Q: How to disable Versions completely

etresoft wrote:

 

 

DChord568 wrote:

 

"…complaining about the rest of US who have found that the old ways (established over 28 years of continuous usage) allow us to be more productive" = GOOD

 

 

In other words, "newness" is somehow self-justifying?

 

Most reasonable commentators on this issue have said simply that a CHOICE of saving schemes should be offered — one that would make ALL users of the Mac OS happy.

 

 

 

You have a choice. You can choose to not upgrade your system. You can choose to not spend $2000 for a new system. Neither choice will harm you or your productivity in any way. If it worked so well for 28 years, why do you insist on changing it?

In fact, I HAVE chosen to not upgrade any of the Macs at the small business where I work to Lion, because I know there would be howls of outrage at the changes that it has wrought in the saving paradigm.

However, you know full well (and hope we won't notice your omission) that this "choice" you describe here will only be available for as long as our current computers last. Eventually, they will have to be replaced — and then we will have no choice whatsoever.

This was the case with my Mac at home. It was severely underpowered and in need of replacement, and when I upgraded to a new one last summer, I was forced to use the Lion system software that was installed on it. I had no choice.

In sum, your argument here is as ineffectual as all the ones you've mounted in the past.

I have asked repeatedly for anyone to advance a logical reason why this is a bad idea. It is at this point that those who smugly put down others who prefer the old saving paradigm as being "uncomfortable with the future" suddenly fall silent.

 

 

Nonsense. Myself and others have repeatly given you and the other ranters a long list of logical reasons. Yet you persist in demanding that Apple roll back upgrades and new features.

Every one of your so-called "logical reasons" has been refuted. A simple check back in this thread will reveal that this is so, and that when you ran up against an argument that you had no answer for, you simply crawled back into your hole and pretended it was never made.

Meanwhile, you "persist" in mischaracterizing my position, which I clarified in the very post you're responding to. I have never demanded that Apple "roll back" the Lion "upgrade," nor have I asked that its "new features" be abandoned. Rather, I have asked in this specific case that user be able to choose between the Auto Save/Duplicate paradigm and the previous Save As one.

In fact, I have stated that the new paradgim should remain the default behavior, and that it could be disabled only by informed user choice, and with all appropriate warnings being acknowledged before it can be accomplished. You have tried to advance arguments against doing this, and I have shown in each case how they are baseless. You have offered no counterarguments to mine.

 

If every part of the system was configurable and optional, development would be a nightmare. Luckly, that wouldn't be much of an issue because we would all still be running the same software from 1984. Sure, there would be options to support such new features as HFS, Multifinder, PowerPC, Intel, USB, AppleTalk, and dial-up modems. No developers would have ever supported any of that because their users would have risen en mass to demand the return of their workflows and floppy disks.

Wow...talk about "nonsense"!

We're not talking about "every part of the system" being configurable (nor optional — see my last paragraph). We're talking about a single operation — saving — that cuts across all application lines and affects nearly every one of them. Anyone who does any kind of productive work on a Mac has to save it at some point, and indeed, has always had to.

The method of saving on a Mac remained absolutely consistent from 1984 through the summer of 2011. So to compare the change that occurred then to your listed examples is beyond ludicrous, and demostrates how completely out in space you really are on this issue. Your GOPHER sarcasm only shows that you have no logical arguments to make, so the only weapons left in your arsenal are exaggeration and snark.

Perhaps you could explain how any one of the changes you list resulted in it being *more difficult* to get work done on your Mac than it was before the change was made.

This is exactly what distinguishes the loss of "Save As" from all other changes that came before it.

 

DChord568 wrote:

 

 

 

In fact, I HAVE chosen to not upgrade any of the Macs at the small business where I work to Lion, because I know there would be howls of outrage at the changes that it has wrought in the saving paradigm.

 

No. You have not upgraded because you don't like Lion. You are making decisions for other people. Apple doesn't see to a market where people are forced to use systems they don't want. Apple can't compete in that market. Apple's market are people who would rather spend their own money for a Mac and keep a free PC in the closet.

However, you know full well (and hope we won't notice your omission) that this "choice" you describe here will only be available for as long as our current computers last. Eventually, they will have to be replaced — and then we will have no choice whatsoever.

You will always have a choice. You can get a Linux or Windows machine.

This was the case with my Mac at home. It was severely underpowered and in need of replacement, and when I upgraded to a new one last summer, I was forced to use the Lion system software that was installed on it. I had no choice.

You could have started a question in the appropriate hardware forum here on Apple Support Communities to find out why your computer had slowed down over time. Perhaps all you really needed was a RAM and hard drive upgrade.

Every one of your so-called "logical reasons" has been refuted. A simple check back in this thread will reveal that this is so, and that when you ran up against an argument that you had no answer for, you simply crawled back into your hole and pretended it was never made.

There is nothing simple in a 13 page thread.

We're not talking about "every part of the system" being configurable (nor optional — see my last paragraph). We're talking about a single operation — saving — that cuts across all application lines and affects nearly every one of them.

Hogwash. How about something that cuts across even more parts of the system? How about the CPU? Maybe Apple should have made the switch to Intel optional. That would give people years to upgrade. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The method of saving on a Mac remained absolutely consistent from 1984 through the summer of 2011.

Nonsense. Saving files on a Mac has undergone at least 4 radical changes since then - MFS, HFS, FSSpec, FSRef, NSDocument, etc.

This is exactly what distinguishes the loss of "Save As" from all other changes that came before it.

You miss the point. It isn't "Save As" that is gone, it is "Save". It isn't natural to expect people to "save" their work. It never was. Now it is technically possible to eliminate that step. Get used to it.

etresoft wrote:

 

 

DChord568 wrote:

 

 

 

In fact, I HAVE chosen to not upgrade any of the Macs at the small business where I work to Lion, because I know there would be howls of outrage at the changes that it has wrought in the saving paradigm.

 

 

 

No. You have not upgraded because you don't like Lion. You are making decisions for other people. Apple doesn't see to a market where people are forced to use systems they don't want. Apple can't compete in that market. Apple's market are people who would rather spend their own money for a Mac and keep a free PC in the closet.

I have no idea what you mean by your last three sentences. However, I want to congratulate you on a remarkable feat. You apparently know more about my fellow employees' work habits and level of computer skills than I do, despite the fact that I've worked with them for 23+ years.

FWIW, I am specifically *asked* to "make the decisions for other people" when it comes to computers in this office, because others don't care to be bothered in doing so. They just want their computers to work reliably.

But hey, you're right. I guess I just should have let my boss unknowingly upgrade to Lion instead of warning him about it (he thanked me, by the way, for doing so). I'm a big boy...I guess I could have handled the screaming that would have erupted the first time he found out he couldn't do a Save As any more.

 

However, you know full well (and hope we won't notice your omission) that this "choice" you describe here will only be available for as long as our current computers last. Eventually, they will have to be replaced — and then we will have no choice whatsoever.

 

You will always have a choice. You can get a Linux or Windows machine.

Apparently you must work for Apple. You're singing the same "**** you" song they're singing to their long-established, loyal user base.

This was the case with my Mac at home. It was severely underpowered and in need of replacement, and when I upgraded to a new one last summer, I was forced to use the Lion system software that was installed on it. I had no choice.

 

You could have started a question in the appropriate hardware forum here on Apple Support Communities to find out why your computer had slowed down over time. Perhaps all you really needed was a RAM and hard drive upgrade.

Once again, the all-seeing, all-knowing Etresoft. I'll give you credit: you're never shy when it comes to talking about things you know absolutely nothing about.

I'm happy to relieve you of your embarrasing ignorance. I had a first generation Mac Mini, long ago upgraded to its maximum RAM (all of 2GB). It was 5 1/2 years old. It was time for a change. If I wanted a new Mac (which I did), I had no options that didn't involve Lion.

 

Every one of your so-called "logical reasons" has been refuted. A simple check back in this thread will reveal that this is so, and that when you ran up against an argument that you had no answer for, you simply crawled back into your hole and pretended it was never made.

 

There is nothing simple in a 13 page thread.

Nice non-answer. I'm glad you agree with my description of your behavior.

 

We're not talking about "every part of the system" being configurable (nor optional — see my last paragraph). We're talking about a single operation — saving — that cuts across all application lines and affects nearly every one of them.

 

Hogwash. How about something that cuts across even more parts of the system? How about the CPU? Maybe Apple should have made the switch to Intel optional. That would give people years to upgrade. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Exactly what part of my statement is "hogwash"? That saving cuts across all application lines and affects users of every piece of productivity software? Citing another example (whose equivalence is debatable) doesn't negate the truth of my statement. More smoke and mirrors from someone who has no answers.

 

The method of saving on a Mac remained absolutely consistent from 1984 through the summer of 2011.

 

Nonsense. Saving files on a Mac has undergone at least 4 radical changes since then - MFS, HFS, FSSpec, FSRef, NSDocument, etc.

LOL! What a great geek answer!

Tell me...how did the changes you cite impact the *user experience* of saving a document in any way, shape or form? To refresh your memory, that's what we're talking about here.

 

This is exactly what distinguishes the loss of "Save As" from all other changes that came before it.

 

You miss the point. It isn't "Save As" that is gone, it is "Save". It isn't natural to expect people to "save" their work. It never was. Now it is technically possible to eliminate that step. Get used to it.

The point is exactly that Save As is gone. It has been replaced by a system that makes accomplishing the same thing more difficult. And a system that gives many Mac users the feeling they have less control over their documents.

Once again, you've entirely missed (and/or willfully ignored) the point that I'm fine with allowing the newer generation of Mac users who just can't manage the arduous task of keying Command-S every once in a while to have their way with Auto Save/Versioning as the Default. I would like to be able to disable this system at my discretion, because, on balance, it fixes a problem I never had in the first place, and makes working on the Mac less productive for me.

If you don't have this problem, that's great for you. But I do...and the evidence is clear that I'm not alone.

DChord568 wrote:

 

I have no idea what you mean by your last three sentences.

I'll let this guy explain it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvvzktuVY8

Apparently you must work for Apple.

I do not. Any Apple employee will have a purple Apple icon under their avatar.

I'm happy to relieve you of your embarrasing ignorance. I had a first generation Mac Mini, long ago upgraded to its maximum RAM (all of 2GB). It was 5 1/2 years old. It was time for a change. If I wanted a new Mac (which I did), I had no options that didn't involve Lion.

Almost all of the refurbished machines that Apple currently sells will run Snow Leopard.

Tell me...how did the changes you cite impact the *user experience* of saving a document in any way, shape or form? To refresh your memory, that's what we're talking about here.

Fire up your Fat Mac and try to save a file with a file name longer than 31 characters. Next, try it Arabic, Hebrew, or Japanese.

The point is exactly that Save As is gone. It has been replaced by a system that makes accomplishing the same thing more difficult.

To reiterate, Save As isn't gone. Saving is gone. How is doing nothing more difficult that saving dozens of times a day?

But I do...and the evidence is clear that I'm not alone.

You aren't alone. You are in a very small, albeit vocal, minority. Being in the minority isn't necessarily that bad, nor is being stuck in the past. Stay stuck in the past all you want. Enjoy it. Just stop complaining about to the future to the rest of us.

etresoft wrote:

To reiterate, Save As isn't gone. Saving is gone. How is doing nothing more difficult that saving dozens of times a day?

> Seriously? You need to have it explained to you again? Please try to read the thread before commenting.

'Saving' isn't gone. You still need to save a new file once it's created, it's just more difficult to create a new file with a new name now.

> You aren't alone. You are in a very small, albeit vocal, minority. Being in the minority isn't necessarily that bad, nor is being stuck in the past. Stay stuck in the past all you want. Enjoy it. Just stop complaining about to the future to the rest of us.

Time will tell whether this aberation is the future, or just another ill-consider UI mistake that gets quietly corrected in a couple of years. Luckily it doesn't look like many other companies are rushing to follow Apple's lead in this, so it may just be a question of dumping iLife for Office.

Whitecity wrote:

 

'Saving' isn't gone. You still need to save a new file once it's created, it's just more difficult to create a new file with a new name now.

The only real user interface mistake that Apple made was keeping the word "save" in there. Obviously it confuses people. Apple should have called it "Assign name" or something. That is really what is going on. All files, including new ones, are always saved. The initial "save" is just to give it a name and location somewhere on disk other than the temporary name and location that it starts with.

Time will tell whether this aberation is the future, or just another ill-consider UI mistake that gets quietly corrected in a couple of years. Luckily it doesn't look like many other companies are rushing to follow Apple's lead in this, so it may just be a question of dumping iLife for Office.

Office will have Autosave and Versions too. They may very well be optional in Office. Apple is the one that tries to keep applications as simple and as streamlined as possible. Microsoft has no problem adding new preferences and configuration settings.

I'm a big fan of Office, but iWork (iLife is iPhoto, iMovie, and GarageBand) is growing on me. I have a Pages document that is over 1300 pages long. Page has never crashed on me. I just can't imagine Word handling a document like that as smoothly as Pages does. My wife has even switched to Keynote because she is frustrated with Powerpoint crashing in presentation mode. Could the better stability in iWork be related to the greater level of complexity in Office? I certainly can't imagine anyone using Office without Autosave!

Well, OK...as long as you want to continue to embarrass yourself here, I'll be glad to play along!

etresoft wrote:

 

 

DChord568 wrote:

 

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by your last three sentences.

 

 

 

 

I'll let this guy explain it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvvzktuVY8

Thanks. Not really interested.

Apparently you must work for Apple.

 

I do not. Any Apple employee will have a purple Apple icon under their avatar.

Apparently you only get sarcasm when you employ it. Whoosh! (And of course, as is your wont you left out part of my statement this led into.

 

 

I'm happy to relieve you of your embarrasing ignorance. I had a first generation Mac Mini, long ago upgraded to its maximum RAM (all of 2GB). It was 5 1/2 years old. It was time for a change. If I wanted a new Mac (which I did), I had no options that didn't involve Lion.

 

Almost all of the refurbished machines that Apple currently sells will run Snow Leopard.

 

What part of "If I wanted a new Mac (which I did)" didn't you understand?

Tell me...how did the changes you cite impact the *user experience* of saving a document in any way, shape or form? To refresh your memory, that's what we're talking about here.

 

Fire up your Fat Mac and try to save a file with a file name longer than 31 characters. Next, try it Arabic, Hebrew, or Japanese.

OK, you got me on "in any way, shape or form" by citing two examples I would have zero chance of ever "trying" in my 28 years of using a Mac. Allow me to s-p-e-l-l it out for you more carefully: how did the changes in "beneath the hood" file systems have an impact of the "user experience" of 99.99 percent of English-language Mac users?

Perhaps I should be even clearer: how did the changes you cite alter in any way the scheme of a Mac user entering data and then keying Command-S to save it to a storage medium?

How about if you take of your geek goggles and join us in the real world?

The point is exactly that Save As is gone. It has been replaced by a system that makes accomplishing the same thing more difficult.

 

To reiterate, Save As isn't gone. Saving is gone. How is doing nothing more difficult that saving dozens of times a day?

When you have no answer, you resort to being willfully obtuse. As Whitecity notes, it has been spelled out to you and others numerous times, in great detail, how achieving the same result Save As makes possible in Snow Leopard takes several more steps in Lion. You can either own up to this, or continue to embarrass yourself further by playing dumb. Your choice.

Since apparently it must be s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to you again, many feel that whatever advantages your "doing nothing" may confer are counteracted by the loss of other capabilities. To reiterate, it solves a problem we never had, while introducing new ones that interfere with productivity and workflow.

If the new scheme doesn't interfere with your productivity and workflow, then good for you. But don't assume that everyone else in the world is just like you.

 

But I do...and the evidence is clear that I'm not alone.

 

 

You aren't alone. You are in a very small, albeit vocal, minority. Being in the minority isn't necessarily that bad, nor is being stuck in the past. Stay stuck in the past all you want. Enjoy it. Just stop complaining about to the future to the rest of us.

Ah, when logic and reason fail, it's time for the "stuck in the past" mantra. You're so predictable, really.

Neither of us can know with certainty the precise extent of dissatisfaction within the overall Mac community about this issue. But a question I've asked in the past is for someone to cite a specifc change in the history of Mac operations that has generated as much uproar as this one.

Like so many of my questions, this one has gone unanswered.

etresoft wrote:

 

 

Whitecity wrote:

 

'Saving' isn't gone. You still need to save a new file once it's created, it's just more difficult to create a new file with a new name now.

 

 

 

The only real user interface mistake that Apple made was keeping the word "save" in there. Obviously it confuses people.

You know, it's a miracle that any of the millions of Mac users down through the years (or for that matter, their Windows counterparts) ever got any work whatsoever accomplished on their computers, what with all this "confusion" about what Save means. Really, how did they ever manage all this time?

 

Office will have Autosave and Versions too. They may very well be optional in Office. Apple is the one that tries to keep applications as simple and as streamlined as possible.

So we're supposed to take it on faith (since you say so) that a Lion that had Autosave/Versions as the default (do I have to spell out with that means? It means if users do NOTHING, this feature is enabled) but capable of being disabled in Preferences by knowledgeable users would not be "simple" or "streamlined"?

Please explain exactly how the users who need Autosave the most would be compromised by such a set-up. You've failed utterly at this in the past, but hey, don't let it stop you from trying again.

You can repeat a nonsensical statement all you want. Repetition doesn't render it any less nonsensical.

Ahh, etresoft is just jerking you around. He knows as well as anyone that Versions is completely 'optionable'. Developers can choose whether to enable it or not, and there's no technical reason why Apple couldn't offer it as an option in their own apps.

My theory as to why they haven't is to encourage take up. They didn't put all that effort into re-writing the OS to have people trenchantly stick to their ways. Apple is re-defining the way OS X will work, and they are dragging the rest of us along kicking and screaming whether we like it or not.

I also heard another theory about the hidden Library that backs this up. Up to now, the rationale I'd heard for hiding the user library was to keep users out of it because it is dangerous to mess around in. That never made much sense to me when the system library (far mor dangerous to mess with) was not hidden. Now I hear the reason its hidden is because its deprecated - in future releases there will be no user library. Now how they're going to do that without completely re-defining the OS architecture is beyond me.

So, although I disagree with etresoft (almost by default), in one respect I agree with him: OS X is changing, and for those of us who think Snow is a far better solution for our computing needs than all this nanny hand-holding iOS-inspired rubbish that is Lion are going to have to move to Ubuntu when our current machines die. I'm already preparing for it.

etresoft wrote:

 

 

Whitecity wrote:

 

'Saving' isn't gone. You still need to save a new file once it's created, it's just more difficult to create a new file with a new name now.

 

 

 

The only real user interface mistake that Apple made was keeping the word "save" in there. Obviously it confuses people. Apple should have called it "Assign name" or something. That is really what is going on. All files, including new ones, are always saved. The initial "save" is just to give it a name and location somewhere on disk other than the temporary name and location that it starts with.

Well, I get that you're trying to troll, but for the sake of discussion let's unpack this. I don't disagree that it's confusing. The remnants of the old functionality are still there, without the most useful bit. I don't mind autosaving, that's not something I particularly need, but it's not a problem for me, what I mind most is the removal of 'Save As', which I use a lot in my workflow. Nothing about the current setup requires the removal of this function, it's simply capricious.

Time will tell whether this aberation is the future, or just another ill-consider UI mistake that gets quietly corrected in a couple of years. Luckily it doesn't look like many other companies are rushing to follow Apple's lead in this, so it may just be a question of dumping iLife for Office.

 

 

Office will have Autosave and Versions too. They may very well be optional in Office. Apple is the one that tries to keep applications as simple and as streamlined as possible. Microsoft has no problem adding new preferences and configuration settings.

 

I'm a big fan of Office, but iWork (iLife is iPhoto, iMovie, and GarageBand) is growing on me. I have a Pages document that is over 1300 pages long. Page has never crashed on me. I just can't imagine Word handling a document like that as smoothly as Pages does. My wife has even switched to Keynote because she is frustrated with Powerpoint crashing in presentation mode. Could the better stability in iWork be related to the greater level of complexity in Office? I certainly can't imagine anyone using Office without Autosave!

I think it's pretty clear that autosave will be optional in Office - MS doesn't want to make their system even more difficult to use. I don't disagree that iWork is great for some things - for simple documents Pages definitely used to be my go-to app, and Keynote is much better than powerpoint except for it's aweful new file-handling. Office is definitely the more complex app - comparing excel to numbers is laughable, and the same goes for work and pages to a slightly lesser degree - they are differnt apps for different purposes. That said I don't remember the last time word crashed for me. I certainly will be using it more because it still has 'Save As'.

Preview is the app I am really looking to find a great replacement for though - the worst issue is scanning large numbers of documents that I want to rename by using save-as, now includes two extra steps, which doubles the amount of time. Anyone have any recommendations?

Skim is a great free replacement for Preview if you're only interested in pdfs.

http://skim-app.sourceforge.net/

softwater wrote:

 

My theory as to why they haven't is to encourage take up. They didn't put all that effort into re-writing the OS to have people trenchantly stick to their ways. Apple is re-defining the way OS X will work, and they are dragging the rest of us along kicking and screaming whether we like it or not.

I don't see what is "theoretical" about that statement. That is precisely the reason it isn't optional. If Apple doesn't cut off old technology at some point, people will never upgrade.

I also heard another theory about the hidden Library that backs this up. Up to now, the rationale I'd heard for hiding the user library was to keep users out of it because it is dangerous to mess around in. That never made much sense to me when the system library (far mor dangerous to mess with) was not hidden. Now I hear the reason its hidden is because its deprecated - in future releases there will be no user library. Now how they're going to do that without completely re-defining the OS architecture is beyond me.

The system library is owned by root. That additional hoop makes it difficult to mess with. Someone really has to want to mess with it. If they want to mess with something, they will, hidden or not. If the user library is hidden, then that will prevent accidental deletion or corruption.

They can easily move the user library elsewhere. The launchd system startup scrips all have dummy values whose real settings are stored elsewhere. At some point, Apple could move the user library elsewhere. Any 3rd party application that did not use the correct API to access the user library will then be broken.

That is part of the rationale. If Apple keeps changing the operating system, those 3rd party developers that really aren't committed to supporting the market will get cleaned out on a regular basis. This will provide openings for new developers to fill the gap. Literally, the only effort required is to read the developer documentation and release a software update maybe once every 5 years or so. Is that really so much to ask? The reason Quicken doesn't run isn't because Lion made it obsolete. Quicken was already obsolete in 2002. When an application breaks because of an OS upgrade, it isn't the OS vendor's fault. It is because the 3rd party developer hasn't lifted a finger to support you, their customer, in a decade.

So, although I disagree with etresoft (almost by default), in one respect I agree with him: OS X is changing, and for those of us who think Snow is a far better solution for our computing needs than all this nanny hand-holding iOS-inspired rubbish that is Lion are going to have to move to Ubuntu when our current machines die. I'm already preparing for it.

Be my guest. I use Linux every day and know it well. It's a nightmare.

Whitecity wrote:

 

what I mind most is the removal of 'Save As', which I use a lot in my workflow. Nothing about the current setup requires the removal of this function, it's simply capricious.

I used to think the same thing. If you check the first few pages of this thread, you can verify that. Someone explained to me how if you give the new system a chance, you will come to discover that you don't really need Save As at all.

I think it's pretty clear that autosave will be optional in Office - MS doesn't want to make their system even more difficult to use.

There will be no impact on the complexity of Office. Office has had autosave for years. They even tried Versions briefly in Windows but couldn't make it work reliably.

That said I don't remember the last time word crashed for me. I certainly will be using it more because it still has 'Save As'.

Save As is just not a very common operation. Yes, Duplicate and Save is one more step. But if you are using Save As to a point where that extra step really get in your way, maybe you should look into templates instead.

Word is a great program, but I would never recommend anyone use it without some for of Autosave. Even the current Microsoft autosave feature isn't that great as Word will invariably crash just before the autosave kicks in and just after you've made really good edits.

Preview is the app I am really looking to find a great replacement for though - the worst issue is scanning large numbers of documents that I want to rename by using save-as, now includes two extra steps, which doubles the amount of time. Anyone have any recommendations?

How about using Image Capture instead? You can save directly to PDF if you want. Even when I need to save as TIFF to adjust colors, I find that Image Capture and the new, autosaving Preview is significantly easier than it was in Snow Leopard.

 

etresoft wrote:

 

Save As is just not a very common operation.

 

Once again, you're making the assumption that because you don't use a function frequently, then no one else does.

 

 

Yes, Duplicate and Save is one more step.

 

More than one more step. I'd be happy to demonstrate that this is so, although it's been done for you many times before.

 

But if you are using Save As to a point where that extra step really get in your way, maybe you should look into templates instead.

 

Again it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure you're not Yvan in disguise? This has been explained to him numerous times too, and yet he continues to make the same foolish statement you just did.

Templates are great if the new documents you're creating from them always start with exactly the same content.

They are of no use whatsoever when you're starting with a document with unique content and then want to base a new document on this one, something I frequently do in my work.

DChord568 wrote:

 

They are of no use whatsoever when you're starting with a document with unique content and then want to base a new document on this one, something I frequently do in my work.

And how many time a day do you do this? 100? 1000? 10,000? How is Apple supposed to know what the impact is unless you quantify it?