Windows 10 update wipes out files and photos

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.

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.

it was wygibtwys, what you get is better than what you see.

once again, you don't understand something and choose to argue.

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.

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.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

We had it on a xerox sstem before that ~1981.

true, but the xerox star/alto weren't personal computers. they were
priced *well* above what end users could afford (low 5 digits), even
most businesses.

Here is a Google Books link to PC Mag for Oct 15, 1985, showing a
full-page ad for Fontasy.

After Word wss released on the Mac in 1985, which had true WYSYIWYG.

yep, and macwrite/macpaint nearly 2 years earlier. by 1985, there were
a lot of choices.

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.

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.

deviating from that convention causes all sorts of problems, especially
windows, which assumes c: is the boot drive.

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. 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.

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.

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.

On 10/17/2018 1:06 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

--
best regards,

Neil

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, 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).

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.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens