save as missing in lion

Not really. Although there is no Save As, there is a Duplicate option. Use that option to open a duplicate of the file then when you Save the file you can change its name. Alternatively, depending on your needs you could select the Save A Version option.

The new mechanism is part of the resume and versioning functions within Lion.

Hello Kappy

In fact the new item is not

Save but Save…

As we are all supposed to know, this ellipsis character that the menu item will always open a dialog.

In fact it's just a shortened spelling for the Save As… item.

It's not Save As… which is gone, it's Save !

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 25 juillet 2011 21:53:08

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.0

Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community

To be the AW6 successor, iWork MUST integrate a TRUE DB, not a list organizer !

That functionality is for versions of the same file (and I don't trust that yet - sorry Apple, but sometimes I want to create hard backups), and it doesn't work at all to 'fork' a document into a new one. Doing it in finder is extra work, and changes 25 years of UI standards.

Bad move.

I'm not sure exactly what your message refers to, but there is no save option in the file menu either.

I'm not sure why you don't see it. Are you sure you're in Pages when you check the File menu? For instance, the File menu in Safari or Finder does not have Save…

Peggy, you will see the menu that your post shows only if your actually working in a new file taht has never been saved or in a document that you created by using the command "Duplicate" before. You will NOT see the command "Save..." if you are are working within an existing file that has bend saved before.

The command "Duplicate" should be called "Triplicate" because most people will proceed as follows:

They will use this command whenever they would like to edit a file and save it under a different name and/or in a different folder. You want to write another letter to Peter Smith, so you open one of the elder letters you wrote to him, let's say "Letter-To-Peter-Smith-20110622.pages", click on "Duplicate" which creates "Letter-To-Peter-Smith-20110622 copy.pages" in the same directory, edit your new text, click on "File" > "Save...", change the name to "Letter-To-Peter-Smith-20110726.pages". The duplicated (and now redundant file) will either stay in your directory or has to be deleted manually.

This is a worst-case decline of usability and makes you loose time and disk space...

Jan Marks

Yellow Page Marketing B.V.

Yeah, as a designer I have to keep a weekly time and project log in addition to keeping archives of these documents for annual reviews and the "save as..." option was easy. "Duplicate" creates a couple extra steps that are uneeded imo. It wasn't broke, so there was no need to fix it.

It appear that you are one of the numerous uesrs working the wrong way.

Standard documents aren't deqsigned to be used as starting points for the creation of new ones.

Assuming that at this time you start from a document named azertyuiop.pages,

rename it : azertyuiop.template

When you want to create a new doc based upon this one, open azertyuiop.pages by a double click or thru the open dialog.

You will get an untitled clone of the original.

Two schemes are now available.

(1) trigger Save… so that there is really a file to store the contents of the new doc.

Apply the wanted changes. If it requires times, the autosave feature will do its duty.

When the document is finished, close

that's all for this scheme

(2) Apply the wanted changes. As you didn't save once, autosave will not apply.

When the document is finished, close it. This time you will be urged to save with the name and the location of your choice.

I really don't see what is odd in these schemes.

Please, don't respond in a hurry.

Test the described schemes at least once.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) mardi 26 juillet 2011 14:57:35

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.0

Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community

To be the AW6 successor, iWork MUST integrate a TRUE DB, not a list organizer !

Thanks I'll give it a go. You're content rocks! You're packaging of it... not so much. Thanks for the info.

Horrible omission IMO. We sometimes need to cross a version of a document into a folder that has Applescript setup, it's a real pain to have to go through these extra steps. Why not bury it as a keyboard-option key hidden feature if they are so adverse to it?

Really an odd UI pattern decision given history, and increased click-depth.

It's not always about adjusting templates, sometimes, it's actually easier to start from an existing document. Consider legal rules and regulations that require country-based versioning. Now, Apple is forcing us to turn every starting point into a template.

What's next. RCS for pages? Kind of ridiculous.

In any case, there's always OpenOffice or pains me to say it, Word for OSX if you hate this fn as much as I do.

I'm not sure that the ridiculous is where you think it is.

A template isn't necessarily a blank one.

If you are accustomed to create your new documents starting from azertyuiop.pages, leave it where it is but rename it azertyuiop.template.

If you start from qsdfghjklm.numbers, leave it where it is but rename it qsdfghjklm.nmbtemplate.

I don't guess which new problem would be introduced.

I repeat one more time that standard documents aren't designed to be used as starting points to create new ones.

This function is given to templates.

Apple left us years to understand that.

This time, the game ended, we must apply the rule exactly like many users were forced to admit that building faux-styles is wrong practice.

It's pitiful that they didn't build a scheme disabling the use of chunks of spaces to align columns or the use of chunks of returns to rule space between paragraphs.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) mardi 26 juillet 2011 15:52:03

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.0

Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community

To be the AW6 successor, iWork MUST integrate a TRUE DB, not a list organizer !

"I repeat one more time that standard documents aren't designed to be used as starting points to create new ones."

Designed by who? You? Sorry, but your workflow isn't the universal gold standard. Documents are often created from the previous version (think invoices or time cards), not from templates that never change. We'd be creating a new template every week, which is simply unecessary, requires many extra steps, and results in useless 'templates' that are used a single time. The simplest way to create one with the least number of clicks is to open the document, then file->save as.

And that doesn't even count the times where we must save intermediate versions of a document (like contract revisions) with different names. The new workflow risks losing copies (since it doesn't save them into the folder where the original resides), overwriting documents, or losing revisions.

Talking with an Apple rep, they are being flooded with calls about this regression. It's a major mistake, and changed something that wasn't broken.

I'm going to have to revert to the previous iWork or switch to MS Office because of this. It's just too much trouble.