If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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 couldĀ* 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. -- best regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Printing a bust of a person on a 3D printer from panoramic JPEG files on Windows | Grease Monkey | Digital Photography | 1 | October 7th 18 01:38 AM |
Printing a bust of a person on a 3D printer from panoramic JPEG files on Windows | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 1 | September 8th 18 12:15 AM |
Viewing MP4 Files Under Windows | Harpocrates | Digital Photography | 4 | February 6th 05 08:13 PM |
Opening Pentax *ist DS RAW .PEF files in Windows 98? | Helen Edith Stephenson | Digital SLR Cameras | 24 | January 10th 05 08:16 AM |