, I used
> the MODE CON: command to set the typematic rate (at 32) which made the
> cursor move very quickly. This does not work with Win XP CMD.exe.
>
> Can someone tell how to speed up the cursor movement?
>
> Thanks so much.
> Michael

Michael C. wrote:
>
> I am using a DOS based text editor, Aurora, which I am totally devoted
> to. When run from a CMD prompt or even a Run command, the cursor
> movement is painfully slow! In my previous version, Windows 98, I used
> the MODE CON: command to set the typematic rate (at 32) which made the
> cursor move very quickly. This does not work with Win XP CMD.exe.
>
> Can someone tell how to speed up the cursor movement?

Use a DOS based OS.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Michael C. wrote:
>
> I am using a DOS based text editor, Aurora, which I am totally devoted
> to. When run from a CMD prompt or even a Run command, the cursor
> movement is painfully slow! In my previous version, Windows 98, I used
> the MODE CON: command to set the typematic rate (at 32) which made the
> cursor move very quickly. This does not work with Win XP CMD.exe.
>
> Can someone tell how to speed up the cursor movement?

Use a DOS based OS.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Thanks! Running in command.com worked well. Don't need to use Mode
Con. I'm using Aurora 3.0c, not the 32bit ver. On my previous machine,
it crashed when trying to recompile the editor, with my user.aml and
macros. The file manager bug in Aurora32 that you described would be a
problem for me. I wrote a macro (external) to display a dialog window
with a list box of open file manager windows. I use the FMGR windows as
a kind of pick list for various filespecs, ie. .prg, .h, .bat, often in
different directorys.

I found that by adding NTCMDPROMPT to config.nt I can shell out of the
editor to cmd.exe instead of command.com, which of course is more flexible.

Mike


Wesley Vogel wrote:
> Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?
>
> Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK
>
> Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]
>
> mode /? for help.
>
> Aurora32???
>
> <quote>
> Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
> Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the File
> Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File" pull down
> menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the opening screen will
> lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the File Manager and you
> stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed to run under previous
> versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be updated to deal with known
> Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility issues have been introduced in
> Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to edit files once they were loaded
> via the "File|Open" menu using an explicit path and filename. Another way I
> was able to load and edit files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to
> the file. Tree can be found either in the Macro List or in the File
> pull-down menu. Although Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running
> and probably uses many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for
> me instead of crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the
> File menu (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have
> Aurora32 open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS
> version of Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative
> (but it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003].
> <quote>
> from...
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html
>

Thanks! Running in command.com worked well. Don't need to use Mode
Con. I'm using Aurora 3.0c, not the 32bit ver. On my previous machine,
it crashed when trying to recompile the editor, with my user.aml and
macros. The file manager bug in Aurora32 that you described would be a
problem for me. I wrote a macro (external) to display a dialog window
with a list box of open file manager windows. I use the FMGR windows as
a kind of pick list for various filespecs, ie. .prg, .h, .bat, often in
different directorys.

I found that by adding NTCMDPROMPT to config.nt I can shell out of the
editor to cmd.exe instead of command.com, which of course is more flexible.

Mike


Wesley Vogel wrote:
> Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?
>
> Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK
>
> Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]
>
> mode /? for help.
>
> Aurora32???
>
> <quote>
> Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
> Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the File
> Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File" pull down
> menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the opening screen will
> lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the File Manager and you
> stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed to run under previous
> versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be updated to deal with known
> Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility issues have been introduced in
> Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to edit files once they were loaded
> via the "File|Open" menu using an explicit path and filename. Another way I
> was able to load and edit files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to
> the file. Tree can be found either in the Macro List or in the File
> pull-down menu. Although Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running
> and probably uses many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for
> me instead of crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the
> File menu (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have
> Aurora32 open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS
> version of Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative
> (but it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003].
> <quote>
> from...
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html
>

Glad you got it working, Mike.

Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
compatibility with old 16 bit programs.

See...
CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
here....
The Windows NT Command Shell
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:OEVZ0tnIHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
michaeljnc <michaeljnc@bellsouth.net> hunted and pecked:
> Thanks! Running in command.com worked well. Don't need to use Mode
> Con. I'm using Aurora 3.0c, not the 32bit ver. On my previous machine,
> it crashed when trying to recompile the editor, with my user.aml and
> macros. The file manager bug in Aurora32 that you described would be a
> problem for me. I wrote a macro (external) to display a dialog window
> with a list box of open file manager windows. I use the FMGR windows as
> a kind of pick list for various filespecs, ie. .prg, .h, .bat, often in
> different directorys.
>
> I found that by adding NTCMDPROMPT to config.nt I can shell out of the
> editor to cmd.exe instead of command.com, which of course is more
> flexible.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Wesley Vogel wrote:
>> Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?
>>
>> Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK
>>
>> Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]
>>
>> mode /? for help.
>>
>> Aurora32???
>>
>> <quote>
>> Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
>> Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the
>> File Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File"
>> pull down menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the
>> opening screen will lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the
>> File Manager and you stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed
>> to run under previous versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be
>> updated to deal with known Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility
>> issues have been introduced in Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to
>> edit files once they were loaded via the "File|Open" menu using an
>> explicit path and filename. Another way I was able to load and edit
>> files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to the file. Tree can be
>> found either in the Macro List or in the File pull-down menu. Although
>> Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running and probably uses
>> many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for me instead of
>> crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the File menu
>> (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have Aurora32
>> open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS version of
>> Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative (but
>> it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003]. <quote>
>> from...
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html

Glad you got it working, Mike.

Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
compatibility with old 16 bit programs.

See...
CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
here....
The Windows NT Command Shell
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:OEVZ0tnIHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
michaeljnc <michaeljnc@bellsouth.net> hunted and pecked:
> Thanks! Running in command.com worked well. Don't need to use Mode
> Con. I'm using Aurora 3.0c, not the 32bit ver. On my previous machine,
> it crashed when trying to recompile the editor, with my user.aml and
> macros. The file manager bug in Aurora32 that you described would be a
> problem for me. I wrote a macro (external) to display a dialog window
> with a list box of open file manager windows. I use the FMGR windows as
> a kind of pick list for various filespecs, ie. .prg, .h, .bat, often in
> different directorys.
>
> I found that by adding NTCMDPROMPT to config.nt I can shell out of the
> editor to cmd.exe instead of command.com, which of course is more
> flexible.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Wesley Vogel wrote:
>> Have you tried using Aurora in command.com?
>>
>> Start | Run | Type: command | Click OK
>>
>> Typematic rate: MODE CON[:] [RATE=r DELAY=d]
>>
>> mode /? for help.
>>
>> Aurora32???
>>
>> <quote>
>> Aurora32 Notes about Win2K: While I have been able to run Aurora32 under
>> Win2K, you can cause a repeatable crash, in my experience, by using the
>> File Manager to load files. Invoking the File Manager from the "File"
>> pull down menu or starting the editor with the File Manager on the
>> opening screen will lead to a crash when a file is selected. Avoid the
>> File Manager and you stand a chance of editing. Aurora32 was programmed
>> to run under previous versions of Win32 and in my opinion needs to be
>> updated to deal with known Aurora32 bugs and whatever compatibility
>> issues have been introduced in Win2K vs prior OS releases. I was able to
>> edit files once they were loaded via the "File|Open" menu using an
>> explicit path and filename. Another way I was able to load and edit
>> files is to use the "Tree" macro to navigate to the file. Tree can be
>> found either in the Macro List or in the File pull-down menu. Although
>> Tree looks a lot like the file manager when running and probably uses
>> many of the same functions, it does load the file(s) for me instead of
>> crashing. I have commented out the "File Manager" item in the File menu
>> (see menu.aml) so that I am not tempted to select it and I have Aurora32
>> open to a new file instead of a File Manager window. The DOS version of
>> Aurora appears to run well under Win2K, so that is an alternative (but
>> it limits your window size). [kn, Jan 11-17, 2003]. <quote>
>> from...
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~knassen/aurora.html

Say Wes,
Try
DIR /N

if you want to see LFN

Wesley Vogel wrote:

> Glad you got it working, Mike.
>
> Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
> command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
> compatibility with old 16 bit programs.
>
> See...
> CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
> here....
> The Windows NT Command Shell
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx
>

Say Wes,
Try
DIR /N

if you want to see LFN

Wesley Vogel wrote:

> Glad you got it working, Mike.
>
> Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
> command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
> compatibility with old 16 bit programs.
>
> See...
> CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
> here....
> The Windows NT Command Shell
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx
>

True, Bob.

But try:
cd C:\Documents and Settings
instead of
cd C:\DOCUME~1
in command.com. ;-)

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:euFIHktIHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan******.com> hunted and pecked:
> Say Wes,
> Try
> DIR /N
>
> if you want to see LFN
>
> Wesley Vogel wrote:
>
>> Glad you got it working, Mike.
>>
>> Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
>> command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
>> compatibility with old 16 bit programs.
>>
>> See...
>> CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
>> here....
>> The Windows NT Command Shell
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx

True, Bob.

But try:
cd C:\Documents and Settings
instead of
cd C:\DOCUME~1
in command.com. ;-)

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:euFIHktIHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Bob I <birelan******.com> hunted and pecked:
> Say Wes,
> Try
> DIR /N
>
> if you want to see LFN
>
> Wesley Vogel wrote:
>
>> Glad you got it working, Mike.
>>
>> Command.com does have it's limits, short 8.3 names for example. But,
>> command.com's only reason for being included with an NT OS is backward
>> compatibility with old 16 bit programs.
>>
>> See...
>> CMD.EXE and COMMAND.COM
>> here....
>> The Windows NT Command Shell
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../shellscr.mspx

yes it doesn't like that.

Wesley Vogel wrote:

> True, Bob.
>
> But try:
> cd C:\Documents and Settings
> instead of
> cd C:\DOCUME~1
> in command.com. ;-)
>

yes it doesn't like that.

Wesley Vogel wrote:

> True, Bob.
>
> But try:
> cd C:\Documents and Settings
> instead of
> cd C:\DOCUME~1
> in command.com. ;-)
>