Beginning to dislike Mac :(

[MacInWin]

I believe I recreated the issue, if anyone would be so kind as to check behind me. I started with this article:

How to Use Curves Adjustment Layers in Photoshop

This is a complete introduction that will get you comfortable using and understanding the fundamentals of the curves adjustment layer. It will not go into any technical detail that you don’t need. Everything I explain here is useful for you to know when actually using the tool. The first section...

www.picturecorrect.com

I saved it as a webarchive, assuming that's how the OP was saving these themselves, however I also repeated the test with the website itself. What I did was copy the text starting with the title "HOW TO USE CURVES ADJUSTMENT LAYERS IN PHOTOSHOP" and through the first paragraph. I then started a new BLANK document in Pages, and used "Paste and match Style" to insert what I copied. It pasted with the style of the BLANK template as expected, with the font being Helvetica Neue @ 11 pts. All good this way, as expected.

Next, I undid the paste, so I was back to a blank page, still styled as per the default. I then did a normal Paste into the blank document. It all now looks like it does on the source website, with all the font changes including size and color (EDIT: with one notable exception.... there is a blue background color on the font not present in the source, which I can't explain but likely has something to do with the article's HTML source code). From here, I re-selected all; simply deleted all the text rather than using "Undo" by using the DELETE key; and used "Paste and Match Style" again. Now... because I didn't use "Undo" before and simply deleted the previously pasted text, the style of the page is no longer Helvetica Neue @ 11pts. The new style matches the title as shown on the source page, which is 30 pt Helvetica in a yellowish color. Addiitonally, if you look at the paragraph styles picker, it now shows "Default*" as being the font style as per that article's title. See my screen cap.

View attachment 37352



Ok, so now we are starting to get somewhere. Next what I did was re-select everything. I'm actually going to slightly backtrack on myself here. When I posted that I was on to something last time... I had selected all the text again at this point and toggling bold and italics wasn't working. Actually toggling bold once did work because I wound up with fewer words-per-line as they took up more space from being bolded, but then not at all. I'm certain of this. As I walk back through these steps for this post, it is working as expected. It's possible I was confused and didn't have everything re-selected last time because there is a background color to this style that makes it all LOOK like it's selected. I'm not sure now but I know I saw everything change the first time I clicked the BOLD button, then not afterwards.

At any rate, something to take away from this is that if the default paragraph style gets changed via the way I made it change as above, that modified default "sticks" for anything else pasted into the document. This is expected behavior, but is a curveball that could be confusing, depending on what that default gets changed to. Just look at that screen cap. It appears that I have everything selected due to the background color, but I don't! Nothing is selected. When I actually do select everything, there's a light blue tint to it all AND clicking the icons for bold/italic work as expected.

EDIT: I do have a question. Just exactly HOW is the web page being saved to your Mac? Are you saving as a web archive, PDF, or a screen cap?

@LIAB, I think part of the problem was that the two "paste" operations were actually different. The first was to a new, blank document. The second was to that same document after you had pasted and then deleted material. It's likely that the second paste inherited something from the first. I repeated your experiment and pasted to two separate, new documents. In the first, I got what you got for Paste and Match Style. But in the second document with just Paste, I got pretty much what you saw, but I was able to use "Select All" to select the entire document, and then was able to change Font, Bold, Italic, Underlined. I could also change just one word by selecting it.

I didn't use Web Archive, just highlighted by click.drag on the article, then Copy/Paste. Maybe that is the difference? I see no reason to have to use Web Archive, or PDF, or even Screen Cap. Just drag/highlight/copy/paste and it all works.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

@LIAB, I think part of the problem was that the two "paste" operations were actually different. The first was to a new, blank document. The second was to that same document after you had pasted and then deleted material. It's likely that the second paste inherited something from the first. I repeated your experiment and pasted to two separate, new documents. In the first, I got what you got for Paste and Match Style. But in the second document with just Paste, I got pretty much what you saw, but I was able to use "Select All" to select the entire document, and then was able to change Font, Bold, Italic, Underlined. I could also change just one word by selecting it.

I didn't use Web Archive, just highlighted by click.drag on the article, then Copy/Paste. Maybe that is the difference? I see no reason to have to use Web Archive, or PDF, or even Screen Cap. Just drag/highlight/copy/paste and it all works.

Oh I know they are different. But if you follow the exact steps I used and see the end result as I posted, well I can see how confusion can result, even though this is actually the correct behavior of the app (I'm certain any other modern word processor would do the same). And the experience was identical, whether web archive or the website itself. I don't think Pages was capable of pasting copied text so precisely in the past in terms of the exact font used, size, color, etc. No word processor could. It's a fairly modern enhancement. At the least, I know the commenting system here couldn't do that, but now it can. So if you operate on the assumption that the OP was using an older version of Pages that couldn't be this precise and now is this precise. and consider that there is a background color that makes it LOOK like all the text is selected; well that would explain a lot. The insistence that Pages used to be a simple text editor is extremely inaccurate, but it wasn't as "robust" as it is now.

EDIT 3: I deleted my previous edits because I got confused... LOL! Pages 10.1 does do pasting the same as v12+. My bad. But v10.1 is as far back as I can go, short of setting up a still older version of OS X in a vm, and I'm not going to do that.

 

[NSMacGuru]

I apologize for hijacking the thread, TanBrae.

I wonder if "fixing" your workflow might be more easily addressed by abandoning it, and using something like "PrintFriendly" (a Safari / Chrome extension) to enable you to save web articles in PDF format, stripping out ads and other irrelevant material on the webpage? (you can also click-to-delete lines / graphics that you don't want).

Lifeisabeach was spot-on with the "blue dots" solution in their post. That's a thing I toggle frequently when working in any word processor to find out why formatting has gone willy-nilly. Very useful thing, especially when you learn what the various blue markings mean.

Randy and I have come to loggerheads before about Word. He has some kind of kindred soul relationship with the software, whereas I obviously do not. I've used Word since... at least v.3.0 if not before. As an academic and working in publishing, Word is the standard, and I must work in it when delivering documents.

I agree that training is useful in any situation (and TanBrae, you should consider booking a session at a nearby Apple Store if that's possible for you - they can get you on the right path now, rather than banging your head against the wall and having a generally unpleasant experience going forward).

That said: there are things that can't be addressed by training, like bad software design and poor bug squashing. I know there's a "Paste" menu in Word, I visit it frequently, usually to select the "Keep text only" option (which should be the default). Word's version of "Paste & Match Style" is a lie (might as well be cake - any Portal fans out there?).

A big part of my work involves receiving material from other authors and bringing it into a standardized larger manuscript. These are documents often authored originally in any one of four (or more) languages, and from Word default .dot templates that carry over weird hidden formatting. Or worse - certain authors who seem to work from one document that over the decades (!) has had default margins knocked out of whack, ("What's a gutter?"), include text copied and pasted from other sources (and these authors have never heard of style menus nor reveal formatting, nor section breaks, nor... etc.).

Were I creating a document from scratch, I would rarely encounter a problem (though I despise the fact that - in Word as well as Pages, the default behaviour for pasting in a graphic is to wrap text in a quantum 3D Rhombus implementation that disrupts the time-space continuum).

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I agree that training is useful in any situation...

That said: there are things that can't be addressed by training, like bad software design and poor bug squashing.

Not to continue an argument too long, but even here I disagree. I don't disagree that Word has bugs, but even in that instance, with training you can learn how to work-around them so that they are merely peccadillos that you deal with.

I'm the head of a Macintosh user group with just short of 10,000 Mac-using attorneys. Just about all of them use Microsoft Word. Those who have had good training on how to use the program like a professional love the program and sing its praises. Those who stubbornly refuse to get good training bitterly complain about the program constantly.

You can become one of the the former in an evening.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Word's version of "Paste & Match Style" is a lie (might as well be cake - any Portal fans out there?).

A big part of my work involves receiving material from other authors and bringing it into a standardized larger manuscript. These are documents often authored originally in any one of four (or more) languages, and from Word default .dot templates that carry over weird hidden formatting. Or worse - certain authors who seem to work from one document that over the decades (!) has had default margins knocked out of whack, ("What's a gutter?"), include text copied and pasted from other sources (and these authors have never heard of style menus nor reveal formatting, nor section breaks, nor... etc.).

Well now, no Word fan here, but to be fair, it sounds like you'd have this sort of cleanup operation no matter what these authors had used. Waaaaay back in the day, I was a newb with WordPerfect (for DOS... yeah, that far back) and had some formatting issues in a paper of my own for school. Someone who knew his way around it showed me how to fix the formatting by revealing the underlying code and stripping out duplicated/conflicting pieces (I forget what sort of problems it had).

Seems like MS keeps tinkering with their own format though for saved files, and Word has trouble importing even its own older docs sometimes. Now THAT, I don't get. I also had read a tip some time back about how Word docs get severely bloated in file size from edits over time to a point where it's more efficient to copy the entire contents and paste them into a new document to strip out the bloat and still have the end result of the old document.

Were I creating a document from scratch, I would rarely encounter a problem (though I despise the fact that - in Word as well as Pages, the default behaviour for pasting in a graphic is to wrap text in a quantum 3D Rhombus implementation that disrupts the time-space continuum).

To be fair, I think this would be a problem in any "robust" word processing app.

And Randy, I'll disagree that one can't teach themselves how to master Word. I've had zero training on Word, but I have a great grasp on it, I dare say. But I did learn WP back in college, along with Lotus 1-2-3 and... whatever the database program was, so I have some background. And I'm nosy; like to experiment; and know how to read the help files and search the internet.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I also had read a tip some time back about how Word docs get severely bloated in file size from edits over time to a point where it's more efficient to copy the entire contents and paste them into a new document to strip out the bloat and still have the end result of the old document.

That was a problem many years ago now, when Word still had the "fast saves" option. Since then, Word has eliminated that option, and has also been migrated to a more robust and stable file format. You'd know that if you took a simple course that would take only one evening.

And Randy, I'll disagree that one can't teach themselves how to master Word.

It's not impossible, but it would be an incredibly inefficient way to learn the program, since you would likely never learn the over-arching theory of how things work in Word. So you'd know about a bunch of features that exist inside Word, but not how to make Word truly work for you.

Not to mention that I've heard from several folks who say that they are self-taught on Word, and who claim to have mastered it, and then they turn around and show that they don't understand some of the most basic intrinsic things about the program.

I struggled with the program for years. (I cringe thinking about how much time I added to writing each brief I wrote during this period through fighting Word and trying to make it do what I wanted it to. And, worse, then I add the time that I now routinely save through using Word's advanced features that allow me to write complex documents so much faster.) In fact, back then I was of the opinion that no one could master such a complex program. Then one evening I took a course on Word at a local computer store. The course made it seem so easy. So many things suddenly seemed obvious, but I never would have figured them out myself. Especially important is the overall concept of the program. Once you understand the theory of how the program is designed to accomplish things, then everything else is just one more simple feature, and nothing about the program is ever hard again.

I think that folks get ego involved and that they think that getting some training might brand them as "not smart" or that they "aren't good with computers." But it doesn't mean any such thing.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

That was a problem many years ago now, when Word still had the "fast saves" option. Since then, Word has eliminated that option, and has also been migrated to a more robust and stable file format. You'd know that if you took a simple course that would take only one evening.

An entire course to learn that Word doesn’t get bloated anymore? Well ok. I could have googled it to see if it was still a thing, but didn’t care enough to at the time.

It's not impossible, but it would be an incredibly inefficient way to learn the program, since you would likely never learn the over-arching theory of how things work in Word. So you'd know about a bunch of features that exist inside Word, but not how to make Word truly work for you.

An over-arching theory of how it works? Ok. Look, I don’t disagree with you at all that some basic level of training is necessary for someone new to word processing in general. Not to toot my own horn, but I do have a basic level of training. More than basic. An entire semester of it. No, it’s not specific to Word and dated some, but I have an underlying understanding of how these apps work and I’m flexible and intuitive enough to adapt as these have progressed.

Not to mention that I've heard from several folks who say that they are self-taught on Word, and who claim to have mastered it, and then they turn around and show that they don't understand some of the most basic intrinsic things about the program.

I have no doubt of that. You could say the same thing about many other things. Like, oh, Macs. I’ve had no formal training on Macs, but I‘m pretty sure I know this platform better than the run of the mill user.

But look, we are straying waaaaaay off topic here.

 

[pm-r]

That was a problem many years ago now, when Word still had the "fast saves" option. Since then, Word has eliminated that option, and has also been migrated to a more robust and stable file format. You'd know that if you took a simple course that would take only one evening.

That might be true, if and when a person giving the course was properly trained themselves and proficient, and I remember well of such a situation, granted it was many years ago, and the local VMUG Club brought in a trainer right from MS to give a demonstration on their Microsoft Word that had just been released.

His presentation was atrocious and luckily rescued another day by one of the senior members who gave an excellent presentation along with many of the little tricks that he had discovered and he was also self-taught.

But I think he was basically a programmer and somehow managed to look at the code of the Word application somehow and then figure out why the code was there and what it was supposed to do. Not exactly a normal self learner method I will admit. ;-)

But a good trainer and teacher, I would say, is a critical part of a good learning and teaching situation. Unfortunately, not all teachers are.



- Patrick
=======

 

[pm-r]

I was a newb with WordPerfect (for DOS... yeah, that far back) and had some formatting issues in a paper of my own for school.

That reminds me of my first hands-on computer experience I had to endure at work, and a bunch of networked computers working on a green/white screen, and an inch and a half thick manual for help, one for DOS and one for Word Perfect (DOS).

I can thank them for that experience as it was one of the main reasons we went out and bought our first Mac LC for the family to use. The best choice I could have made at the time, yet everyone else was buying Windows Doss PC machines.

I figured why not buy a computer that can do most of the work itself, and not rely on the user .

I was really amazed at myself for the report, complete with graphics and charts that I was asked to do for work with that machine and was really impressed with the abilities of ClarisWorks which some may also still remember using.



- Patrick
=======

 

[Lifeisabeach]

That reminds me of my first hands-on computer experience I had to endure at work, and a bunch of networked computers working on a green/white screen, and an inch and a half thick manual for help, one for DOS and one for Word Perfect (DOS).

I can thank them for that experience as it was one of the main reasons we went out and bought our first Mac LC for the family to use. The best choice I could have made at the time, yet everyone else was buying Windows Doss PC machines.

I figured why not buy a computer that can do most of the work itself, and not rely on the user .

I was really amazed at myself for the report, complete with graphics and charts that I was asked to do for work with that machine and was really impressed with the abilities of ClarisWorks which some may also still remember using.

My first PC was an Amstrad 80086. It had a pair of 5 1/4” floppy drives. it came with something called Gem OS, which was a crude GUI that ran on top of DOS. I eventually added a hard card (hard drive mounted to… an ATA card was it? I then wanted to boot Gem off that hard card, but it wouldn‘t run. I wound up studying the manual; learning a bunch of DOS commands; studied some of the files on the Gem disks, which happened to be plain text; and cobbled up a BAT file that basically tricked Gem into booting off the hard card. Worked awesome! Later had a roommate ask me to try and get some program that came on 3 1/2“ floppies to install on my Amstrad, and had copied them onto 5 1/4” floppies. There were more disks as a result because the 5 1/4s couldn’t hold all the data off a single 3 1/2. Naturally the installer didn’t work, but I modified the installer files on the copies to make it work. And that, folks, was basically what got me started on tinkering and tweaking.

 

[pm-r]

Naturally the installer didn’t work, but I modified the installer files on the copies to make it work. And that, folks, was basically what got me started on tinkering and tweaking.

WOW... You sure got into it a lot deeper and more technically oriented and involved than I did.

I think I basically gave up when I couldn't get the designated holes drilled in an audio tape to get them to work as a hard drive in the Adam computer my eldest son gave my youngest son. It was actually quite an amazing machine for its time, and then we got the Mac LC which opened up a whole new world. And then the new training and learning path started all over again, and still learning.

Used to love the hidden gems but I guess Steve Jobs pretty well put a stop to them. Now one is not even allowed to or at least almost prevented from looking for them... sigh...




- Patrick
=======

 

[MacInWin]

My first "computer" was built around an Intel 4004 chip. Programmed it one byte at at time into the 2K of memory. Then got a "store bought" computer, Radio Shack TRS-1, 16KB of RAM. Built the extension board to allow 64K of Memory and 5.25 floppy drives. Ran TRS-DOS, maybe the best, simplest operating system ever, but my memory might be fuzzy. Added a second board, with a switch, that let me run CP/M with 48K of memory on the TRS-1. Then moved to a Heathkit H-100 from there. That was the last of the "build" computers, all store bought from there. Looked at the Apple when the first GUI was out, but it was so far behind the S-100 bus approach that I thought it was a toy. Then IBM came along and made the "PC" acceptable for business and we all got brainwashed.

These days, I'm happy not to be sorting out the fiddly bits. I just want an appliance that works.

 

[pm-r]

These days, I'm happy not to be sorting out the fiddly bits. I just want an appliance that works.

+1.
So true. And reliably, consistently and reasonably speedily, and affordable is nice as well.

BTW: how did the chip makers actually know what and how to build the chips they used in those days.
I'd say there were some pretty clever people in the pioneer days to manage what they did.

Or was it just a matter of putting Electronics Theory into a small chip's circuit???



- Patrick
=======

 

[MacInWin]

Or was it just a matter of putting Electronics Theory into a small chip's circuit???

Yep. That is what "integrated circuit" really means. And much like Apples Mx System on a Chip, there were lots of folks who didn't like that they could no longer get to the transistors and such because they were all integrated onto one chip.

Things never change.

 

[pm-r]

And much like Apples Mx System on a Chip, there were lots of folks who didn't like that they could no longer get to the transistors and such because they were all integrated onto one chip.

I wasn't going to answer with my next question to save everybody some time, but what if anything could they possibly do, even if they could get to any transistors??? They must be close to microscopic size these days. ;-)

Well I guess if they had the resources and were desperate enough they could always have a chip maker make them a custom chip designed to their specs. Maybe let's just leave that as a far-fetched fantasy theory... ;-)




- Patrick
=======

 

[MacInWin]

I wasn't going to answer with my next question to save everybody some time, but what if anything could they possibly do, even if they could get to any transistors??? They must be close to microscopic size these days. ;-)

Yes, now they are in nanometers. The 4004 was in But before the 4004, which had 2300 transistors on it, transistors were in a form that you could solder into circuits, and replace if they failed. With the advent of integrated circuits, folks complained that if a transistor failed you had to replace the whole chip, not the one transistor. Remember, the idea of a "chip" was very new in the late '60s.

Well I guess if they had the resources and were desperate enough they could always have a chip maker make them a custom chip designed to their specs. Maybe let's just leave that as a far-fetched fantasy theory... ;-)

Some folks actually did that. Early electronic controllers used chips dedicated to a single function. I think a chip called, as i recall, the NE-555 was a timer. It came out in the early '70s and was a basic for almost anything with a timing need. Radical stuff, that. NASA used custom built chips in the various space programs, including the ones that went to the Moon.

I was a bombardier in the A-6 Intruder in the early '70s and the navigation/ballistics computer in it was solid state, with some IC's included. Lots of transistors of the old style, but some ICs to do the calculations.

There were also dedicated chips for handheld calculators that could do multi-function math (add, subtract, multiply, and divide). The ICs in them were specifically designed for that one set of functions, not a general purpose computer chip.

What made the 4004 different was it was a "general" computer that could be programmed to do different things, depending on the signals input to it. It used 4-bit logic and had a 12-bit address bus, so it could address up to 4K of memory. You put the instructions into that memory, then the data, and fed it to the 4004 for it to do the calculations and put the answer back into that same 4K space. And when Intel came out with the 8008 and 8080 chips that had 8-bit bus and 16-bit addressing, the entire computing world changed.