Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

On 10/17/2018 01:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
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.

the mac spawned the desktop publishing industry, not dos or even
windows.

The mac may have spawned the desktop publishing "industry", but at that
time- the Days of DOS- you could go to a hamfest (swap meet for ham
radio hobbyists) with a hundred dollars, and leave with the parts to put
together a perfectly functional PC (been there, did that, got the
t-shirt). The Macintosh, OTOH, went for $2500 in 1984.

The PC, running DOS, and one of the "nearly WYSIWYG" programs spawned
the individual desktop publishing cottage industry. It's hard, nay
impossible, to do desktop publishing on a computer you can't afford.

Sometimes, "good enough" is, in fact, good enough.

--
Ken Hart

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:52:17 -0400, Neil
wrote:

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.

Thanks. I couldn't find that explicitly stated. On that basis the
claimed 9" screen was actually 8.5".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.

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.

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?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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.

then you have the answer.

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.

i'm not the one who is evading.

based on your response at the time, you understood what i said.

all of your gyrations is nothing more than evasion on *your* part.

In article , Ken Hart
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.

the mac spawned the desktop publishing industry, not dos or even
windows.

The mac may have spawned the desktop publishing "industry", but at that
time- the Days of DOS- you could go to a hamfest (swap meet for ham
radio hobbyists) with a hundred dollars, and leave with the parts to put
together a perfectly functional PC (been there, did that, got the
t-shirt). The Macintosh, OTOH, went for $2500 in 1984.

comparing a bunch of used parts from random sellers and without a
warranty with a fully assembled computer is bull****, especially one at
its full retail price.

a fully assembled ibm pc ranged from $1565 (stripped, with only 16 k of
memory, 1/8th that of a mac) to well over $4k, and an ibm pc xt was
over $7k and with ****tier graphics than a mac.
https://www.pcmag.com/g00/feature/34...f-ibm-pcs?i10c.
encReferrer=&i10c.ua=4

not that it matters, since price was never the issue.

and if you want to play the 'box of parts game', there was a surplus
shop near me at the time ('85 i think) which had mac logic boards for
$100, which could be connected to a power supply and a crt display for
a 'perfectly functional mac'. as i recall, they were 128k boards, so a
little extra effort was needed to bump them to 512k. didn't get a
t-shirt though, at least not for that.

The PC, running DOS, and one of the "nearly WYSIWYG" programs spawned
the individual desktop publishing cottage industry. It's hard, nay
impossible, to do desktop publishing on a computer you can't afford.

except that macs were *cheaper* than existing desktop publishing
systems at the time, such as the xerox star (5 digits), as well as pcs
(see above).

a box of parts and a cheapo dot matrix printer is not 'desktop
publishing', except maybe for other hams, who don't know any different.

Sometimes, "good enough" is, in fact, good enough.

sometimes, but that wasn't the issue.

wysiwyg on the mac was much better than anything dos could do, for all
sorts of reasons.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:


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.

wrong.

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.

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 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.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
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.

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

"Desktop publishing was first developed at Xerox PARC in the
1970s.[1][2] 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 1978–9 with the
introduction of TeX, and was extended in the early 1980s by LaTeX.)
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. 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."

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."

It doesn't sound as though the MacIntosh and Laserwriter had quite got
to an exact WYSIWYG.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:13 -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.

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.

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 the
time the Apple][ was emerging. I seem to recall that Unix required
volume names almost from the outset.

in the floppy days, the mac would ask for a specific floppy by
name if it was not inserted. it was *impossible* to write to the wrong
floppy, as it was with dos, cp/m, etc.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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 1978*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.