Well, if it does not work for you, switch it off, nobody is forcing you to use it (or iCloud).
Or he could just lock the document and it wouldn't auto save anymore for just that document. I think people tend to forget that Apple does do usability testing and they try every scenario imaginable.
Or he could just lock the document and it wouldn't auto save anymore for just that document. I think people tend to forget that Apple does do usability testing and they try every scenario imaginable.
How do we then do a contract change if the document is locked?
We want to leverage same-same verbiage between customers or governments. There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
This hand-waving response of yours was not well thought out nor very helpful. It also doesn't address the even more critical issue - having confidential documents covered under NDA exposed in some application. This is a violation of Non DIsclosures, something one would think Apple would pay a little more attention to.
More than a dozen of our multifarious Mac office systems may be accessed by numerous individuals. If someone is unlucky enough to be burdened with OS 10.7, they cannot have confidential or even personal documents any longer. Anyone with access to the application, has access to the documents that were forced-saved by Apple on that machine, above any & all user's objections. The machine now controls us and will not OBEY.
Nothing is more emblematic of this than the insipid little check box on the Restart (our staff calls this the Retard) window. Uncheck it and at the next restart, it comes back for more. It will never bend to your will. It will never obey what you want to do. It's either not advanced enough to do so, or it's just being a frigging WIndows-like jerk.
I really hate it when machines order me about, don't you?
There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
If you think a second about it, the duplicate command obviously serves the purpose 'save as' did before. It creates a new document based on the current state (and without any version history).
If you think a second about it, the duplicate command obviously serves the purpose 'save as' did before. It creates a new document based on the current state (and without any version history).
It does not serve the same function, if you think about it more than a second. Have you even used this?
What's the best option for using iCloud in a family that needs to stay connected with calendar and the same iTunes account? Right now I have all of our computers, iPads and iPhones tied to the same iTunes account for simplicity. Am I going to want to do the same thing with iCloud???
The whole thing is a big step back. Auto-save prohibits the user from making any test version of a contract or document, the Apple way is to save everything, make multiple versions and eat, eat, eat up disk space to sell, sell, sell more via iCloud.
So, you inadvertently make a mistake on a document and iCloud whisks it away, forcing the error-laden doc to all of your instruments.
I've been fighting in Pages with this boneheaded auto-save el crapo rio system for 2 weeks now, and I have to admit, this is the one and only thing Apple has ever done (since my first Mac in 1985) that I truly, truly find distasteful. It has created so much work for me, it's been frigging brutal.
First create a duplicate of an existing file and then Cmd+S it. You will be prompted to give ita new name. At this point you have forked you original file, and the auto save with versions kicks in on the forked file. What you are trying to do is the old way working with files. Pulling up an existing copy and editing it to create a temporary version for printing has never been a good idea. That's exactly how millions of people have wasted tens of millions of hours. Because if an app crashes with your modified but unsaved file, you are back to saved version of that file, which may be a few hours of your work wasted. With the new method, you will never lose anything. All you need to do is to create a fork and save it with another name only once.
First create a duplicate of an existing file and then Cmd+S it. You will be prompted to give ita new name. At this point you have forked you original file, and the auto save with versions kicks in on the forked file. What you are trying to do is the old way working with files. Pulling up an existing copy and editing it to create a temporary version for printing has never been a good idea. That's exactly how millions of people have wasted tens of millions of hours. Because if an app crashes with your modified but unsaved file, you are back to saved version of that file, which may be a few hours of your work wasted. With the new method, you will never lose anything. All you need to do is to create a fork and save it with another name only once.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
I haven't lost data in a document since this morning, when auto-save over-wrote my doc & saved shit that I didn't want saved. The time before that was when I was in Microsoft Word on OS 9.1. I have never had an app go down in OS X and take a document with it.
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
How do we then do a contract change if the document is locked?
We want to leverage same-same verbiage between customers or governments. There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
This hand-waving response of yours was not well thought out nor very helpful. It also doesn't address the even more critical issue - having confidential documents covered under NDA exposed in some application. This is a violation of Non DIsclosures, something one would think Apple would pay a little more attention to.
More than a dozen of our multifarious Mac office systems may be accessed by numerous individuals. If someone is unlucky enough to be burdened with OS 10.7, they cannot have confidential or even personal documents any longer. Anyone with access to the application, has access to the documents that were forced-saved by Apple on that machine, above any & all user's objections. The machine now controls us and will not OBEY.
Nothing is more emblematic of this than the insipid little check box on the Restart (our staff calls this the Retard) window. Uncheck it and at the next restart, it comes back for more. It will never bend to your will. It will never obey what you want to do. It's either not advanced enough to do so, or it's just being a frigging WIndows-like jerk.
I really hate it when machines order me about, don't you?
Dude, chill out already. If this is the reaction you are having to Lion, go back to Snow Leopard. Or better yet, retire -- you must be too old for the innovations that came with Lion. At one point, the technological innovations become too much, and that's a sign that yo have fallen of the technology band wagon due to getting tOo old for all these changes.
Dude, chill out already. If this is the reaction you are having to Lion, go back to Snow Leopard. Or better yet, retire -- you must be too old for the innovations that came with Lion. At one point, the technological innovations become too much, and that's a sign that yo have fallen of the technology band wagon due to getting to old for all these changes.
Are you even in the business world? What is the deal with you? Do you even get close to writing or composing in volume?
You have no reasonable, concrete or helpful suggestions nor solutions to a very real predicament, and forced legal violations, you're bereft of any idea or spark, so instead you decide to simply crap on me. Nice out. Well done! Smooth. Brilliant. You're shining yet again.
The Apple Lion Discussion board is jammed full of people struggling with this auto-save abortion. I am not alone in my clash here. They can't help each other, so I thought I'd venture over here and see if there would be some PROS who had ideas. And then there was you.
Auto-save was not well implemented, nor was it thought through. As usual, we're all beta testers.
As I mentioned above, it's perfect for the 8th grader doing his book report. For serious writing, and writing in volume, it completely and totally sucks. If anyone doesn't think so, they are not doing serious writing in volume.
Again, what do you expect for a lousy thirty bucks?
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
I haven't lost data in a document since this morning, when auto-save over-wrote my doc & saved shit that I didn't want saved. The time before that was when I was in Microsoft Word on OS 9.1. I have never had an app go down in OS X and take a document with it.
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
That's interesting. If you change one word in a template, and spit out a PDF for emailing it, where do you think your PDF is stored? Isn't it on your hard drive? It may be an attachment to an email in your Sent folder, but it's on your hard drive. So, there goes your NDA. If you don't want to have a saved version of a duplicate, then create a duplicate but don't save it. Edit it to your heart's content, spit out a PDF, and close the duplicate.
If you are such a high flying lawyer, what are you so worried about the price of storage. Finally, you can go to MS Office. It will probably take them years to catch up with versions.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
Wait, I have a perfect solution for you - Windows 7 with Microsoft Office 2010. You will pay $300 for the OS and another $400 for the office. That's $700 for the software compared to $90 that Apple charges for Lion + iWork. Microsoft is almost 8 times better, judging by the price.
So theoretically, can Office tap into iCloud in the near future and allow me to save .docs in there, that I can later open up in iWork and work on the iPad, to than be synced back to the mac and opened up with Office?
So theoretically, can Office tap into iCloud in the near future and allow me to save .docs in there, that I can later open up in iWork and work on the iPad, to than be synced back to the mac and opened up with Office?
MS is free to write Mac and IOS apps that use the iCloud APIs.
It should at least be mentioned that the main reason people were/are not happy with iDisk is not the price, but the performance. It's slow. Ridiculously slow. Unuseably slow.
Acknowledgement of this, and a serious discussion of whether with all it's fancy-ness, iCloud will be any faster would seem to be central.
Getting in touch with users of the iCloud beta, especially those not based in the USA and finding out if the speed of access is improved in iCloud, would be far more valuable than anything Dan can tell us about how great it works when you live within a few of miles of Apple headquarters.
I thought the speed was ok for people in the States. Apparently not? Could differ from state to state of course. Here at the other side of the pond it was slow, initially (2008). But they did improve the speed considerably (somewhere in 2009) but it obviously a user experience that may be different for someone else. A 800KB document gets opened 'in a few seconds'. The finder is a bit slow if you have a large number of files in one directory. Opening a folder on iDisk from Safari over a fast (20/1Mb) DSL line that contains over 50 files takes a few seconds, but scrolling down is slow: I have to wait another few seconds before Safari does scroll down.
I remember Steve mentioning that they will have (or use) more data centers around the world so that things speed up because users are geographically closer to their data.
1) You have iDisk until Summer 2012. If you migrate your MobileMe account before then you use iDisk. Or you could think it through and create a free iCloud account to test the waters, running both on your Mac until you're ready to make the switch.
So that is possible. That's good news, but how do I create a test account? I created a developer account in order to watch some of their developer video's, read some documentation. But I didn't pay a ($99/y?) fee. When logging in their developer site I get the message that I'm not allowed to access iCloud:
2) Yes, its app focused but that doesn't mean you can't "save arbitrary files into the cloud" it just means you need an app to do it. With the APIs for Mac OS, iOS, and iCloud expect to see plenty of apps that are designed specifically for saving, syncing and backing up files regardless of their file extension.
Do you think Apple will have all their apps support iCloud? Currently I don't see a way for me to save an EDL from FCP7. Maybe I should simply add .pages as a suffix? Might be LOL, might actually work. Although one would probably need to open the file in Pages in order for iCloud to sync it over. If that's even possible. What about a zip file? Or any non iWork, but 'Apple created software' file. What's your view?
I agree, it doesn't replace gallery in any way. It's also not a syncing service like the rest of iCloud apps use because it's only syncing a small subset of what's possible. It appears to be quite a simple service. It'll work great for me and my wife - so that she takes a photo and I see it on my phone, and vice versa. But no albums etc. And of course we will be forced to use the same AppleID to achieve this.
We really use gallery extensively between my parents and us and for other purposes.
I use Gallery with Aperture. For me that is a great way to manually manage my photo's, create albums, select if I want people to be able to download them, choose the pixel size. It appears non of those options are available in iCloud. It is however in beta, and even if it's not available after public launch options might be added later on, before they pull the plug from MM in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
I need to purchase Flickr now to see how well that replicates that - it looks like it'll be fine, not sure about videos in the gallery though.
I haven't looked at videos yet, but did notice that Flickr doesn't support RAW files. Obviously not for photo viewing on their website as a browser can't render raw (as far as I know) but Apple's Gallery allows you to upload the original RAW file next to publishing the JPG.
iDisk was similar - I never had a problem, but I wanted to be able to back up via Time Machine. Then I'd have a copy on the cloud, a local sync, and a backup on my Time Machine disk... but it didn't allow that (just a backup of the whole iDisk image, so you couldn't browse all files - unless things changed and I missed it). Drop Box folders do of course backup on Time Machine too.
Hmm, I simply mount the local iDisk image file and browse through the Finder, even if I don't have an internet connection. And the image gets backed up by TM. What is it exactly that you are unable to do?
Edit: the trail might be closed because they are looking for the bodies of some dumbshits who fell after climbing over the rail at Vernal Falls on July 19.
Someone else fell off when I were walking Mist Trail yesterday.
Hmm, I simply mount the local iDisk image file and browse through the Finder, even if I don't have an internet connection. And the image gets backed up by TM. What is it exactly that you are unable to do?
I wanted to be able to open iDisk, go into a folder, and click TimeMachine. Then look for a file that disappeared last week.
That's the promise of Time Machine. Though I agree the image backup at least can give something to go back through and manually open to find something missing - just not as neatly.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
As sirozha already said, you are still saving the pdf file, there goes your NDA and your disk storage space. And if your strategy is to save storage space by only keeping the pdf versions of your documents around (because they are smaller than the .pages documents), nobody stops you from deleting these duplicates you created.
Quote:
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
Obviously you don't care about other people, if a new feature helps a significant group of other people but does not help you (and even slightly inconvenience you), then it clearly is nonsense for you. Good luck trying to elicit goodwill with that attitude.
Quote:
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
And don't you think people who create multiple versions of 1.2 GB documents are smart enough to buy their storage from other places than Apple because it is cheaper there (and thus do not help Apple's bottom line)? Ah, wait their are people like you who do create 1.2 GB documents, so maybe my assumption was wrong.
But you know what your fundamental problem is? You run a business on applications but spend more energy complaining that the world is coming to an end than actually just finding the most efficient solution for your needs. If Lion's feature versioning feature is slowing you down noticeably why are you still on Lion? Or why are you still on Pages 4.1 (and not back to Pages 4.0.5)?
Comments
Well, if it does not work for you, switch it off, nobody is forcing you to use it (or iCloud).
Or he could just lock the document and it wouldn't auto save anymore for just that document. I think people tend to forget that Apple does do usability testing and they try every scenario imaginable.
Or he could just lock the document and it wouldn't auto save anymore for just that document. I think people tend to forget that Apple does do usability testing and they try every scenario imaginable.
How do we then do a contract change if the document is locked?
We want to leverage same-same verbiage between customers or governments. There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
This hand-waving response of yours was not well thought out nor very helpful. It also doesn't address the even more critical issue - having confidential documents covered under NDA exposed in some application. This is a violation of Non DIsclosures, something one would think Apple would pay a little more attention to.
More than a dozen of our multifarious Mac office systems may be accessed by numerous individuals. If someone is unlucky enough to be burdened with OS 10.7, they cannot have confidential or even personal documents any longer. Anyone with access to the application, has access to the documents that were forced-saved by Apple on that machine, above any & all user's objections. The machine now controls us and will not OBEY.
Nothing is more emblematic of this than the insipid little check box on the Restart (our staff calls this the Retard) window. Uncheck it and at the next restart, it comes back for more. It will never bend to your will. It will never obey what you want to do. It's either not advanced enough to do so, or it's just being a frigging WIndows-like jerk.
I really hate it when machines order me about, don't you?
There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
If you think a second about it, the duplicate command obviously serves the purpose 'save as' did before. It creates a new document based on the current state (and without any version history).
If you think a second about it, the duplicate command obviously serves the purpose 'save as' did before. It creates a new document based on the current state (and without any version history).
It does not serve the same function, if you think about it more than a second. Have you even used this?
The whole thing is a big step back. Auto-save prohibits the user from making any test version of a contract or document, the Apple way is to save everything, make multiple versions and eat, eat, eat up disk space to sell, sell, sell more via iCloud.
So, you inadvertently make a mistake on a document and iCloud whisks it away, forcing the error-laden doc to all of your instruments.
I've been fighting in Pages with this boneheaded auto-save el crapo rio system for 2 weeks now, and I have to admit, this is the one and only thing Apple has ever done (since my first Mac in 1985) that I truly, truly find distasteful. It has created so much work for me, it's been frigging brutal.
First create a duplicate of an existing file and then Cmd+S it. You will be prompted to give ita new name. At this point you have forked you original file, and the auto save with versions kicks in on the forked file. What you are trying to do is the old way working with files. Pulling up an existing copy and editing it to create a temporary version for printing has never been a good idea. That's exactly how millions of people have wasted tens of millions of hours. Because if an app crashes with your modified but unsaved file, you are back to saved version of that file, which may be a few hours of your work wasted. With the new method, you will never lose anything. All you need to do is to create a fork and save it with another name only once.
I really hate it when machines order me about, don't you?
I do actually.
I'm wondering if you all would be better off with some sort of document creation
app. Akin to what Lawyers use for document creation since you are amending
and possibly redacting more than the typical person.
First create a duplicate of an existing file and then Cmd+S it. You will be prompted to give ita new name. At this point you have forked you original file, and the auto save with versions kicks in on the forked file. What you are trying to do is the old way working with files. Pulling up an existing copy and editing it to create a temporary version for printing has never been a good idea. That's exactly how millions of people have wasted tens of millions of hours. Because if an app crashes with your modified but unsaved file, you are back to saved version of that file, which may be a few hours of your work wasted. With the new method, you will never lose anything. All you need to do is to create a fork and save it with another name only once.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
I haven't lost data in a document since this morning, when auto-save over-wrote my doc & saved shit that I didn't want saved. The time before that was when I was in Microsoft Word on OS 9.1. I have never had an app go down in OS X and take a document with it.
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
How do we then do a contract change if the document is locked?
We want to leverage same-same verbiage between customers or governments. There's no SAVE AS command any longer, and even when you CLOSE a document, it gets SAVED. We may or may not want it to be SAVED. Why won't our machines do our bidding anymore?
This hand-waving response of yours was not well thought out nor very helpful. It also doesn't address the even more critical issue - having confidential documents covered under NDA exposed in some application. This is a violation of Non DIsclosures, something one would think Apple would pay a little more attention to.
More than a dozen of our multifarious Mac office systems may be accessed by numerous individuals. If someone is unlucky enough to be burdened with OS 10.7, they cannot have confidential or even personal documents any longer. Anyone with access to the application, has access to the documents that were forced-saved by Apple on that machine, above any & all user's objections. The machine now controls us and will not OBEY.
Nothing is more emblematic of this than the insipid little check box on the Restart (our staff calls this the Retard) window. Uncheck it and at the next restart, it comes back for more. It will never bend to your will. It will never obey what you want to do. It's either not advanced enough to do so, or it's just being a frigging WIndows-like jerk.
I really hate it when machines order me about, don't you?
Dude, chill out already. If this is the reaction you are having to Lion, go back to Snow Leopard. Or better yet, retire -- you must be too old for the innovations that came with Lion. At one point, the technological innovations become too much, and that's a sign that yo have fallen of the technology band wagon due to getting tOo old for all these changes.
Dude, chill out already. If this is the reaction you are having to Lion, go back to Snow Leopard. Or better yet, retire -- you must be too old for the innovations that came with Lion. At one point, the technological innovations become too much, and that's a sign that yo have fallen of the technology band wagon due to getting to old for all these changes.
Are you even in the business world? What is the deal with you? Do you even get close to writing or composing in volume?
You have no reasonable, concrete or helpful suggestions nor solutions to a very real predicament, and forced legal violations, you're bereft of any idea or spark, so instead you decide to simply crap on me. Nice out. Well done! Smooth. Brilliant. You're shining yet again.
The Apple Lion Discussion board is jammed full of people struggling with this auto-save abortion. I am not alone in my clash here. They can't help each other, so I thought I'd venture over here and see if there would be some PROS who had ideas. And then there was you.
Auto-save was not well implemented, nor was it thought through. As usual, we're all beta testers.
As I mentioned above, it's perfect for the 8th grader doing his book report. For serious writing, and writing in volume, it completely and totally sucks. If anyone doesn't think so, they are not doing serious writing in volume.
Again, what do you expect for a lousy thirty bucks?
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
I haven't lost data in a document since this morning, when auto-save over-wrote my doc & saved shit that I didn't want saved. The time before that was when I was in Microsoft Word on OS 9.1. I have never had an app go down in OS X and take a document with it.
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
That's interesting. If you change one word in a template, and spit out a PDF for emailing it, where do you think your PDF is stored? Isn't it on your hard drive? It may be an attachment to an email in your Sent folder, but it's on your hard drive. So, there goes your NDA. If you don't want to have a saved version of a duplicate, then create a duplicate but don't save it. Edit it to your heart's content, spit out a PDF, and close the duplicate.
If you are such a high flying lawyer, what are you so worried about the price of storage. Finally, you can go to MS Office. It will probably take them years to catch up with versions.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
Well, the more I think about it, the more I wonder: what the heck did people (including myself) expect? I mean, it was only $30. You get what you pay for, right? You're gonna get a toy OS for thirty bucks.
Wait, I have a perfect solution for you - Windows 7 with Microsoft Office 2010. You will pay $300 for the OS and another $400 for the office. That's $700 for the software compared to $90 that Apple charges for Lion + iWork. Microsoft is almost 8 times better, judging by the price.
So theoretically, can Office tap into iCloud in the near future and allow me to save .docs in there, that I can later open up in iWork and work on the iPad, to than be synced back to the mac and opened up with Office?
MS is free to write Mac and IOS apps that use the iCloud APIs.
It should at least be mentioned that the main reason people were/are not happy with iDisk is not the price, but the performance. It's slow. Ridiculously slow. Unuseably slow.
Acknowledgement of this, and a serious discussion of whether with all it's fancy-ness, iCloud will be any faster would seem to be central.
Getting in touch with users of the iCloud beta, especially those not based in the USA and finding out if the speed of access is improved in iCloud, would be far more valuable than anything Dan can tell us about how great it works when you live within a few of miles of Apple headquarters.
I thought the speed was ok for people in the States. Apparently not? Could differ from state to state of course. Here at the other side of the pond it was slow, initially (2008). But they did improve the speed considerably (somewhere in 2009) but it obviously a user experience that may be different for someone else. A 800KB document gets opened 'in a few seconds'. The finder is a bit slow if you have a large number of files in one directory. Opening a folder on iDisk from Safari over a fast (20/1Mb) DSL line that contains over 50 files takes a few seconds, but scrolling down is slow: I have to wait another few seconds before Safari does scroll down.
I remember Steve mentioning that they will have (or use) more data centers around the world so that things speed up because users are geographically closer to their data.
1) You have iDisk until Summer 2012. If you migrate your MobileMe account before then you use iDisk. Or you could think it through and create a free iCloud account to test the waters, running both on your Mac until you're ready to make the switch.
So that is possible. That's good news, but how do I create a test account? I created a developer account in order to watch some of their developer video's, read some documentation. But I didn't pay a ($99/y?) fee. When logging in their developer site I get the message that I'm not allowed to access iCloud:
http://developer.apple.com/devcenter/ios/unauthorized/
2) Yes, its app focused but that doesn't mean you can't "save arbitrary files into the cloud" it just means you need an app to do it. With the APIs for Mac OS, iOS, and iCloud expect to see plenty of apps that are designed specifically for saving, syncing and backing up files regardless of their file extension.
Do you think Apple will have all their apps support iCloud? Currently I don't see a way for me to save an EDL from FCP7. Maybe I should simply add .pages as a suffix? Might be LOL, might actually work. Although one would probably need to open the file in Pages in order for iCloud to sync it over. If that's even possible. What about a zip file? Or any non iWork, but 'Apple created software' file. What's your view?
Thanks!
I agree, it doesn't replace gallery in any way. It's also not a syncing service like the rest of iCloud apps use because it's only syncing a small subset of what's possible. It appears to be quite a simple service. It'll work great for me and my wife - so that she takes a photo and I see it on my phone, and vice versa. But no albums etc. And of course we will be forced to use the same AppleID to achieve this.
We really use gallery extensively between my parents and us and for other purposes.
I use Gallery with Aperture. For me that is a great way to manually manage my photo's, create albums, select if I want people to be able to download them, choose the pixel size. It appears non of those options are available in iCloud. It is however in beta, and even if it's not available after public launch options might be added later on, before they pull the plug from MM in 2012.
I need to purchase Flickr now to see how well that replicates that - it looks like it'll be fine, not sure about videos in the gallery though.
I haven't looked at videos yet, but did notice that Flickr doesn't support RAW files. Obviously not for photo viewing on their website as a browser can't render raw (as far as I know) but Apple's Gallery allows you to upload the original RAW file next to publishing the JPG.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2175606AAE1BmT
iDisk was similar - I never had a problem, but I wanted to be able to back up via Time Machine. Then I'd have a copy on the cloud, a local sync, and a backup on my Time Machine disk... but it didn't allow that (just a backup of the whole iDisk image, so you couldn't browse all files - unless things changed and I missed it). Drop Box folders do of course backup on Time Machine too.
Hmm, I simply mount the local iDisk image file and browse through the Finder, even if I don't have an internet connection. And the image gets backed up by TM. What is it exactly that you are unable to do?
Edit: the trail might be closed because they are looking for the bodies of some dumbshits who fell after climbing over the rail at Vernal Falls on July 19.
Someone else fell off when I were walking Mist Trail yesterday.
Hmm, I simply mount the local iDisk image file and browse through the Finder, even if I don't have an internet connection. And the image gets backed up by TM. What is it exactly that you are unable to do?
I wanted to be able to open iDisk, go into a folder, and click TimeMachine. Then look for a file that disappeared last week.
That's the promise of Time Machine. Though I agree the image backup at least can give something to go back through and manually open to find something missing - just not as neatly.
This "new" way of working with documents takes way too much time.
I might need to alter one word in a contract & send it to an athlete's agent for perusal. I would not want my 1.2GB template DUPLICATED nor SAVED in any other format. If that's the new way, it's also the wrong way.
If you DUPLICATE a file, and open it to work on it, when you close it, the OS SAVES it, even though you did not want it to. Now you have a version of a CONFIDENTIAL document on your machine, and you're violating the NDA you signed.
I used to be able to open a template, change one word, spit out a PDF & email to the client and close the document without ever saving it. No extra copies (or idiotic DUPLICATES) on my drive, cluttering things & confusing admin's when they re-visit the folder 5 years later. Only a PDF marked TEST. And no versions stored in any apps.
As sirozha already said, you are still saving the pdf file, there goes your NDA and your disk storage space. And if your strategy is to save storage space by only keeping the pdf versions of your documents around (because they are smaller than the .pages documents), nobody stops you from deleting these duplicates you created.
Who are all these people who had so many of their applications crashing and then losing so much data, that Apple had to roll out a crappy new OS feature to protect their pathetic little butts?
Obviously you don't care about other people, if a new feature helps a significant group of other people but does not help you (and even slightly inconvenience you), then it clearly is nonsense for you. Good luck trying to elicit goodwill with that attitude.
This isn't about protecting your documents, this is all about selling storage space. Follow the money.
And don't you think people who create multiple versions of 1.2 GB documents are smart enough to buy their storage from other places than Apple because it is cheaper there (and thus do not help Apple's bottom line)? Ah, wait their are people like you who do create 1.2 GB documents, so maybe my assumption was wrong.
But you know what your fundamental problem is? You run a business on applications but spend more energy complaining that the world is coming to an end than actually just finding the most efficient solution for your needs. If Lion's feature versioning feature is slowing you down noticeably why are you still on Lion? Or why are you still on Pages 4.1 (and not back to Pages 4.0.5)?