Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

In article , Neil
wrote:

On 10/19/2018 11:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 19 October 2018
14:49:34 UTC+1, Neil wrote 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.
If it is app based then how can it be WYSIWYG because it would depend
on which app you used would depend on the printout you got. They don't
even sych such apps today.

The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS for "What You See Is What You Get" is
whether one does get in print a reasonable representation of what one
sees on screen. Whether one app or another provided the same level of
accuracy is irrelevant, but the reality is that it was never an issue
with professional-level apps.

in other words, quality or accuracy doesn't matter to you.

fortunately, others have much higher standards, some of whom advanced
the entire industry.

On 10/19/2018 12:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

On 10/19/2018 11:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 19 October 2018
14:49:34 UTC+1, Neil wrote 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.
If it is app based then how can it be WYSIWYG because it would depend
on which app you used would depend on the printout you got. They don't
even sych such apps today.

The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS for "What You See Is What You Get" is
whether one does get in print a reasonable representation of what one
sees on screen. Whether one app or another provided the same level of
accuracy is irrelevant, but the reality is that it was never an issue
with professional-level apps.

in other words, quality or accuracy doesn't matter to you.

If that was true, I wouldn't have invested in professional apps for
graphics and lithography and the hardware to run it that far exceeded
anything available for any other hardware/OS combination of the time. By
now, it should be quite clear to all but blithering idiots that I am a
platform agnostic that makes decisions independent of marketing drivel
and jargon. But, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

--
best regards,

Neil

Since October 8, this thread started by RichA,has grown to 260 meaningless
posts, 28 today alone, the OP being the only post he has made to this PIA of
a thread.

Can you guys take this tedious thread to alt.comp.os.windows-10 or some other
more appropriate Windows, DOS, or desktop publishing NG?

....Please.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:26:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

--- snip ---

The Mac did not "spawn" an industry that predated its existence.

publishing existed prior to the mac, but not desktop publishing, which
is what the mac spawned.

Quite wrong as I have already told you. See
Message-ID: in which I
cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_publishing from which I
quoted:

"Desktop publishing was first developed at Xerox PARC in the
1970s.[1][2] A contradictory claim states that desktop publishing
began in 1983 with a program developed by James Davise at a community
newspaper in Philadelphia.[3] The program Type Processor One ran on a
PC using a graphics card for a WYSIWYG display and was offered
commercially by Best info in 1984.[4] (Desktop typesetting with only
limited page makeup facilities had arrived in 1978–9 with the
introduction of TeX, and was extended in the early 1980s by LaTeX.)
The DTP market exploded in 1985 with the introduction in January of
the Apple LaserWriter printer, and later in July with the introduction
of PageMaker software from Aldus, which rapidly became the DTP
industry standard software. Later on, PageMaker overtook Microsoft
Word in professional DTP in 1985. The term "desktop publishing" is
attributed to Aldus founder Paul Brainerd,[5] who sought a marketing
catch-phrase to describe the small size and relative affordability of
this suite of products, in contrast to the expensive commercial
phototypesetting equipment of the day."

Please note that desktop publishing is not the same as printing
WYSIWYG.

--- more snip ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:26:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


But it was _you_ nospam which disqualified Fontasy on the PC because
the output to the printer might not be exactly the same as what was on
the screen.

yes, because depending on the printer, it might not be the same.

no such issue on the mac.

Of course there was. With the Mac the only printer on which output on
the printer somewhat matched the appearance on the screen was the
Laserwriter and even then the match wasn't exact.

With Fontasy, depending on the printer, it might be more or less the
same or the size might be different.

There was no significant difference between the situation with either
system.

You accuse me of playing with semantics but I have to. Words mean one
thing to you if it is you that is writing them but you often attribute
a different meaning when you have to respond to them.

what part of size could change is not clear?



Laserwriter was 300 dpi while the resolution of the screen of the
classic Macintosh 512x342 on a 9" screen which equals about 68
pixels/inch. Using the definition you used to disqualify Fontasy on
DOS as WYSIWYG the classic MacIntosh was not WYSIWYG either.

wrong. the size was the same, as was the layout, just at a higher
resolution.

And the original Laserwriter used Postscript fonts which were not
bitmaps but used the PS graphics primitives to draw glyphs as curves,
which can then be rendered at any resolution. This was not the system
used by the MacIntosh with the result that (as you say below) what you
got was not the same as what you had originally seen.

it could use either bitmapped or postscript fonts, the latter of which
along with graphics primitives (shapes, curves, patterns etc.) were
rendered at a higher resolution than what the mac's display could show.
the result was *better* than what was on screen.

So they were not exactly the same. i.e. not exactly WYSIWYG.

it was wysiwyg.

Then exactness is not a criteria and you can't use it to disqualify
Fontasy on DOS.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:26:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Users of the PageMaker-LaserWriter-Macintosh 512K system endured
frequent software crashes,[7] cramped display on the Mac's tiny 512 x
342 1-bit monochrome screen, the inability to control letter-spacing,
kerning,[8] and other typographic features, and discrepancies between
the screen display and printed output."

the reference does not support the claim.

in particular,

Because earlier versions of Pagemaker were known to less than
bug-free, we looked closely for bugs in Version 2.0, paying special
attention to earlier weak spots. Even after several weeks of testing,
we were not able to crash the program at all, regardless of how we
tried to trick Pagemaker with bizarre command sequences or by
loading corrupt files.
...
We mentioned above that Pagemaker 2.0 has been enhanced to
produce better output -- in fact, better than we've seen from any
other program. Pagemaker automatically regulates a combination of
kerning, letter-spacing, hyphenation, and justification to produce
pages that rival those from professional-level layout systems. (You
can also change the default settings of the features).


It doesn't sound as though the MacIntosh and Laserwriter had quite got
to an exact WYSIWYG.

actually, it does.

they tried hard to get it to crash and could not, with its output
rivaling pro level systems.

That was version 2.

so what?

What about version 1.?

apps crash, even today.

if you think dos apps never crashed, you're delusional.

even dos itself crashed, and certainly windows crashed a lot, with its
infamous blue screen of death.

nothing is perfect.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.

Aah - but the letter in the type line were back to front - the mirror
image of what you were finally going to get. Letter-press printing is
certainly not WYSIWYG.

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.


That's strange. I got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG#History

"Bravo, a document preparation program for the Alto produced at
Xerox PARC by Butler Lampson, Charles Simonyi and colleagues in
1974, is generally considered the first program to incorporate
WYSIWYG technology,[6] displaying text with formatting (e.g. with
justification, fonts, and proportional spacing of characters)."

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:46:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

On 10/19/2018 11:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 19 October 2018
14:49:34 UTC+1, Neil wrote 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.
If it is app based then how can it be WYSIWYG because it would depend
on which app you used would depend on the printout you got. They don't
even sych such apps today.

The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS for "What You See Is What You Get" is
whether one does get in print a reasonable representation of what one
sees on screen. Whether one app or another provided the same level of
accuracy is irrelevant, but the reality is that it was never an issue
with professional-level apps.

in other words, quality or accuracy doesn't matter to you.

fortunately, others have much higher standards, some of whom advanced
the entire industry.

You idiot!

A professional working in the field, producing large numbers and
quantities of printed documents for money, will be much more concerned
with quality and accuracy than will somebody trying to emulate the
same quality of output on low price hardware.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:26:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

What do you think was your clear explanation? Come on, give me a
message ID.

read your own posts.

it's not my fault you're senile.

Nor have I stopped beating my wife.

How about demonstrating your non-senility by recalling the post where
you told me the best way to send someone 4GB of photographs.

Come on! I bet you can't.

He did not explain. I have just been reading the thread and he hasn't.
But he will deny it and yet not show the link.

And now he accuses *me* of evading!

that's exactly what you did and continue to do.

I have been through things again and the only conclusion I can reach
is that you really were serious when you suggested I have sent 4GB of
image files via email or facebook. Were you really serious? Is that
what you genuinely recommend?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:26:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


sending someone a usb stick full of photos has nothing to do with
backups.

Of course it has. You are very thick headed!

So tell me what has it got to do with backups ?

Where will they do backups?

Why do you think sending a USB stick of photos is a backup ?

Do you really need explaining, or lessons on reading skills?

do explain why a copy of a few photos that eric sent to someone is
actually a backup of his computer.

In this case 'few' = 4GB

also explain how he would go about restoring from that usb stick, one
which he no longer has.

this will be most entertaining.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens