Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

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 could 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.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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...=fontasy+ wor
d+processing+software&source=bl&ots=BB93psWbaI&sig =qcxCpMaw9oGwTL2_4wXwRyQ4NOk
&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2opPPoYzeAhXs24MKHWuuClEQ6 AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=fo
ntasy%20word%20processing%20software&f=false

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.

it wasn't wysiwyg. it was wysiawyg. almost what you get.

the ad even states 'the size may vary on some other printers'.

that they included a disclaimer is a very big clue.

you might have been impressed with it enough to break from your illicit
piracy habits, but the manufacturer even admits it's *not* an exact
match for what came out of the printer.

one of the key features of the macintosh was wysiwyg as part of the os
itself, which means *all* apps are wysiwyg, and nearly two years before
that ad ran.

and while you were fussing with dot-matrix printers, the mac was
printing wysiwyg to the laserwriter at its native resolution.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:45:04 GMT, "MC" wrote:

nospam wrote some more drivel so...

There really is no point to the thread anymore.

Another contributor: "White light is white."

You: "False."

Another contributor: "Why?"

You: "It is a mixture of all colours of the spectrum making it blue,
red, yellow etc. and because blue is not white, red is not white and
yellow is not white, white cannot be white."

This is how your arguments read. You will cherry pick, manipulate or
turn around any part of an opinion to suit your own argument rather
than see it as it is.

This makes you look/sound ignorant and unncessarily argumentative,
which not only bores me but it seems not to have gone unnoticed for
quite a while during your time on usenet.

So, here you are. I offer you the last word, if only so that you can
satisfy your lust for one-upmanship in your quest that your opinion is
the only opinion allowed. The floor is yours, should you wish to take
it.

C'mon, give the guy a break. If you've read this group for any length
of time you know that nospam is some who is totally devoid of social
skills and unlikely to be able to have any interaction with any
in-person humans. People shun him and ignore him in "real life".

This is the only place where people respond to him, and they only do
so because he constantly argues with whatever is said just to elicit
responses.

He needs your reply. Without it, and the chance it gives him to
argue, he fades into the same nothingness that defines his life away
from this group.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:44:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In article , MC
wrote:
...


nothing more than yet another ad hominem attack, because you can't
support any of your claims.

... while you don't support any of your claims.

wrong. they're fully supported, often with numerous links.

Numerous links? Not when you claim you have explained something in the
past. e.g. how should I have best sent 4GB of photographs to my sister
if not with a USB memory stick?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:51:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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...=fontasy+ wor
d+processing+software&source=bl&ots=BB93psWbaI&sig =qcxCpMaw9oGwTL2_4wXwRyQ4NOk
&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2opPPoYzeAhXs24MKHWuuClEQ6 AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=fo
ntasy%20word%20processing%20software&f=false

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.

it wasn't wysiwyg. it was wysiawyg. almost what you get.

As opposed to Apple, if you are to be believed, which was WYSIOWG -
only what you get.

the ad even states 'the size may vary on some other printers'.

that they included a disclaimer is a very big clue.

you might have been impressed with it enough to break from your illicit
piracy habits, but the manufacturer even admits it's *not* an exact
match for what came out of the printer.

If that is your definition of WYSIWYG then modern Apple and Windows
systems are not WYSIWYG in that what comes out of the printer is
rarely an exact match for what you see on the screen. And remember, it
was you, just now, introduce the need for an *exact* match.

one of the key features of the macintosh was wysiwyg as part of the os
itself, which means *all* apps are wysiwyg, and nearly two years before
that ad ran.

and while you were fussing with dot-matrix printers, the mac was
printing wysiwyg to the laserwriter at its native resolution.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:47:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Macs don;t have obscure C drives, or D drives they ahve names and can be
given any name just loke you'd name a child.

I have C and D, also known as System and User. That naming system
predates both Mac and Dos.

that's not a naming system.

I named them. That's been my naming system for most of the last 30
years.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:53:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

How should I go about sending you 4GB of photos?

read previous post.

I've just made a global search of all the messages in this thread
containing 4GB and have found that you seem to have evaded answering
my previous queries on this subject. Just in case I'm wrong, could you
please cite the message in which you explained or could you even
repeat your explanation?

i have not evaded anything and your search skills are not very good.

What term should I search on if '4GB' is not sufficient?

usb. or just look through your own posts, since as i said (which you
ignored), you replied to it.

you even commented on the various suggestions, so you have full
knowledge of the existence of the post.

in other words, *you* are the one who is evading.

And you will go on arguing like this when if you really had given me a
clear explanation you would direct me to it or quote it.

i did give a clear explanation, which you responded to. don't blame
others if you don't know what you've said.

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

On 10/17/2018 5:59 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:51:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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...=fontasy+ wor
d+processing+software&source=bl&ots=BB93psWbaI&sig =qcxCpMaw9oGwTL2_4wXwRyQ4NOk
&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2opPPoYzeAhXs24MKHWuuClEQ6 AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=fo
ntasy%20word%20processing%20software&f=false

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.

it wasn't wysiwyg. it was wysiawyg. almost what you get.

As opposed to Apple, if you are to be believed, which was WYSIOWG -
only what you get.

the ad even states 'the size may vary on some other printers'.

that they included a disclaimer is a very big clue.

you might have been impressed with it enough to break from your illicit
piracy habits, but the manufacturer even admits it's *not* an exact
match for what came out of the printer.

If that is your definition of WYSIWYG then modern Apple and Windows
systems are not WYSIWYG in that what comes out of the printer is
rarely an exact match for what you see on the screen. And remember, it
was you, just now, introduce the need for an *exact* match.

one of the key features of the macintosh was wysiwyg as part of the os
itself, which means *all* apps are wysiwyg, and nearly two years before
that ad ran.

and while you were fussing with dot-matrix printers, the mac was
printing wysiwyg to the laserwriter at its native resolution.

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.

The Mac's screen resolution was 72ppi. Apple marketed it to people in
the print industry as a "good thing", because type points are 1/72 inch.
In reality, that was a useless feature.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/17/2018 6:26 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 16:18:06 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/16/2018 8:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 12:52:12 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/16/2018 6:00 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 15 October 2018 14:25:35 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 10/15/2018 9:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 15 October 2018 13:08:04 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
nospam wrote:
keep in mind that i've been using them longer than you have, since
word/excel were available for macs before they were for windows.

I've used Word under DOS before Macs existed. So, I don't know what you
think you were using, but it wasn't the first versions of Word.

He did say BEFORE windows not before DOS there's quite a differnce without mouse control or WYSIWYG

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).

so it's NOT WYSYIWYG is it.


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 could 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.

only if you ignore the facts.
Publications don't matter, unless they were viewed on a screen.
You could use a daisy wheel printer to get letter quality but that wasn't WYSYIWYG.

Perhaps the extra characters in your above comment provide some meaning
beyond "What You See Is What You Get", but as far as I'm concerned, it
only means what it says; one can preview on-screen the parameters the
app can control and the output will match that. It has nothing at all to
do with a GUI.

--
best regards,

Neil