On 10/19/2018 8:02 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 October 2018 12:13:46 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/19/2018 5:21 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 18:10:01 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/18/2018 11:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 16:05:58 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/18/2018 5:03 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:44:12 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/16/2018 9:07 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 10/16/2018 12:17 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

Word under DOS had both mouse control and WYSIWYG, as did all
apps that
needed it, such as drawing, painting, etc. FWIW, Windows 1, 2, & 3.x
were merely DOS shells, and there were better shells available
prior to
them.

I don't remmeber WYSIWYG being any good under DOS. It could have been
that at the time all we had was orange/black or green/black 80
coloumn
monitors.

I think it depends on one's systems.

I don;t think so DOS was NEVER WYSIWYG.

Under DOS/Windows, WYSYIWYG is determined by the app, not the OS. Not
all apps need to be able to preview font sizes and so forth (or even be
able to print, for that matter).

except that dos apps are limited by what dos can do, or in this case,
not do.

I had NTSC color monitors under DOS
and I could see the layout, word spacing, fonts, etc. I was going
to get
prior to printing the document. That, to me, *is* WYSIWYG.

Not at the time it wasn't couldÂ* you see underline and the font
sizes as
well as font type.

Well, I have numerous publications from those times that were created in
Word, and I could always preview them prior to printing. So, I don't
know (or care) what your limitations were, but they weren't universal.

it absolutely was a universal limitation. it's *not* possible for dos
to do wysiwyg. period.

whatever preview you had was only an approximation of the final output.
it was *not* wysiwyg.

the mac was the first mainstream computer to do wysiwyg. all drawing to
the screen used the *same* graphics apis as drawing to the printer, so
whatever was on screen was *exactly* what would be on paper, regardless
of font, size, face or embedded graphics.

Years ago, in the pre-win3.1 days of MS-DOS, there was a software
package called "Fontasy". I remember it fondly from that time- it could
do all sorts of graphics, text layout, various fonts (hence the name),
etc; and it ran on......

(Drumroll, please....)

MS-DOS 2.1 or higher.

Here is a Google Books link to PC Mag for Oct 15, 1985, showing a
full-page ad for Fontasy.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Wc...ware&f=fa lse


One of the cool things I remember doing was to lay out a page with
multiple columns and boxes containing photos, then filling in text
around these items on the page. All this on screen, in WYSIWYG, running
on a DOS PC.

At the time, I thought the software was so good, I refused to pirate it!
The program was $50, and additional font disks were (IIRC) only $6 each
for 5" floppies.

Obviously, times have changed, and we don't use 9-pin dot matrix
printers anymore. But the point is: this was a WYSIWYG word processing,
page layout program that ran under DOS.

I remember Fontasy, and there were several such programs available prior
to that with less layout capability. People who think WYSIWYG requires
OS-based GUIs don't understand that WYSISYG means only what it says; one
knows what one will get prior to printing it out.

--
best regards,

Neil

It's a bit more than that, and that is whole point.

Sure if you type _pilchards_ then you know that is underline when sent to the printer but that IS NOT but that is not WYSISYG.


Anyone who understands the many aspects of *professional* typography and
lithographic printing knows that regardless of the OS, *all* WYSIWYG
screen views are approximations, not precise renderings. How good the
renderings are depends on the apps, and the best of them were not
available for the Macs of the day.

But for the user who didn't want to or need have to go to a *professional* typography could do everything themselves on a Mac, that was the point of it.
It was easy, you could see on the screen what it'd be like before printing and could edit and adjust before printing.

Well, as I've stated many times, my use of all hardware, cameras, etc.
is as a professional. So, my responses in this thread are mainly to
inform those who think that the apps, WYSIWYG, etc. were not available
for the PC/DOS systems, which is quite wrong.

Can you actually show or link to these products which were abvailble for PC/DOS, they were close to WYSIWYG but not what people called WYSIWYG.

You have already admitted that your lack of knowledge of these apps is
based on your lack of need for them. I have no problem with that, and in
fact think that is the smart way to choose hardware and software.

I have no interest whatsoever in wandering around the web to see what is
or isn't available.

It's whether or not it truely exists is the point and just how WYSIWYG if only a proefessonal could use it. You do know books were printed years before computers were used and they were WYSIWYG, you put the metal letters in a tray like object so if you wanted the word "The" you'd place those charcters in a tray apply ink and them press them onto paper and that too can be WYSIWYG can't it.
You see the letters and then they get printed.

But if you type in
what was the first WYSIWYG word processor

https://www.zdnet.com/article/in-the...ord-processor/

WordStar was for many of us the first word processor we could use on a general purpose PC.
It was also the first popular What You See is What You Get (WYSIWYG) word processor. So long as you didn't want, oh say, fonts. Fonts were pretty much beyond us in these days of daisy-wheel and dot-matrix printers.


I do have the discs for those apps, but I'm also not
going to take pictures of them. So, what may I help you to understand is
that WYSIWYG is *always* an approximation, not an absolute. It requires
a GUI, but it doesn't matter a hoot whether that GUI is OS or app-based.

But DOS wasn't a GUI.
I have stated numerous times that under DOS, GUIs were *APP-BASED*. I
stated above that it doesn't matter a hoot whether the GUI is OS or
app-based in terms of WYSIWYG. I have already posted some irrefutable
elementary examples in my response to nospam in this discussion of why
WYSIWYG is always an approximation and not an absolute. You can go read
them.

As for the rest, I have no need to prove to you the existence of
professional typographic and lithographic software that ran under DOS.
So, if you wish to learn about the topic do your own homework, but it is
your prerogative to remain uninformed.

--
best regards,

Neil