Why is the Windows cmd.exe limited to 80 characters wide?

Question

I love stretching my terminal on unix. What is the history or reason behind windows lame command line?

Answer 1

It isn't. You can right click the title bar, select properties, and in the "Layout" tab alter the screen buffer size (line width and scrollback) and the window size (viewport size). If you started cmd from a shortcut, you can save these settings for future sessions.

Answer 2

It's not limited.

1. Run cmd.exe
2. Click on the icon in the upper left hand of the screen.
3. Select Properties
4. Select the Layout tab.
5. Set the buffer and window widths to whatever you like.
6. Click OK
7. Select Save Properties for future...
8. Click OK.

You might want to check out Console. It's an open source app that lets you run multiple shells in a tabbed environment. You can also set the alpha-transparency of the shells.

Answer 3

Since it will scroll left to right as well as up and down, the very first thing I do on a system is define my width as 180 and save it. That's generally enough so that stack traces don't have to wrap for the most part, but not so much that you are waisting a ton of space.

While you're at it, set the vertical size (scrollback buffer) to all 9's. You'll be glad you did some day.

Answer 4

I don't know the history behind it, but this wishlist item from the author of PuTTy is an interesting post that explains the technical hurdles involved with any type of cmd.exe replacement that isn't lame:

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/win-command-prompt.html

You don't mention that you're looking for a replacement, but if so you might also check out some of the cmd.exe replacements like Console 2 or JP Software's Take Command etc. I've also had some good experiences with PuTTy-Cyg which lets you use PuTTy as a cygwin shell.

Answer 5

While the width is not limited as other answers show, I've always found it strange that one can drag and resize the height with the mouse, but not the width.

I think the default 80 character width is related to compatibility with old programs that assume the terminal won't be more than 80 characters wide. I don't think this has been a realistic reason for a decade or so, though.

Answer 6

Because MS value "backwards compatibility" over a lot of things and in this case I suspect it's a misplaced belief that it will somehow unnerve people if they don't have their standard 80 wide window.

Of course it could be that it was programmed for a fixed 80 chars width when that was pretty much universal, and the additional property settings were a bit of a hack.

Answer 7

As others have pointed out, it's not limited to 80 characters wide, but my guess as to why it defaults to 80 characters would be that it's left over from the DOS days where CRT displays were 80 characters wide.

See also

Answer 8

It IS limited. Check it out. (I mean window size NOT buffer)

You will find that the maximum width you can set is limited but varies according to your screen resolution. If your resolution is set to 1024 x 768 you will find that you can only get to 128 on the command prompt width. 128/1024=.125

you will find that ratio to be consistent across the board. I have an RDP session running at 2000x768 (across two of my three monitors) and get a max width of 250.

Now, that actaully turns out to be a little bigger than your actaul monitor size but I have three monitors all running individual desktops. (so in essence, 3 1024x768 resolutions) and if I want to do something SO SIMPLE as stretch a command prompt across 2 or more monitors, I CAN'T. (I want to when doing things with very long paths (diruse.exe/etc.)...

-c

Answer 9

If you are mouse-phobic you can also just type this inside the cmd window:

mode <cols>,<lines>
mode 80,25
mode 120,50
etc.

Answer 10

You could also use a different terminal application, such as Console2, which allows you to resize the window all you want (among other things, such as transparency, and the ability to use any font you'd like). It's a great application, I've switched to it and now I only use cmd.exe when I absolutely have to.