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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
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. Read what I wrote. The apps that generated WYSIWYG, so it had little to do with what DOS did or didn't 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. Wrong. whatever preview you had was only an approximation of the final output. it was *not* wysiwyg. Wrong, again. But, as usual, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions. -- best regards, Neil |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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. Read what I wrote. The apps that generated WYSIWYG, so it had little to do with what DOS did or didn't do. read what i wrote. apps are limited to what dos can and can't do, and if *each* app does its own implementation, there's going to be a wide range in how well they do it, all of which are limited by the os itself. 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. Wrong. not wrong. whatever preview you had was only an approximation of the final output. it was *not* wysiwyg. Wrong, again. But, as usual, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions. not wrong and it's not an opinion. you clearly have no idea how macs worked and did what they did. the original mac was the *first* system to use the *same* graphics apis for both the screen and printer, which is the *only* way to get wysiwg. printing was a second 'screen'. that also means *every* app on the mac was wysiwg, without needing to do anything extra. without that being a part of the os, it can only be an approximation. what dos did might have been good enough for your purposes and you might have been satisfied with it, which is fine, but it was not anywhere close to what a mac could do. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
In article , 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. nothing more than yet another ad hominem attack, because you can't support any of your claims. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:55:27 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , 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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 06:05:06 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:29:45 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: What makes you think that if she couldn't use a USB memory stick she could connect an external drive and click the 'use backup' button (what use back up button?). this isn't specifically about her, but it really isn't very difficult. if she can't handle it, someone else in the household can. This is slightly hilarious. You are now accepting the possibility that she might not be able to handle a task. At the same time you are asserting that there *will* be someone else in the house to handle it. you're assuming again. I'm not. I'm making explicit your assumption, that there will be someone else in the house to handle it. how did she manage to plug the computer into mains power and set it up? that is a *lot* more steps than for time machine. What kind of idiotic question is that? If she's plugged in an iron or a toaster, she knows what is to be done with a power cord. If she needs it "set up", the store where she bought it will do that. What do "steps" have to do with anything? She may need to use then to get into her house. How did she manage to do these things as well as setting up and connecting to her network connection? I have no idea but can only presume that someone did it for her. then that someone can connect a hard drive and click a button for her. This is past the point of ridiculousness. then what do you suggest eric's sister do, given that she is incapable of such tasks, according to eric? The ridiculousness is that you refer to "automatic" back-ups being so simple and completely ignore that the back-up procedure is only automatic *after* it is set up for automatic back-ups. for me that is how time machine is set. There is nothing automatic about setting it up, and there are choices to be made that the sister is not capable of understanding. You think she knows if she wants an incremental or differential back-up? No such thing in time machine, you backup. Then you refer to connecting an external hard drive. Why would a person who can't figure out how to view images on a USB stick want or have an external drive? And, that means she'd be backing up on C, and that's hardly any protection from loss. 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. My suggestion would be to Eric, not the sister: Send the USB stick and include clear, step-by-step written instructions. There's no reason to think that the sister isn't capable of following clear instructions. I havent a sister but I have attempted to help a blaonde ;-) What's she's not capable of or interested in - evidently - is figuring it out on her own. Yes there are people like that. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:03:05 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: How would you improve the design of a USB memory stick from the user's point of view? i already explained why sending photos on a usb stick is not a good solution, with several alternatives. do try to keep up. Dodge - twist - evade. nope. 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? 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
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. |
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 |