Roy:

You might want to check out the specifications at:

   http://night.primate.wisc.edu:80/software/RTF/

The Navy needed to move some documents to PCs from the HP 3000 and ended up
writing a program that converted COBOL output files (CCTL in column 1,
print data in columns 2 to 133) to ".RTF" (Rich Text Format) files.  There
is a little overhead to deal with, but it isn't too bad.

Below is what I remember of the specs. and I've probably forgotten a number
of significant points, but hopefully this will get you started.

I don't know what screen resolution you are using, but the Navy's target
PCs were running Windows 95 WordPad with the video resolution set to 1024
by 768 with 256 colors (17" monitors).  Lower resolutions may make 132
column displays hard to read.

To start, figure out how large (number of bytes) the largest paragraph you
will have to work with will be.  Your file (variable length record) record
size will be determined by this value, unless you create byte stream files.
 The record size will have to be large enough to hold the largest paragraph
AND the RTF paragraph overhead (which sets the indent, font, etc. for that
paragraph).  Define the default font to Courier, 8 point, with the left and
right page margins at 0.25 inches.  Remember to reset the font at the
beginning of each new paragraph.

Hope this helps.

John

At 06:39 PM 1997/10/21 +0100, Roy Brown wrote:
>In article <[log in to unmask]>, robert blackmore <"robert
>blackmore"@osi.varian.com> writes
>>Hi all;
>>
>>I am trying to reduce the amount of printed reports from the HP3000.  I
>>am running jobs which instead of printing the report, create the report
>>into a serial file.  Then I transfer it to our Windows-NT server via
>>FTP.
>>
>>What i need is a tool to read the report from PC's using Windows.  I
>>have used WORDPAD which can handle large files and has a 'find'
>>facility.  I think WORDPAD is good, however my users what to see the
>>entire report (132 chars) on the screen, and do not wish to scroll to
>>the right to view all of the report.
>>
>>Does anyone know of some software which i could use?
>
>Er... do we have a conceptual problem here?
>
>Your users need to see 132 characters across the width of a PC screen,
>which is a physical, not a logical constraint.
>
>Given that WordPad can achieve that (and it can) there's no benefit to
>be gained from changing to any other software. Maybe laying in an
>optimised TT font will help, though.
>
>Anyway, put Wordpad into Landscape mode (File, Page Setup), set it for a
>page size that exploits the full width of the screen (US Letter is just
>fine), and then drop the point size of the font you are using (which
>must be a fixed pitch one, yes?) until 132 characters *just* fits the
>screen width. Don't worry if the box only offers sizes down to 8. You
>can type in 6 or 7, and it will obey.
>
>Then you have what you want. No other changes are needed. Any other
>software isn't going to be able to do any better. It's a physical thing.
>
>Now maybe they won't be able to read it at the point size selected; in
>which case you will have to give them bigger screens. Or maybe it will
>be enough to switch to a font chosen for maximum clarity, and/or an
>optimised height/width ratio.
>
>A quick search on my machine (800*600) reveals that Prestige Fixed will
>allow 132 chars at 8 point, Letter Gothic will allow 132 at 7 point (it
>will do 131 at 8 point - shucks), and r_ansi, of Reflection fame, will
>also allow 132 at 7 point (112 at 8 point, so it's well off there).
>
>
>In the dear dead days before Truetype, we used to use a Bitstream font
>called Letter Gothic 12. Downside of such fonts was you had to build
>each point size you needed individually, and separately for screen and
>for printer. Upside was that it was super-optimised and hinted for
>legibility at that point size during the time it was being built.
>
>The other good thing about LG12 was that its width was reduced, so that
>12 characters would fit in the space normally occupied by 10, relative
>to its height. Or, put another way, 132 characters would fit in the
>space a 'normal' font could get only 110 in. So you could go up at least
>one point size over such a font, get better readability, and still not
>fall off the end of the line.
>
>Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you should go back to pre-TT fonts -
>just that finding the modern TT equivalent might pay dividends. Anyway,
>have a play with it, and see where you get to.
>
>HTH
>
>
>Roy Brown
>
>PS Before someone else says it, yes I know WinWord lets you do
>everything WordPad does, and it would let you do your own widthways
>compression on any existing font. But readability, already low at the
>point sizes in question, suffers *very* badly.....
>
>--
>Roy Brown               Phone : (01684) 291710     Fax : (01684) 291712
>Affirm Ltd              Email : [log in to unmask]
>The Great Barn, Mill St 'Have nothing on your systems that you do not
>TEWKESBURY GL20 5SB (UK) know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.'
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Korb                            email: [log in to unmask]
Innovative Software Solutions, Inc.

The thoughts, comments, and opinions expressed herein are mine
and do not reflect those of my employer(s), or anyone else.