From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11


If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print Preview funciton? :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 24/02/2026 04:16, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print Preview funciton? :)

Where is this WYSIWYG that you speak of?
I quite often use the print preview to see how things align on the page.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 24/02/2026 8:17 pm, wasbit wrote:

On 24/02/2026 04:16, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print
Preview funciton? :)

Where is this WYSIWYG that you speak of?
I quite often use the print preview to see how things align on the page.

"WYSIWYG" == "What You See Is What You Get"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/2/24 9:44:1, Daniel70 wrote:

On 24/02/2026 8:17 pm, wasbit wrote:

On 24/02/2026 04:16, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print
Preview funciton? :)

Where is this WYSIWYG that you speak of?
I quite often use the print preview to see how things align on the page.

"WYSIWYG" == "What You See Is What You Get"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG

Yes, we know that; however, it is often the case that a zoomed-in view -
even in "Print View" as Word calls it (or used to, I haven't used a
recent Word to know if it still does) - is easier to read. "Print
Preview" often defaults to whole-page scaling, which lets you see how it
is laid out on the page, but is often too small (especially on smaller
screens such as laptops, and in general since we accepted being forced
to shortscreen hardware) to read easily. Also, the top and bottom
margins tend to introduce gaps, which interrupt the flow of reading.

Good question - but, basically, I think the answer is that WYSIWYG
doesn't mean quite what it originally implied.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

looking like one who had drunk the cup of life and found
a dead beetle in the bottom. - Wodehouse
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:16:12 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print Preview funciton? :)

Because the content which users have designed, may be beyond the capability
of the printer which the users have. e.g. color content on B&W printer,
content which is too wide for the printer, etc.

WYSIWYG softwares should present the content on the monitor based on the default/selected printer. But unfortunately, they do not. At least, I
haven't seen such software. IOTW, none of WYSIWYG softwares, are true
WYSIWYG.

But true WYSIWYG software may actually be impractical. e.g. suppose you're making a banner which will require more than one letter sized sheet of
papers - the widest paper which your printer can handle. If the software is
a true WYSIWYG, it'll present content and workspace in separate sections to represent multipe sheet of papers. Making the content itself would be
difficult in that manner.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026/2/24 14:29:42, JJ wrote:
[]

WYSIWYG softwares should present the content on the monitor based on the default/selected printer. But unfortunately, they do not. At least, I
haven't seen such software. IOTW, none of WYSIWYG softwares, are true WYSIWYG.

[]
Not sure I agree with your "should". I might be designing a document
with ideal output in mind - e. g. full colour, with binding, and other
bells and whistles - that I will eventually take to a print shop (and
may for drafts do a "print" to PDF) - but only actually have a very
limited printer actually attached to my computer (or on my network). I
don't want to limit my design abilities to what that can do (e. g. no
colour). This is therefore another reason for the "print preview"
function - to see how it will appear on my local draft printer (e. g. to
see whether it's worth printing a draft at all).
Arguably, print preview should be called WYSIWYG, and perhaps normal
mode should be called something like WYSIWY_W_G - _would_ get if you had
a printer capable of all the features you might imagine.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Mon, 2/23/2026 11:16 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

If WYSIWYG graphical interface can let you see/predict the printed
result before printing something, why do we still see the Print Preview function? :)

The view of your DTP software, is virtual in a sense.
Important details about how it prints can be missing.

Similarly, the Print Preview may not capture all of the things
wrong with your print settings. Prints in the past (due to printer
language issues and .ppd info), showed up squashed into a one inch
square on the paper, and the Print Preview could not capture
a failure in the print chain.

The views are "illustrative" but not perfect by any means.
The operator still has to check various settings, margins
and gutters, scale to fit, to help predict just how
bad it will look, and whether yet another sheet of
paper has been wasted.

If all these views worked, you would never waste any paper.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2/24/2026 9:23 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Good question - but, basically, I think the answer is that WYSIWYG
doesn't mean quite what it originally implied.

I think of one thing:

If you wanna make sure that WYSIWYG is to be printed, then you should
have selected the printer first before creating the document! Then as
you edit, you should exactly see the printed result WYSIWYG.

We don't do that in Micro$oft Word or any other word processors and
desktop publishing software. :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2/25/2026 12:09 AM, Paul wrote:

The view of your DTP software, is virtual in a sense.
Important details about how it prints can be missing.

Similarly, the Print Preview may not capture all of the things
wrong with your print settings. Prints in the past (due to printer
language issues and .ppd info), showed up squashed into a one inch
square on the paper, and the Print Preview could not capture
a failure in the print chain.

The views are "illustrative" but not perfect by any means.
The operator still has to check various settings, margins
and gutters, scale to fit, to help predict just how
bad it will look, and whether yet another sheet of
paper has been wasted.

If all these views worked, you would never waste any paper.

Then WYSIWYG is not practical nor useful. We can keep using Wordperfect
or Wordstar for DOS with Print Preview (with modern printer drivers of course).

Any Other Business:

We should have never ever needed to tolerate black text on shiny white background, which is not friendly to eyes. :)

Dark Mode should also have existed decades ago. Well...
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-02-24 19:42, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 2/25/2026 12:09 AM, Paul wrote:

The view of your DTP software, is virtual in a sense.
Important details about how it prints can be missing.

Similarly, the Print Preview may not capture all of the things
wrong with your print settings. Prints in the past (due to printer
language issues and .ppd info), showed up squashed into a one inch
square on the paper, and the Print Preview could not capture
a failure in the print chain.

The views are "illustrative" but not perfect by any means.
The operator still has to check various settings, margins
and gutters, scale to fit, to help predict just how
bad it will look, and whether yet another sheet of
paper has been wasted.

If all these views worked, you would never waste any paper.

Then WYSIWYG is not practical nor useful. We can keep using Wordperfect
or Wordstar for DOS with Print Preview (with modern printer drivers of course).

WYSIWYG is an approximation, it is an style of doing an application,
different from what it was done in Wordperfect times, where font colours
could be used instead of the actual font.

It never meant that what you got on the screen was the exact same thing
as in paper, but aproximate enough.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 02/24/2026 1:42 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 2/25/2026 12:09 AM, Paul wrote:

The view of your DTP software, is virtual in a sense.
Important details about how it prints can be missing.

Similarly, the Print Preview may not capture all of the things
wrong with your print settings. Prints in the past (due to printer
language issues and .ppd info), showed up squashed into a one inch
square on the paper, and the Print Preview could not capture
a failure in the print chain.

The views are "illustrative" but not perfect by any means.
The operator still has to check various settings, margins
and gutters, scale to fit, to help predict just how
bad it will look, and whether yet another sheet of
paper has been wasted.

If all these views worked, you would never waste any paper.

Then WYSIWYG is not practical nor useful. We can keep using Wordperfect
or Wordstar for DOS with Print Preview (with modern printer drivers of course).

Any Other Business:

We should have never ever needed to tolerate black text on shiny white background, which is not friendly to eyes. :)

Dark Mode should also have existed decades ago. Well...

Just for the record, a couple of years ago I update my Word perfect to
the latest version 2021. I will update to the next version of Word
Perfect when it is released. It come as a suite with a word processor,
a spreadsheet, a presentation. The more expensive version comes with a database.

It is currently on my computer running on Windows 11
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2