Yes, Duplicate is like save as. When you pick it, you get a nifty little animation where your window will pop out and spawn another one. If you attempt to save that, you will be prompted to name it.
That sounds like a real pain. I assume it's going to be named "Copy of [Filename]". And you won't be able to name it the same name as the original file. And it's always a little tricky clicking in the name field to highlight it to change it anyway. If you click more than once, it opens the file.
While being able to keep many versions of a file in a single file is SOMETIMES useful, there's other times where I know the changes I'm making are permanent and I don't want or need previous revisions. In fact, for my purposes, I have only extremely rare use for Time Machine. Just being able to click Command-S every once in a while is very easy...no popup windows to deal with, no interruption in work flow.
And if this is a file that has many revisions over a long period of time, I can't even imagine how large these file sizes will become. Which then makes them harder to email as attachments, etc. If they're going to implement this, it should be completely optional. The number of times that I'd want the feature turned on would be minimal. And there should be a way to delete all non-visible changes from the file.
Many more familiar with Lion have already answered, but, the way I understood it, files that haven't been touched in two weeks should be locked by default when Lion is installed anyway; how could Lion track file versions before it becomes the OS? Using your example (and I use a similar naming convention with some of my files), any 3-year-old file should prompt the user to either Unlock it or Duplicate it (which, logically, should also give you the option to rename the duplicate file as you wish).
I've always been really good about saving documents. Command-S has been ingrained as the last keystroke before my fingers leave the keyboard for as long as I can remember. And in all that time, I've never paid any attention to the dot in the red Close button. Nifty!
obviously apple wants us to buy even more memoy for our systems and faster chips.
Yes, obviously. That's why it makes performance enhancements to almost every new version of OS X, so it runs faster on compatible older hardware than the previous version did.
Quote:
everyone who reads this: just click on EVERY icon on your dock, start ALL programs, and you'll see how it works!
What does this brain damaged experiment show exactly?
1) Who said Lion's resume will open all the apps AT ONCE?
2) Who said the experience of having apps running all together will be similar in Lion --which has NEW CODE to enable this NEW FEATURE-- and in Snow Leopard?
And what happens if you open such files on an older Mac OS version? Or Windows? Or Linux?
Wasn't there also some controversy a while back about Microsoft Word files containing everything that the user had typed, even if they edited and resaved the file? And people would be able to go inside the file and see things the user did not intend for the readers to see?
Yes, there was. But it was a contortion of the file format that made saving faster. It wrote the entire document to disk from scratch every 10th time. Moral: convert to PDF.
Many more familiar with Lion have already answered, but, the way I understood it, files that haven't been touched in two weeks should be locked by default when Lion is installed anyway; how could Lion track file versions before it becomes the OS? Using your example (and I use a similar naming convention with some of my files), any 3-year-old file should prompt the user to either Unlock it or Duplicate it (which, logically, should also give you the option to rename the duplicate file as you wish).
Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.
Save as should still be there, I use it all the time when I need to save word as a PDF or when xcel gets "document was not saved" error. Also I keep all of my current work in the downloads folder until quarter end, when they move to a more permanent documents folder. Hope you can choose to auto unlock that folder.
If you have a document-based application, Lion offers an efficient, built-in auto save feature that stores changes to the working document instead of creating additional copies on a disk. Versions automatically records a history of changes made to your documents and lets your app display a Time Machine like interface so users can browse through previous versions.
Obviously, it will up to the developer incorporate Versions... Apple cannot unilaterally or isn't capable to automatically change the menu items. Only the app developer can do that.
And to assume based on the information at hand that you won't be able to 'Save as', forward files without versions, Rename, etc., is just plain stupidity.
Man is it frustrating to see so many assumptions or people that just can't read or take the time to do some due diligence.
Okay, so I guess the question that I see everyone dancing around but not coming out and asking (apologies if I missed it) is:
When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
My workflow on some files is to take a saved blank version (a template) of a form, load it into Word, and immediately Save As with the current week attached to the file name, then edit in the details of what went on for the week. I have folders containing copies of these files that go back the last few years. So long as I start with that blank template file, it sounds like my workflow won't have to adjust much to these changes.
However, for example, for the monthly time sheets, it's not unknown for me to have to re-do them a couple times as errors get found and corrected, and I'd much rather lose the edits off the final copy than forward them along to HR with the final copy. So, does Versions have the ability to save off a "final copy" of the file, ditching the history of edits? If not, I feel it needs it.
Okay, so I guess the question that I see everyone dancing around but not coming out and asking (apologies if I missed it) is:
When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
don't know about how duplicate behaves but I think that your 'Finalize Document' is called 'Save a Version'
Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.
That's a very common scenario - I have many such files personally.
I think that while the improvments in Lion will be readily accepted as a new file system workflow/UI standard by users new to Mac OS X, there is likely going to be some significant relearning required for longtime Mac users who expect things to work in the old manner.
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
so what's the difference between duplicate and save a version ?
so what's the difference between duplicate and save a version ?
Save a version adds the current document as it stands as a version using the same filename. Said existing file might have a history of 2 or 200 previous versions you can revert to at any time. If you only ever save (i.e. save a version, in apps that support it, like Textedit), you will only ever have 1 filename, and it will have all the previous versions since the file was initially created.
When you save as a duplicate, it becomes a new file, the contents of which are equal to the most current version of the document you just duplicated, and the version history is not copied over, the new duplicate is in effect version 1 of that new file, so it will only start to accrue new versions as and when the duplicate gets edited.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.
It happens all the time in documentation for manufacturing. We update a product and have to change all of the IFU, MSDS, reference and service manuals. I generally take the original, save as with a new name and begin editing it. Very normal procedure in business. I'm sure Apple has this worked out. If nothing else, I can just option+drag in the finder to begin.
Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.
I know about "Last Modified", but are you saying that those file systems can discern the specific content of different versions of files from their "Last Modified" metafields as Lion will be able to do?
Sometimes we need protection from these improvements meant to help us. Just one example, with "versions".
As I understand it, if i have a document three years old, and have edited it on a number of occasions, it's gonna exist in its original form plus all the overtly-saved "versions" AND all the auto-saves (default: once per hour). From the illustration, those versions are distinguished by date and time, but not renamed--as can be done using the save-as function. To find a desired "spot" in that continuum I have to search them all, instead of having useful, identifying filenames.
Say what?
Over the past two days, after a meeting with my attorney, I've revised my 2008 "Separate Writing" document that is a part of my will. When i initiated these recent edits, I opened the 2008 file and saved it as "Separate Writing v 2011". Pretty simple, right? I now have two "versions" of that separate writing--one with the suffix v 2008, and one with the suffix v 2011.
Which better serves my purposes? Clearly, the latter. From the illustration in this article, there's no option to "save as" and rename a file. So instead of two clearly identified (by filename) documents, I'd have perhaps 20 or more--all with the same filename, distinguished only by date and time that provide no insight into content, or intent.
So to me, this would be a step backwards. (Give me the ability to "save as version" AND rename that version, and i'm on board).
You can still "save as", whoever suggested you couldn't. Additionally versions can be deleted in various ways. This in in addition, it's an improvement. You've overcomplicated a very simple, easy automated system which helps workflow, not replaces anything.
So where is the version info kept? If I send the file to someone, do they get the 'latest' file or the original with a million differences they have to process...
It also sounds like they don't distinguish between saving to make sure your edits are saved, and real versioning, where you only save the important copies, not every little keystroke. In the first comment about a will, how would he mark the '2008' and '2011 copies as the 'important ones', rather than one of several incremental saves?
Comments
Yes, Duplicate is like save as. When you pick it, you get a nifty little animation where your window will pop out and spawn another one. If you attempt to save that, you will be prompted to name it.
That sounds like a real pain. I assume it's going to be named "Copy of [Filename]". And you won't be able to name it the same name as the original file. And it's always a little tricky clicking in the name field to highlight it to change it anyway. If you click more than once, it opens the file.
While being able to keep many versions of a file in a single file is SOMETIMES useful, there's other times where I know the changes I'm making are permanent and I don't want or need previous revisions. In fact, for my purposes, I have only extremely rare use for Time Machine. Just being able to click Command-S every once in a while is very easy...no popup windows to deal with, no interruption in work flow.
And if this is a file that has many revisions over a long period of time, I can't even imagine how large these file sizes will become. Which then makes them harder to email as attachments, etc. If they're going to implement this, it should be completely optional. The number of times that I'd want the feature turned on would be minimal. And there should be a way to delete all non-visible changes from the file.
obviously apple wants us to buy even more memoy for our systems and faster chips.
Yes, obviously. That's why it makes performance enhancements to almost every new version of OS X, so it runs faster on compatible older hardware than the previous version did.
everyone who reads this: just click on EVERY icon on your dock, start ALL programs, and you'll see how it works!
What does this brain damaged experiment show exactly?
1) Who said Lion's resume will open all the apps AT ONCE?
2) Who said the experience of having apps running all together will be similar in Lion --which has NEW CODE to enable this NEW FEATURE-- and in Snow Leopard?
And what happens if you open such files on an older Mac OS version? Or Windows? Or Linux?
Wasn't there also some controversy a while back about Microsoft Word files containing everything that the user had typed, even if they edited and resaved the file? And people would be able to go inside the file and see things the user did not intend for the readers to see?
Yes, there was. But it was a contortion of the file format that made saving faster. It wrote the entire document to disk from scratch every 10th time. Moral: convert to PDF.
Many more familiar with Lion have already answered, but, the way I understood it, files that haven't been touched in two weeks should be locked by default when Lion is installed anyway; how could Lion track file versions before it becomes the OS? Using your example (and I use a similar naming convention with some of my files), any 3-year-old file should prompt the user to either Unlock it or Duplicate it (which, logically, should also give you the option to rename the duplicate file as you wish).
Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.
Auto Save and Versions
If you have a document-based application, Lion offers an efficient, built-in auto save feature that stores changes to the working document instead of creating additional copies on a disk. Versions automatically records a history of changes made to your documents and lets your app display a Time Machine like interface so users can browse through previous versions.
Obviously, it will up to the developer incorporate Versions... Apple cannot unilaterally or isn't capable to automatically change the menu items. Only the app developer can do that.
And to assume based on the information at hand that you won't be able to 'Save as', forward files without versions, Rename, etc., is just plain stupidity.
Man is it frustrating to see so many assumptions or people that just can't read or take the time to do some due diligence.
When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
My workflow on some files is to take a saved blank version (a template) of a form, load it into Word, and immediately Save As with the current week attached to the file name, then edit in the details of what went on for the week. I have folders containing copies of these files that go back the last few years. So long as I start with that blank template file, it sounds like my workflow won't have to adjust much to these changes.
However, for example, for the monthly time sheets, it's not unknown for me to have to re-do them a couple times as errors get found and corrected, and I'd much rather lose the edits off the final copy than forward them along to HR with the final copy. So, does Versions have the ability to save off a "final copy" of the file, ditching the history of edits? If not, I feel it needs it.
Okay, so I guess the question that I see everyone dancing around but not coming out and asking (apologies if I missed it) is:
When you Duplicate a file, is it a complete copy, with all the Versions still attached, or is it just the current Version of the file?
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
don't know about how duplicate behaves but I think that your 'Finalize Document' is called 'Save a Version'
Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.
That's a very common scenario - I have many such files personally.
I think that while the improvments in Lion will be readily accepted as a new file system workflow/UI standard by users new to Mac OS X, there is likely going to be some significant relearning required for longtime Mac users who expect things to work in the old manner.
If Duplicate makes a copy with all Versions still attached, then I declare the need for a "Finalize Document" option that creates a final copy of only the current Version, suitable for passing on to the folks who don't need to see all the changes over the document's history.
100% agreed.
100% agreed.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
so what's the difference between duplicate and save a version ?
so what's the difference between duplicate and save a version ?
Save a version adds the current document as it stands as a version using the same filename. Said existing file might have a history of 2 or 200 previous versions you can revert to at any time. If you only ever save (i.e. save a version, in apps that support it, like Textedit), you will only ever have 1 filename, and it will have all the previous versions since the file was initially created.
When you save as a duplicate, it becomes a new file, the contents of which are equal to the most current version of the document you just duplicated, and the version history is not copied over, the new duplicate is in effect version 1 of that new file, so it will only start to accrue new versions as and when the duplicate gets edited.
Here it is in simple terms. Duplicate duplicates the current version, not the whole document history. You want to duplicate the whole document, do it in the finder and copy it.
THERE we go, that's what I wanted to know.
Okay, I'm good with it Apple. Send it to press.
Most people don't have one file them update every three years, but whatever.
It happens all the time in documentation for manufacturing. We update a product and have to change all of the IFU, MSDS, reference and service manuals. I generally take the original, save as with a new name and begin editing it. Very normal procedure in business. I'm sure Apple has this worked out. If nothing else, I can just option+drag in the finder to begin.
Most filesystems have a "Last Modified" metafield. Look at any file's Get Info and you'll see it there.
I know about "Last Modified", but are you saying that those file systems can discern the specific content of different versions of files from their "Last Modified" metafields as Lion will be able to do?
Sometimes we need protection from these improvements meant to help us. Just one example, with "versions".
As I understand it, if i have a document three years old, and have edited it on a number of occasions, it's gonna exist in its original form plus all the overtly-saved "versions" AND all the auto-saves (default: once per hour). From the illustration, those versions are distinguished by date and time, but not renamed--as can be done using the save-as function. To find a desired "spot" in that continuum I have to search them all, instead of having useful, identifying filenames.
Say what?
Over the past two days, after a meeting with my attorney, I've revised my 2008 "Separate Writing" document that is a part of my will. When i initiated these recent edits, I opened the 2008 file and saved it as "Separate Writing v 2011". Pretty simple, right? I now have two "versions" of that separate writing--one with the suffix v 2008, and one with the suffix v 2011.
Which better serves my purposes? Clearly, the latter. From the illustration in this article, there's no option to "save as" and rename a file. So instead of two clearly identified (by filename) documents, I'd have perhaps 20 or more--all with the same filename, distinguished only by date and time that provide no insight into content, or intent.
So to me, this would be a step backwards. (Give me the ability to "save as version" AND rename that version, and i'm on board).
You can still "save as", whoever suggested you couldn't. Additionally versions can be deleted in various ways. This in in addition, it's an improvement. You've overcomplicated a very simple, easy automated system which helps workflow, not replaces anything.
It also sounds like they don't distinguish between saving to make sure your edits are saved, and real versioning, where you only save the important copies, not every little keystroke. In the first comment about a will, how would he mark the '2008' and '2011 copies as the 'important ones', rather than one of several incremental saves?