Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

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