Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

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.

i did explain, and both you and eric replied to it.

In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

it was not useless at all. you know very little about macs.

Well, I have Macs, know what they are *and aren't*, have been involved
in typography and lithography since the 1960s, know what that is *and
isn't*, and as a result know that you know none of the above.

once again, you make many incorrect assumptions.

you might have macs now, but based on what you've said, you did not in
1984,

Not in 1984... my first Mac was a Mac Plus, which is still on display in
my graphics studio. The original Mac was completely inadequate for the
work that I do. The Mac Plus was inferior to the MS-PCs in the studio in
many ways, but it was a lot cheaper even including the replacement
keyboard and additional HD that made it at least useful.

maybe for the work that *you* did, but that was never the issue.

and in particular, you have no understanding how they worked
internally and why they had significant technical advantages compared
to dos with respect to wysiwyg (and many other aspects as well).

Obviously, you are wrong.

obviously not.

although i did not know that you had a mac plus, if that's the only mac
you had, then your knowledge about macs is still incredibly limited,
exactly as i said.

more importantly, you were an end user, not a software developer. you
did not write commercial software for either platform. i did, and a lot
of it.

the design of classic mac os was well ahead of anything that existed at
the time, and still is today in many ways, despite being unsupported
for 20 years.

microsoft knew that and chose to copy just about all of it, although
made it worse in some ways just to be 'different' enough so they could
claim it wasn't a complete ripoff.

dos computers had multiple graphics standards, each with different
resolutions, using pixels that were not square (at least until *after*
the mac came out), printers that may or may not have matched any of
that and with entirely different code paths for display and printing,
not to mention the numerous gui shells, which were limited by dos and
therefore not very good.

for an app developer to get all of that to work seamlessly and
accurately enough to be able to call the result wysiwyg is a *****load*
of work, and while not impossible, doing so detracts from other
features that the apps need to have. everything suffers as a result.

the mac, both hardware and software, was designed from the ground up,
without any of the baggage of dos or other existing systems. the entire
os was designed to be a gui, not a shell wrapping an existing system, a
very key advantage, which allowed all sorts of functionality that was
difficult to impossible on any other system.

wysiwyg was part of the mac's design, both hardware and software. a
printer is just another 'screen' (a grafport), which means all apps are
wysiwyg, with no additional work needed by the developer other than a
few lines of code to add printing (in nearly every case). the same code
is used to draw to both, so there is no discrepancy, and since it's
part of the os, it's consistent among all apps.

you dismiss that as unimportant. that's where you're wrong.

it's not possible for 'wysiwyg' on dos to be as accurate as a mac for a
whole slew of reasons.

the 'wysiwyg' you had on dos might have been a good approximation,
however, macs did it better, so much so that the mac spawned the
desktop publishing industry, which dos wysiwyg did not. think about
that.

The Mac did not "spawn" an industry that predated its existence.

publishing existed prior to the mac, but not desktop publishing, which
is what the mac spawned.

Fact: fonts are vector-based, and can't be rendered "exactly" by any
raster-based technology.

what's a fact is that when font rendering is part of the os, it will do
a better job than if each app has its own implementation. also, if the
resolution of the raster device is higher than human visual acuity, any
differences can't be seen. also, not all fonts are vector based,
certainly not back then.

Fact: most lithographic prints are letter size or larger, so the Mac/Mac
Plus screen can't render "exact" WYSIWYG, as you stated.

yes it can for letter size. larger, obviously not. nobody said that a
mac could do large format, nor did anyone say it could handle all
tasks. you are moving the goalposts.

Fact: typical lithographic resolution of the period was 2450dpi, so even
today's monitors can't render "exact" WYSIWYG. Even if they had the
resolution, there are several other factors that prevent them from being
able to render WYSIWYG.

today's displays have more pixels than what the human eye can resolve,
so yes they can.

and this wasn't about 2450 dpi high end printers anyway.

I could go on with a lot more facts, but I expect that you won't even
have the courage to admit that you're wrong about the above, so there
isn't much point, is there?

your original claim was about ms word on a dos computer. you are trying
to change that.

from your description above, you're not talking about an off the shelf
dos computer running consumer software, but instead, high end systems
running custom software, likely with custom boards in said computer
(which i think you may have mentioned in the past).

that's very different than your original claim of 'ms word did wysiwyg'.

the mac was not intended to compete in that market, at least initially,
nor did i say or even imply that a mac could do every possible page
layout task.

when the mac shipped in 1984, there were only *two* apps available.

dos and apple ii computers had existed for many years prior, so
obviously, there were more apps available as well as hardware support.

the point, which you *still* do not get, is that what the mac did was
well ahead of *anything* that existed at the time, so much so that
microsoft ended up copying most of it.

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

Ah! So your answer to send 4 GB of photos to people that do not know how
to use an USB is to use an USB.

beautiful!

ROTFL!

nope. i did not say anything close to that.

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.

No, you haven't.

oh yes i did, and not only did eric reply to it, but *so* *did* *you*.

you might want to stop
ROTFL!
about now.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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!

that's exactly what you did and continue to do.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"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.

so what?

apps crash, even today.

if you think dos apps never crashed, you're delusional.

even dos itself crashed, and certainly windows crashed a lot, with its
infamous blue screen of death.

nothing is perfect.

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.

you said predates dos, which sets the time frame.

... 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.

it is correct and it absolutely is the point.

macs were designed to be friendly and easy to use, without the
restrictions imposed by previous systems.

floppy disks, later hard drives, could have whatever name the user
wanted, even with the *same* name, and could also be changed at any
time without breaking anything, including when files were open. the
reason is that classic mac os did not rely on path names. the os didn't
care what disks (or folders) were named.

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.

not before windows let you do that, and if you move the drive to
another system, the name doesn't always move with 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 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.

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.

that made sense for a multi-user system with sysadmins, but not a
personal computer, one with multiple removable hard drives, floppies,
usb sticks, etc.

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.

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.

In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

yes it definitely does matter where it is, and not just for wysiwyg
either. that's the part you fail to understand.

apple, microsoft, google, etc., have a *lot* more resources than any
individual app developer could ever hope to have *and* can do things at
a much lower level (and in apple's case, design both the hardware *and*
the software).

by including features in the os, the results will be better, faster and
more consistent than if each app developer implemented it on their own,
plus those developers still have to write the rest of their app in
addition to reimplementing the os.

In article , Neil
wrote:

As for the rest, I have no need to prove to you the existence of
professional typographic and lithographic software that ran under DOS.
So, if you wish to learn about the topic do your own homework, but it is
your prerogative to remain uninformed.

as it is for you to remain uninformed about why any os-level feature,
not just wysiwyg, which is built into the os itself will always be
better, more efficient, more consistent and faster, than if each app
developer does it on their own, most of whom do not have the skills,
resources or access to the proper apis to do so, and in apple's case,
design the hardware in unison with the software.

On 10/19/2018 11:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 19 October 2018
14:49:34 UTC+1, Neil wrote But DOS wasn't a GUI. I have stated
numerous times that under DOS, GUIs were *APP-BASED*. I stated above
that it doesn't matter a hoot whether the GUI is OS or app-based in
terms of WYSIWYG. I have already posted some irrefutable elementary
examples in my response to nospam in this discussion of why WYSIWYG
is always an approximation and not an absolute. You can go read them.
If it is app based then how can it be WYSIWYG because it would depend
on which app you used would depend on the printout you got. They don't
even sych such apps today.
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.

--
best regards,

Neil