Any information if Consolas will be the default console/powershell font in
Vista?
As I understand it PowerShell for Vista is not finished yet, so there is a
slight chance at least. Consolas looks good on that new blue posh background
and would definately emphasize the fact that this isn't your daddy's old
command shell...

--
greetings
dreeschkind

Hi dreeschkind,

> Any information if Consolas will be the default console/powershell font in
> Vista?

I don't thinks so. Consolas lacks some (more or less) essential glyphs.
Try edit.com and figure out. I don't know how this might affect other
(more important) legacy apps...

> As I understand it PowerShell for Vista is not finished yet, so there is a
> slight chance at least. Consolas looks good on that new blue posh background
> and would definately emphasize the fact that this isn't your daddy's old
> command shell...

Yepp, that's right.

cu

Max

Well, they could add those missing glyphs till January...
Guess I have to wait for Vista SP1 or Second Edition or what ever comes next.

After all, why is it called Consolas if it's no good in a console?

--
greetings
dreeschkind

"Maximilian Hänel" wrote:

> Hi dreeschkind,
>
> > Any information if Consolas will be the default console/powershell font in
> > Vista?
>
> I don't thinks so. Consolas lacks some (more or less) essential glyphs.
> Try edit.com and figure out. I don't know how this might affect other
> (more important) legacy apps...
>
> > As I understand it PowerShell for Vista is not finished yet, so there is a
> > slight chance at least. Consolas looks good on that new blue posh background
> > and would definately emphasize the fact that this isn't your daddy's old
> > command shell...
>
> Yepp, that's right.
>
> cu
>
> Max
>

Hi dreeschkind,

> Well, they could add those missing glyphs till January...

I doubt that... :-(

> Guess I have to wait for Vista SP1 or Second Edition or what ever comes next.
>
> After all, why is it called Consolas if it's no good in a console?

Maybe because a font that fulfils those requirements would be called
PowerShellas? :-P

cu

Max

dreeschkind wrote:
> Well, they could add those missing glyphs till January...
> Guess I have to wait for Vista SP1 or Second Edition or what ever comes next.
>
> After all, why is it called Consolas if it's no good in a console?
Mmm... because it was designed for use in modern programs, basically.

Some text-mode programs use certain special characters to draw lines and
boxes. Those are, I think, the characters missing from Consolas.

So I wouldn't say it's "no good in a console". It's just no good if you
want to run those ancient text-mode programs that attempt to create a
GUI in text mode by using those special characters to draw lines and
boxes. And pretty much all of those have been replaced with real GUI
versions anyway.

If you really want to use the old edit.com instead of a modern text
editor (or even text-mode vim) [or some other ancient applications],
then maybe you shouldn't use Consolas. But otherwise, it's fine. :-)

> If you really want to use the old edit.com instead of a modern text editor
> (or even text-mode vim) [or some other ancient applications], then maybe
> you shouldn't use Consolas. But otherwise, it's fine. :-)

Please ... they're legacy, not ancient, don't confuse. I for one still
prefer to work in edit.com over notepad if I'm already in the console, and
occasionally I use vim. Vim is still supported BTW and still gets updates.
I've come across a lot of people who write C++ apps in vi. Even text-mode
Emacs is still in heavy use these days.

Jon

I use vi occasionally to edit Power Shell scripts!

"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message news:u52oE27DHHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> If you really want to use the old edit.com instead of a modern text editor (or even text-mode vim) [or some other ancient
>> applications], then maybe you shouldn't use Consolas. But otherwise, it's fine. :-)
>
> Please ... they're legacy, not ancient, don't confuse. I for one still prefer to work in edit.com over notepad if I'm already in
> the console, and occasionally I use vim. Vim is still supported BTW and still gets updates. I've come across a lot of people who
> write C++ apps in vi. Even text-mode Emacs is still in heavy use these days.
>
> Jon
>

Hi Adam,

> If you really want to use the old edit.com instead of a modern text
> editor (or even text-mode vim) [or some other ancient applications],
> then maybe you shouldn't use Consolas. But otherwise, it's fine. :-)

Nobody prevents you from using Consolas. If you like it then go for it.
As for me I'm using Consolas, but it would be a huge mistake to make
this font the default font for the PowerShell console. You don't even
need to start an external "ancient" application to see the missing
glyphs in action. Press F7 in the console and watch for a funny bordered
box ;-)

cu

Max

"Maximilian Hänel" wrote:

> As for me I'm using Consolas, but it would be a huge mistake to make
> this font the default font for the PowerShell console.

Well, as I mentioned before, all there is to do is to add the missing glyphs
to the font.

--
greetings
dreeschkind

Vim is my standard editor for PowerShell scripts!
There is even a config file on the web for PowerShell syntax highlighting.
(I don't know where I got it from, use a search engine.)

--
greetings
dreeschkind

"Jon Davis" wrote:

> > If you really want to use the old edit.com instead of a modern text editor
> > (or even text-mode vim) [or some other ancient applications], then maybe
> > you shouldn't use Consolas. But otherwise, it's fine. :-)
>
> Please ... they're legacy, not ancient, don't confuse. I for one still
> prefer to work in edit.com over notepad if I'm already in the console, and
> occasionally I use vim. Vim is still supported BTW and still gets updates.
> I've come across a lot of people who write C++ apps in vi. Even text-mode
> Emacs is still in heavy use these days.
>
> Jon
>
>
>