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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 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 |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:01:41 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:30:12 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:14 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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? it's in the thread and you responded to it. do you not remember what you wrote? if not, you have bigger problems. I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. It's just that I can't interpret anything you wrote as explaining how should I have best sent 4GB of photographs to my sister if not with a USB memory stick. Since the original thread I have asked you a number of times and, as now, you have continued to evade. Forgetting - for a moment - nospam's usual weaseling and inability to provide a better way, I am curious about why you are unable to communicate to your sister how to view the images on the USB stick. Her brain is hardwired to make her an artist, a poet and a musician. Machines of any kind are a mystery. Quite how mysterious she found them I did not realise until the USB ephisode. I think the USB stick or a DVD disk are the best way to send the images, but you have to know if the other person has a DVD tray in the computer to go that route. She uses an Apple laptop of some kind. I didn't know whether or not it had a CD/DVD drive so I opted for USB. Apart from that, I had no CD/DVD disks available. I know you can write a clear set of instructions on how to open and view images from a USB stick, but I can understand if your first effort was not clear to your sister. She didn't ask for better instructions? We did have several tries but in the end she reported that she had damaged the USB memory stick and didn't want another. I didn't pursue the matter further. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:45:50 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote: On 18/10/2018 01.55, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:12 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. 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! -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:24:10 -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. no. you chose a drive letter based on convention and physical port. that's *not* a name, nor can you have two of the same letter. Wrong again. Windows named the drives C and D. I nmaed them System and Userdisc. not 30 years ago, you didn't, ... Not then I didn't, not those names. ... but despite that, it's nowhere near as flexible or as powerful as disk naming on a mac. Even if you are correct, that's not the point at issue. for example, a mac would ask for a floppy by name if it wasn't the one in the drive. for servers, it would auto-mount them by name, requesting login credentials if needed. deviating from that convention causes all sorts of problems, especially windows, which assumes c: is the boot drive. Which is why I didn't change it. so you didn't name it. I never claimed I assigned the drive letters. I *named* the discs (or more strictly the partitions). See above. move the c: drive to another computer in an external enclosure. it's no longer c:, as that other computer has its own c: drive. so much for the name you supposedly gave it. the mac was the first computer to let the user name disks anything they wanted. Not quite so. I was doing it with discs for my Cromemco back about ther time the Apple][ was emerging. I seem to recall that Unix required volume names almost from the outset. you recall wrong, and cromemco was not a mass market computer anyway. BSD Unix (1970s) certainly did require volume naming and my recollection is that it inherited it from the AT&T version. There was no mass market for computers at the time I had a Cromemco. But Cromemco was the market leader. Unix and Cromix reqiured that a disk be labeled (aka named) as part of the process of initialising. Come to think of it, I suspect our PDP-11 was the same. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:49:13 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:14:01 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: as i said before, setting up automatic backups is no more difficult than connecting a hard drive and clicking a button: https://support.apple.com/library/co...are/images/en_ US/osx/tm_new_drive.png Ah, there! Connecting a hard drive! Now we get to things. What is a hard drive? Do we have one? How do we connect it? Explain it easy. Based on the sister's inability to view images on a USB stick, I think even an easy drive would be too hard for her. I agree. Those of us who have been using a computer for some time don't understand the problem that novices have in understanding terms. The "Start" menu, for example, doesn't start the computer. You have to start it before you can get to Start. The USB stick has to be inserted in the USB port. "Port" is not a word that would mean anything to the novice. Icons are visible on the "Desktop". How does the novice know that the "desktop" is what is viewable on the screen and not what the computer itself might be placed on? We provide instructions using terms like "Navigate to..." without explaining what "navigate" means in this context. I was helping a raw novice set up her HP laptop and told her to turn on her computer as the first step. She stared at the computer for some time and finally gave up and asked me how to turn it on. What must be done is to press and briefly hold a little bar at the top left that is not marked or labeled. There is no switch or knob or protruding button that people are used to that turns things on. And, if you press and hold that bar too long, it stops the computer from turning on. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:24:11 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. wrong. nothing has been introduced. i said that the design of mac os was the first mainstream computer designed with wysiwyg built into the os itself (i.e., every app) and that what dos did could only be an approximation which varied depending on all sorts of factors. In Message-ID: you wrote: "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.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." Note your use of 'exactly' and 'exact'. Without having to go back and quote you can see above where you disqualify Fontasy on the grounds that "the manufacturer even admits it's *not* an exact match for what came out of the printer". For this argument you seem to be requiring that screen pixel pitch and printer dpi be the same. If this argument is going to hold then you will have to disqualify virtually every computer made today from being able to claim WYSIWYG. you are once again trying to turn this into a semantic argument. no two of anything are 100% exact. the point is that the mac was a *lot* closer than anything dos could possibly do, for all sorts of reasons, only one of which is mentioned above. 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. 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. all things considered, what dos did was pretty good given the numerous limitations of the hardware and software, however, it was not as good as what the mac could do out of the box. tl;dr anyone who claims dos can do wysiwyg never used a mac. 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. 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. do not tell me how macs of the day (or even now) worked. you know less than what i remember. it was wygibtwys, what you get is better than what you see. once again, you don't understand something and choose to argue. All I'm doing is pinning you down on the ever-shifting ground of your arguments. nothing is shifting, except your own lack of understanding. do not blame me for that. oh, and the laserwriter had appletalk networking built in. multiple macs and laserwriters could be networked together using ordinary telephone cord, which was already in the walls. not only any app, but any mac on the network could print wysiwyg. nothing on the pc side came anywhere close to that for many years. Yep. And that enhanced its WYSIWYG abilities. Please try and stay on the subject. it's exactly on subject, and it did enhance its abilities. a department, or even an entire company, could share a single laserwriter (or more if needed), where everyone could produce high quality output. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:24:08 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. people who think dos could do wysiwyg don't realize that the mac did it *better*, and without any of the fuss. wysiwyg on dos was an approximation, perhaps close enough for whatever you were doing, but there was a lot of room for improvement. Same thing applied to the classic MacIntosh. no. the mac spawned the desktop publishing industry, not dos or even windows. No doubt the arrival of the MacIntosh and Laserwriter was important but "spawning" is bit of a stretch. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_publishing it's not a stretch, which your own link *confirms*. "Desktop publishing was first developed at Xerox PARC in the 1970s.[1][2] first developed != spawned an industry. 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 1978Â*9 with the introduction of TeX, and was extended in the early 1980s by LaTeX.) tex/latex is the *opposite* of wysiwyg. 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. thereby proving my claim. it's always amusing when someone tries to argue and ends up proving themselves wrong. 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." further proof. And see "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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:35:49 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:01:41 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:30:12 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:14 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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? it's in the thread and you responded to it. do you not remember what you wrote? if not, you have bigger problems. I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. It's just that I can't interpret anything you wrote as explaining how should I have best sent 4GB of photographs to my sister if not with a USB memory stick. Since the original thread I have asked you a number of times and, as now, you have continued to evade. Forgetting - for a moment - nospam's usual weaseling and inability to provide a better way, I am curious about why you are unable to communicate to your sister how to view the images on the USB stick. Her brain is hardwired to make her an artist, a poet and a musician. Machines of any kind are a mystery. Quite how mysterious she found them I did not realise until the USB ephisode. I think the USB stick or a DVD disk are the best way to send the images, but you have to know if the other person has a DVD tray in the computer to go that route. She uses an Apple laptop of some kind. I didn't know whether or not it had a CD/DVD drive so I opted for USB. Apart from that, I had no CD/DVD disks available. I know you can write a clear set of instructions on how to open and view images from a USB stick, but I can understand if your first effort was not clear to your sister. She didn't ask for better instructions? We did have several tries but in the end she reported that she had damaged the USB memory stick and didn't want another. I didn't pursue the matter further. I am beginning to think there's some other underlying reason. I don't think she wants to view the images. She's using "I can't" to mean "I'm not interested". Nothing wrong with that. It's her choice of what to be interested in. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:04:37 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:35:49 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:01:41 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:30:12 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:14 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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? it's in the thread and you responded to it. do you not remember what you wrote? if not, you have bigger problems. I'm quite familiar with what I wrote. It's just that I can't interpret anything you wrote as explaining how should I have best sent 4GB of photographs to my sister if not with a USB memory stick. Since the original thread I have asked you a number of times and, as now, you have continued to evade. Forgetting - for a moment - nospam's usual weaseling and inability to provide a better way, I am curious about why you are unable to communicate to your sister how to view the images on the USB stick. Her brain is hardwired to make her an artist, a poet and a musician. Machines of any kind are a mystery. Quite how mysterious she found them I did not realise until the USB ephisode. I think the USB stick or a DVD disk are the best way to send the images, but you have to know if the other person has a DVD tray in the computer to go that route. She uses an Apple laptop of some kind. I didn't know whether or not it had a CD/DVD drive so I opted for USB. Apart from that, I had no CD/DVD disks available. I know you can write a clear set of instructions on how to open and view images from a USB stick, but I can understand if your first effort was not clear to your sister. She didn't ask for better instructions? We did have several tries but in the end she reported that she had damaged the USB memory stick and didn't want another. I didn't pursue the matter further. I am beginning to think there's some other underlying reason. I don't think she wants to view the images. She's using "I can't" to mean "I'm not interested". I don't think so. The photographs were an archive of family photographs going back more than a century. I'm sure she wanted to see them. However she needed instructions before she could even plug it in. She later claimed it wouldn't go in because she had damaged it. Nothing wrong with that. It's her choice of what to be interested in. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos
On 10/19/2018 5:21 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 18:10:01 UTC+1, Neil wrote: 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 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 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. 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. 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. -- 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 |