What happened to Save As?

mitchbentley wrote:

Yes, you have described it several times.

Yes, we have said several times that is is stupid and we don't like it.

Yes, you keep insisting it is a great thing because you worked on it and you are a stock holder.

May you point a message in which I wrote that I am a stock holder ?

As far as I know, I wrote that share holders were satisfied by Apple policy which isn't what you say.

You people are NOT LISTENING to your customers.

You are instead, defending a change that is indefensible to us. You may as well be trying to convert us to a different religion.

Will you understand one day that here you are speaking to end users like you ?

If you want to tell something to Apple representaives, use the dedicated channel.

Thank you for speaking to a near 68 years old beeing as if I was a 'younger' 😁

I already wrote several times that I own no iPod, no iPhone, no iPad and that I have no plan to buy some of them.

As an atheist, I have no plan to convert you to another religion.

I just feel free to write here my own advice as you wrote yours !

Look at statistics, Apple sell more and more macintosh machines since Lion delivery 😁

But for sure, you are more knowledgeable than Apple team about operating system and applications design.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) jeudi 8 décembre 2011 16:02:46

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.2

My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>

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

I apologize for being acerbic or vehement.

Yvan said:

Re: What happened to Save As?

Sep 28, 2011 2:31 PM (in response to Dennis_Burnham)

It's simple,

beta tester tested the operating system and discovered iWork 9.1 when it was delivered to the rest of us

As Apple user since the Apple ][ and shareholder since 1996 ($24 each)

As the guy which built two versions of the French GSOS (it was dropped by Apple France)

As the guy which built the French AppleWorks GS (and Claris allowed me to sell it)

I think that I may give my advice if I want.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) mercredi 28 septembre 2011 23:28:50

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

My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>

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

I took that to mean you were refering to yourself as a shareholder since 1996, in defence of giving your opinion. Perhaps this is a language miscommunication.

I apologize if I seemed to be talking down to someone who is my senior, I felt as if you were not listening well, but I also feel age is irrelevent to the discussion.

I do not think I know better than than the Apple Team about OS and application design, I do think there are considerations concerning the effect of policy decisions as to the direction of that design (not the same thing), which will bite them in the *** over the long haul, not the current sales year. I think time will tell for sure.

I'm quite sure that the documents which you create for each client have a common basis.

Save a document made upon this basis as a template : azerty.template (not azerty.pages).

When you will double click this file, you will get a new document which was never saved so you will be able to work upon it exactly as you did in the past with the single difference that there will be no risk to accidentally save the work in progress upon the original file.

It's what templates are designed to deliver.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) jeudi 8 décembre 2011 16:36:40

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.2

My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>

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

The concept of versions takes a step away from the filesystem and into abstract managed storage. If you have used a Newton OS-based device before, where there is no filesystem, you'll appreciate why "Save As..." makes no sense. iOS uses the same concept to manage documents in an application—you open documents from a list of available ones, and then edit them. No closing (you close a document when you quit the app or open another document), and no saving. They are just there as you last left them.

Versions in OS X Lion takes the concept of a document as an atomic "object" rather than something that is in memory and has an associated "file" on disk. The idea is that Mac applications work more like iOS, and Newton OS before it, and OpenDoc before that, and the Apple Lisa before that, in that documents are objects that you open and edit. No closing, no saving.

But when I say "no saving", I should say that saving is done without your telling so—they are automatic. To allow the system to track the list of automatically saved changes so that you can "undo" or "revert" to previous states, it keeps versions of your documents.

The change in concept means that documents must be named on creation—the system won't let you create an anonymous, memory-only document like you could on the Mac since 1984. You can change the name of the document once you have created it, and the default name could be "untitiled", but the name must exist, and it is the app that has the responsibility of creating the document's name.

It also means that the concept of "saving as a new name" in Lion is fundamentally different. In the early days of computing, documents in memory and documents saved on disk were two different entities, ie., documents on disk were copies of documents in memory at a point in time. There is no one-to-one association between a document in memory and a document on disk.

Documents in Lion and iOS go back to the days of Lisa, OpenDoc and Newton OS and take on the semantic that a document in memory now has an association with a document in storage, where storage can include a disk. This is an important distinction, because it may be that the document in memory and the document in storage is actually one and the same object, particularly where documents exist on computers with flash memory for storage.

In order to make something like a "Save As..." work, you need to make a copy of the document. This is where Lion's "Duplicate" command comes in (you'll see that command in the File menu of Keynote, Numbers and Pages for Lion). To to save a document under a new name, you have to actually duplicate (make a copy of) it first, and give the copy a new name. Duplicating a document makes a copy of the actual object, wherever it may exist (in memory, on disk, in storage... whatever), because that object has an existing association that needs to be replaced with a new one when you make the duplicate, ie., a document and its copy are two separately identifiable atomic objects.

This is distinct to versions of a document, which are actually implemented as different copies of a document in time that appear under the same name, and may also be identified as the one atomic object in storage. This allows Lion to be able to "... share only the most recent copy, not all the hard work it took to get there" when you share a document by copying it over to another Mac or to another user.

So to cut a long story short:

• documents are now atomic objects that carry associations regardless of where they exist on your system: on disk, on the network, in memory or on flash storage,

• to save a document under a new name, you need to make a copy of the document first and then change the new copy's name—this is handled by the "Duplicate" command in the "File" menu of Lion applications.

• versions of a document are not duplicates of it. All versions of a document are essentially the one and the same document, except that they track the changes to the document as they appear in different points in time.

• Lion's document management system is intended to support the concept of auto-saving where a document can be changed both in memory and in storage regardless of where in the system it lives.

As a sidenote:

• the Lisa also did have a "Duplicate..." command in order to save documents as copies under new names <http://toastytech.com/guis/lisaos3desk.gif>. Also note that Lisa doesn't have a "Save" command, but it does have a "Save and Put Away" command, which saves the document away and closes it (saving whilst a document is open is an automatic process).

• the Newton OS requires that users use the routing button (which looks like an envelope) to duplicate documents, whether in an application or on the Newton OS Extras drawer.

• OpenDoc made things more complicated by providing a Save command, since saving was not an automatic process, but it also provided a "Duplicate..." command for creating copies of a document under a new name.

• Keynote, Numbers and Pages in iOS shows you no filesystem, and lists documents that you can open, delete or duplicate (using icons on the top bar). There is no "Save As...".

I hope this makes things clearer as to what is intended as the document model for Lion, and that people can appreciate the reasoning behind the differences.

—tonza

I did not know the historical track, so thank you for that.

Unfortunately, even with the reasoning behind it, it is still more cumbersome and therefore more work, than the older system.

Allow me to point out, point-by-point:

• documents are now atomic objects that carry associations regardless of where they exist on your system: on disk, on the network, in memory or on flash storage,

Except that now there is a hidden file system to maintain that and I no longer have control of it, despite the fact that is is taking up space on my hard drive. It is also harder to utilize a previous version because it requires a Revert.

• to save a document under a new name, you need to make a copy of the document first and then change the new copy's name—this is handled by the "Duplicate" command in the "File" menu of Lion applications.

We got that. We don't like it. It takes 2 extra steps, which is less efficient for the user.

• versions of a document are not duplicates of it. All versions of a document are essentially the one and the same document, except that they track the changes to the document as they appear in different points in time.

But you miss the point: we WANT duplicates. This defeats what the user wants.

• Lion's document management system is intended to support the concept of auto-saving where a document can be changed both in memory and in storage regardless of where in the system it lives.

But not all software behaves that way, which puts the user in a precarious position when saving and duplicating documents (we now have to consider the behavior of each particular program we are working in... "Do I need to save this before closing it?" becomes a constant new concern). It also takes the storage management out of the hands of the user, which again, we don't like nor want. Many of us have systems in place for dealing with large amounts of files. This defeates and destroys our perfectly usable and efficient systems. At the very least, we should be given a choice as to wether or not we want the program to take over this kind of management.

I for one, was not given a choice. I bought a new iMac 27" i7 and it came with Lion. I tried to install and boot from Snow Leopard, using the recommended partition method, from Apple. My machine actually has a newer RAM architecture and will not boot from Snow Leopard, ergo: no choice.

Had I known all this, or had I the luxury of my other machine still working, I would have returned the new iMac and bought a used Tower from Mac of All Trades instead.

As I said before: Apple is not listening, they are instead, apolgizing and trying to make us want it. I have had to spend a great deal of time defeating several of the new "features" because they interfere with my workflow, habits and processes. All f the new "features" could have been made choices, but most are not. It took a lot of work arounds, but I finally got my machine to stop opening programs and last windows - that I had closed before re-starting - from opening up, because the check boxes that are supposed to be a choice, don't always work. Re-booting isn't clean anymore; so again, there are now additional steps for each action that used to be a single click. That is but one small example.

Please get the point of this thread: we don't like the new method; we want the choice to disable it. This is not a step forward when it demands more effort... and for the way we work, it does demand more effort.

The point of discussion was the absence of the "Save As..." command. I gave you the technical design reasons why. I don't think I can elaborate further than this.

Lion is offering a way for users not to care about how things get stored, and instead, offers procedures, mechanisms and techniques to manage what gets stored (when). Users shouldn't have to know about file systems because in the future, file systems may no longer be present (since the concept of disks will probably become obsolete thanks to the growing popularity and use of flash storage). What matters more is that the operating system an allow you to automatically safeguard your data and give you easy access to it on demand. How things are stored may change in future, so the idea here is to make file systems irrelevant.

Lion offers these document management services as APIs for apps to use, an are actually quite robust—the design of object-oriented storage is not new, and the computer science behind it has been developed over the last 20 years. But how these apps ultimately work depend on its developers. If there is something that your app is doing poorly, you can send feedback to the developers of the apps.

—tonza

What a great and informative discussion. Now I understand how bad decisions are made. It's all very logical, but, as Mitch says, that doesn't make it practical. I, too, believe that the bottom line is ease of use, and this change doesn't make the software easier to use. It also takes away a degree of control, as Mitch says. And in all this, it smacks of that same perverse logic that gave the world Windows and other MS products, which are so confoundingly convoluted with bells and whistles and little traps that may seem nifty to engineers but just make life harder for users. keep it simple, elegant and clean, like Apple is supposed to be.

Thank you Dusner.

You at least, "got it." Obviously Tonza doesn't.

Ultimately, how elegantly and logically engineered it is, is irrelevant if it is difficult or cumbersome to utilize. This is true of any design; I can create a stunning website, have flawless reasoning behind each aspect and show you how the CSS, JavaScript and jQuery loads fast and works perfectly, but is nonetheless cumbersome, difficult to understand and fails to be user friendly or function the way people expect it to. Such a website may sell the client for a time, but in the long run it will fail if people give up due to unmet expectations and move on to something easier to actually utilize.

Metaphors aside, one would think just listening instead of defending, would be a helpful skill for developers of any product line. But, hey, if Apple doesn't want to listen, we can't force them. Next time I'm ready to spend money on a machine, I will likely vote with my dollars in a different way... oops, another metaphor.

I've said my piece, I think I'm done here.

So... what is the difference between "Save As..." and "Duplicate"?

To the user, it's one menu command. And they both do the same job, essentially (disregarding the details I mentioned earlier).

What's the difference between organising files between Lion and Snow Leopard?

None.

So, what is making the lack of "Save As..." so impractical?

—tonza

mitchbentley wrote:

"Metaphors aside, one would think just listening instead of defending, would be a helpful skill for developers of any product line. But, hey, if Apple doesn't want to listen, we can't force them."

I doubt there were developers of Lion defending anything in this particular discussion. This is a user-to-user forum, not a developers' forum. Like the rest of the forums on this site, it's focus is intended to be user-to-user assistance on using the product. Apple doesn't actively monitor discussions on the site, although I suspect the hosts have been made aware of this one, and have taken a look or two at it.

If you want to say something to Apple, and actually want Apple to listen, your best route is through a channel that Apple does read/listen to. That would be one of the feedback channels, accessible through the Application menu in pretty much every current Apple Application, or on the web at http://www.apple.com/feedback/

Regards,

Barry

While "Duplicate" can be used to achieve a "Save As . . .", it is not simply one menu command.

The user must:

"Duplicate"

"Save" to give the new copy a file.

"Revert" the original file to get rid of autosaved changes since the last save.

"Close" the original file.

Since it is possible to do this, it should have been possible for the programmers to retain the "Save As . . ." menu item to do it.

Some users want access to and control of their file systems (and, whether or not there is access, flash storage uses a file system just like hard drives and floppy disks). People have been clamoring for an autosave function for years, and Apple seems to have come up with some good ideas for what that should include, but that is no reason to abandon what worked well in the old system.

The difference between Duplicate and Save As (for tonza) is this:

When you Save As, your document remains in front of you as the only document open. When you Duplicate, you get two documents, one which must be given a new name (same as with Save As) and the other which you have to dismiss.

This is not the biggest pain-in-the-*** thrust upon us by software developers - we've all seen worse -- but think about it this way:

If in 1984 they had given us this Duplicate menu option and we had been using it for the past 27 years ... and then now someone invented SAVE AS ... we would all be hailing it as a great time saver and wondering why nobody thought of it until now !

Barry: good point. Tonza is probably just another user, though she speaks as if she is invested in defending the issue. My bad.

Jeff and Dennis: thank-you for noticing that there is at least one extra step forced upon us under the guise of "improvements".

Tonza: I frequently open a document in Pages, make a change or two and then want to save it out as a different, accessible document without either creating a template (because I may not ever want to use that particular document to do it again), or changing the original, which is automatically now changed... unless I "duplicate" it first, close the other one, then make my chang and save it (4 steps - which have to be repeated if I want to do this a couple of times). Whereas, I used to be able to open the document, make the changes and "save as" not changing the original (or going through several steps to create a template I will never use hereafter), yet being able to continue several times in order of a) make changes, b) save as/repeat until I have several documents the way I want, in the folder I want... not hidden in my machine as various states to be searched through in the cumbersome "time machine" UI (which I loath and avoid at all costs).

Original steps: 3; following steps: 2

Vs.

"Improved" steps: 4; following steps: 3. Now, do the math...

If I have to do this several times with several different doccuments, the steps involved add up.

This reminds me of the new method for loading brushes in Photoshop CS5... arg. Why did they do that? But that is another forum...

"Some users want access to and control of their file systems (and, whether or not there is access, flash storage uses a file system just like hard drives and floppy disks)."

For now, this may be true because a replacement device driver has not been developed yet on Mac OS X, but there has been lots of discussion (Ars Technica has talked about this in depth) that using a filesystem on flash storage is:

a) a waste of space, and

b) unnecessary for a completely instantaneous and randomly accessible device

so the use of HFS+ as a filesystem on flash storage may probably disappear in due course (but this is purely my speculation).

I wouldn't be surprised if the HFS+ filesystem gets another major architectural change just to stop wasting storage space like it does now (a plausible reason why SSD sizes greater than 256 GB has not been offered by Apple at this time).

As for the rest of this discussion, it's all due to habit. You do not have to mimick the "Save As..." command in Lion down to every little detail. You could, for example, make duplicates early to avoid having to rummage through prior versions, and not close documents unless you absolutely have to (quitting an app, for example, closes and saves the documents for you).

You can experiment with being lazier at your leisure... I'll leave you alone to do that.

—tonza