Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:22:40 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:14 -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. How would a Mac handle an early Epson MJ-500?

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.

absolutely false.

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

more or less != wysiwyg.

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

oh yes there very definitely were significant differences. shockingly
so.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.?

what about it?

what about ms word 1.0 on dos, not the 3.0 that was referenced, which
didn't have anything approaching wysiwyg. or all of the other dos apps,
for that matter.

and don't try to pretend apps on dos or windows didn't crash, or the os
itself.

I'm not pretending. You are.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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!

ad hominem.

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

except that he just said quality and accuracy does not matter.

That's not what he said at all.

than will somebody trying to emulate the
same quality of output on low price hardware.

nothing is being emulated, but if low price hardware is your concern,
then that would rule out ms word and dos & windows computers.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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)."

which almost nobody used outside of xerox, and it was also a complete
system, not a word processing app on consumer hardware.

the xerox star, which came later, also had very limited use (although
more than the alto) and was *very* expensive in the early 1980s.

the original mac was roughly 1/10th its price making it affordable for
many, it was noticeably faster and *much* easier to use than the star,
later macs even more so.

But it wasn't the first.

interestingly enough, ms word 1.0 on the mac was very similar to the
word processing app on the star. when microsoft wasn't copying apple,
they were copying xerox, next and others, and got away with it.

They both were copying Xerox.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


BSD Unix (1970s) certainly did require volume naming and my
recollection is that it inherited it from the AT&T version.

assigned by sysadmins, not end users, and mounted in the file system
where end users don't even realize it's a different physical hard
drive.

Who cares who assigned it?

not only does it matter who assigned the name (and your term 'assign'
is very telling), but also that separate drives in unix are not visible
to users. also, the sysadmins did not have the flexibility to choose
any name they wanted.

Could the ordinary user assign or reassign
names on Mac discs?

absolutely, and at any time. the mac removed a lot of the restrictions
imposed by earlier systems.

the names did not need to be unique either. floppy disks defaulted to
'untitled' and it was not unusual to have multiple floppy disk icons on
the desktop, all called 'untitled'. that can still happen today, except
it's now external hard drives, usb sticks or network volumes.

So what?

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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?

email is an option. there were others. every situation is different.

4GB attachments by email! Haw.

in your particular scenario, photo sharing would likely be the best
choice, or perhaps mail drop. another is upload to a photo sharing site
and send links. however, you refuse to use compliant urls so that
option might not work correctly, and not because of anything she did.

Idiot

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:44:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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

the number does not matter. it's not a backup.

Its the volume of data I wish to send.

Reply if you like. I am ignoring you on this subject from now on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/19/2018 10:44 PM, 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.

absolutely false.

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

more or less != wysiwyg.

I used Fontasy substantially back when it was introduced, and turned on
several other people to it. Obviously, I did not try every single
printer on the market, but I never had a printed size issue, and no one
I know who purchased the program had an issue with printed output size.
I speculate that the manufacturer, in the course of testing the
software, found a couple printers that had issues; and they thought it
best to include the caveat.

(At the time, I had 3 printers: Radio Shack, Citizen, and Epson. All
worked fine with Fontasy.)

Of course it wasn't truly WYSIWYG under DOS- what I saw with my computer
was orange text/graphics on a gray/green screen, with a 4:3 size. The
printed output was black on white (or whatever paper I was using) at the
paper size. If I had wanted actual WYSIWYG (orange on green), I would
have had to use my color dot-matrix printer!


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

oh yes there very definitely were significant differences. shockingly
so.



--
Ken Hart

On 10/19/2018 10:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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!

ad hominem.

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

except that he just said quality and accuracy does not matter.

No, I did not. Since your ability to read is so poor, I will clarify.
What I wrote was that whether one app produced the same level of
accuracy as another doesn't matter. It didn't matter *because one would
choose the app that met their requirements with regard to accuracy*. I
also wrote that it was never an issue with the professional-level apps.
It didn't matter because *they all provided a high level of accuracy*.

So, not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.

--
best regards,

Neil