What happened to Save As?

To add to Dennis' post:

That's not true, it doesn't: Duplicate and Save As... take the same amount of time...

Thanks for playing, but wrong. You missed the point entirely, even though it has been mentioned over and over in various threads. Writing a file of the same size of course takes no more time in either method. What you're completely ignoring is how Save As works as opposed to Duplicate. Specifically, when it comes to a document which has had changes.

If you've made changes to a file and want it to branch off to a new document while retaining the original unaltered file, Duplicate is ridiculously more complex. I'll skip the last step both have to accomplish, and that's giving the new file a name and clicking Save in the final dialogue box.

Using Save As to create a new file from an existing:

• Press Command+Shift+S

Using Duplicate to do the same thing:

• Duplicate

• Go back to the original open document

• Use the top menu to revert to its original state

• Close the original

• Press Command+S to finally save the duplicate to a new name

Thank you Kurt. You included a step I had forgotten. I've grown accustomed to closing the original without having to revert it.

This also brings up a point. If you don't close the original immediately and it is not a "locked" item from a while ago, it gets auto-saved again and again, just by being open. All of those "versions" consume HD space, which this thread has not yet even mentioned. If ever you wanted to know when the document was last really modified, I don't know how you would discover that, versus simply doing Get Info on the original. That is yet another thing to learn, albeit seldom needed.

For the xxxth time, Rename your original as xxx.template (if it's a Pages document)

This way when you double click it you don't change it and you may work as you want on the newly created one.

I work this way for at least seven years, long before Lion and even long before the day I bought iWork.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 13 février 2012

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.3

My Box account is : http://www.box.com/s/00qnssoyeq2xvc22ra4k

This is not the xxxth time, but it is not the first either. I don't want hundreds of Templates. My templates are like stationery. They contain certain basics, but not the full content of my previous correspondence in Page. The same is true for Numbers and Keynote.

Moreover, the Lion changes also occur in other apps, like Text Edit, which does NOT have the template feature.

If I were to write you a letter today, I would certainly not want it to be a Template, because I would not have the intention of ever writing another similar letter to you again. But if I found it necessary to write a letter to someone else, and perhaps use 80% of the content of something I had written to you, I would want to re-open the letter I wrote to you, change certain things about it, and then use SAVE AS to rename it and maybe file it away in a folder I use for that other person.

In Lion, I run the risk that if I begin typing in my original letter to you - even if I have the intention to eventually save it under a different name and I don't later forget to do that -- it will be auto-saved with the new content (unless it is locked from long ago). That can only produce confusion when I want to look at it again someday and I then discover it was changed without my consent.

This requires the user to LEARN that they better hit the Duplicate command right away, and close the original right way, and don't dare do any typing in the original unless the intent is to really modify it.

And that is the confusion and loss of time and productivity I have been writing about in this discussion, because user in a work environment have all kinds of behaviors, sometimes interrupted by co-workers, telephone calls, email correspondence, etc. And unless they fully absorb the Lion changes to revise their familiar work-habits, the consequences are not what is expected from using the world's best computers and operating system.

Dennis Burnham wrote:

This is not the xxxth time, but it is not the first either. I don't want hundreds of Templates. My templates are like stationery. They contain certain basics, but not the full content of my previous correspondence in Page. The same is true for Numbers and Keynote.

Moreover, the Lion changes also occur in other apps, like Text Edit, which does NOT have the template feature.

If I were to write you a letter today, I would certainly not want it to be a Template, because I would not have the intention of ever writing another similar letter to you again. But if I found it necessary to write a letter to someone else, and perhaps use 80% of the content of something I had written to you, I would want to re-open the letter I wrote to you, change certain things about it, and then use SAVE AS to rename it and maybe file it away in a folder I use for that other person.

It's exactly why for years I use templates every time which I must reuse a part of a document.

I already wrote xxx times that

xxx.pages --> xxx.template

xxx.numbers --> xxx.nmbtemplate

I wrote the same count of times that

for TextEdit and Preview we just need to trigger a checkox in the infos window.

I never keep documents in their standard documents status. I always store them, in the folders of my choice, with stationary/template status.

Where is the problem?

You wrote a letter to Mr Durand and saved it in TextEdit as txt, rtf or rtfd and checked the box "Stationary".

If I remember well, I posted a script doing that automatically.

Ten days after you want to write to Mr Dupont. Double click the old letter. You will get a new document which you may edit as you want with no risk to destroy the file storing the old letter.

There is absolutely no time wasted in this scheme.

And you may be disturbed twenty times, you will not destroy your original.

It's funny because when I learn something new in a forum I post a message :

Thank's, it's a good day, I learnt something.

Learning is a human properties. Are you just monkeys reproducing all day long what was carved in you brain ?

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 13 février 2012

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.3

My Box account is : http://www.box.com/s/00qnssoyeq2xvc22ra4k

Hi Yvan,

When (if?) I upgrade to Lion, I'm surely going to study your posts on how to open, close, save (as template!), etc. before I start using my iWorks (mainly I use Pages & Numbers)!! At my last job, where I was "coach" to many people on how to use Office software, they often complained about how the software did something. I found it hard to teach them something when they got stuck. Sometimes, the programmers will not change the programming of the software to what the users find best...no matter what!! You have to accept it and change the way you work with the software. It's only frustrating not to. Just my humble two cents...

It sounds like Lion now treats iWorks documents like databases. Databases have always done this. As soon as you open a database, it gets saved, while you work it is saving, any changes you make get saved. Usually when you close the document, you don't have to save it, it's automatic. If you want a clone of the database to "play" with or change but keep the original, you make a copy, rename it something else and open it. Sounds like this is the behavior Lion has now incorporated in the Apple applications, like iWorks and TextEdit.

But, thanks for finding a way to live with the "new" way of working with iWorks - I will definitely try your steps before opening any of documents! Do you have an online tutorial by chance?

Since the very beginning, it's clear that Numbers is designed to behave like a database.

I wropte many times that, from my point of view, it's why we can't sort a single column : it's required to maintain the integrity of rows/records.

I apologize but I don't know any application entitled iWorks.

Some years ago, Apple introduced a package entitled iWork. Maybe it's the one you are writing about.

I already wrote that several times but it seems that you missed that : when we install iWork as a whole or one of its components, we are urged to accept the License/Terms of Use which contain these lines (in uppercase) :

8. Disclaimer of Warranties.

A. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY ON MEDIA SET FORTH ABOVE AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND APPLE AND APPLE'S LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS “APPLE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 8 and 9) HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED. YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE FAILURE OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY, THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS.NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY APPLE OR AN APPLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SHOULD THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Of course the License applying to Lion contain the same sentences.

So, it's clear that it's your duty to change your workflow when Apple decide to apply some changes.

I'm an end user like most of those entering this forum. I do my best to help users when they face difficulties.

Since the delivery of Lion, I posted several tools which evolved according to the reactions of some users.

I never wrote (and will never do) a synthetical tutorial. I know that my old scholar English ios too bad for such a task and I'm not here to make the job of professionals.

Here are some references :

(1) Versions as a recovery tool

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3303794

In this one I delivered two scripts allowing users to extract documents from the hidden folder storing datas gathered by the feature entitled "Versions". They already allowed several users to retrieve an usable document when the standard ne proved to be corrupted/unusable.

(2) Save_As#3 :

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3504936?answerId=16810268022#16810268022

It's a script allowing users to work upon a document which was never saved. Triggering it from time to time save a replicate of the work in progress. This time, they keep chronological versions of their work without the annoyements due to the fact that iWork apps are so badly coded that Autosave eat every cycles of a processor core so that they must wait to be able to type something.

(3) I described several times (too often according to some ranters) that the easiest way to work with the apps embedding the new features is to store documents with the status of template/stationary.

This way, when we want to create a new document reusing portions of the existing files, we can't destroy accidentally the original contents.

For some applications we do that thru a simple renaming of the documents.

For other we just need to check a checkbox in the well known documents info window.

On 2011/09/08 I delivered a script entitled set_stationery to achieve the conversion of standard docs into template/stationary ones. It's available in some threads. One of them is :

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3210906?answerId=16118313022#16118313022

I enhanced it on 2012/01/01 and when I will have some free time, I will add the support of documents created with iBooks Author.

If you take time to read the messages posted by : tonza.

This helper is more technology aware than me. He describe very well why Apple intend to achieve with the new features. The ones discussed in this thread as well as the one entitled sandboxing are designed to enhance dramatically the safety of machines running OS X.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 13 février 2012

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.3

My Box account is : http://www.box.com/s/00qnssoyeq2xvc22ra4k

Yes, yes, of course, iWork!! - just my typing error - I meant iWork, specifically I use '09. Sorry to confuse.

Thanks for all the information; I most definitely will read further!

The database nature of Pages is really no different than Excel or any other spreadsheet. If you want to sort records, you must sort the rows, not the columns. But you make a valid point on my behalf by suggesting that Keynote and Pages should behave like a database. I contend that they should NOT. I might even go further and say that Numbers should not do so either. All three apps in the iWork suite are "creative" to the extent that they allow users to explore ideas and content in the course of creating a DOCUMENT. A database is not like a DOCUMENT. A database is a collection of RECORDS which should not be considered tentative or exploratory. When you submit a record to a database, it should be saved immediately. Subsequent editing is optional.

Similarly, this discussion thread is a database of messages. Every item we write is a record in that database. The records are sorted by timestamp. The records are seachable by various other fields, like author and subject. Our written submissions are not auto-saved, they are entered into the database when we press the blue UPDATE button below. We can later edit those records, depending on the permissions granted by the database. Now, in saying this I realize that the way web forms are processed is not exactly akin to the way auto-save or Save As occurs on a computer. I am just drawing this parallel to underscore the difference betweek work that is of a creative, experimental nature, versus record-keeping.

It never occurred to me that the licensing agreements are the legal instruments by which I gave Apple consent to dissatisfy me. I don't mean that to be cynical, but if Apple were to enforce such licensing agreements, then all discussions and feedback about its software products would be totally meaningless because what's the point of listening to customers or allowing them to talk amongst themselves if the bottom line is that we all signed the agreement and we are therefore obligated to sllently like or dislike what we got.

Moreover, I would submit that nobody can ever "pre-discover" that they like or dislike something because the licensing agreements are executed BEFORE the software is installed. I suppose you could go to a store and try out the new features before you agree to the terms of the agreement. That might be a clever way to build more store traffic 😉

Your scripts look interesting and I may explore them for my own personal use. But I would argue that, as the saying goes, the exception proves the rule: if it is necessary to implement scripts to compensate for exceptions that the software doesn't natively do, and if such scripts are applicable to a very broad cross-section of the software's users, doesn't that point out the need for the software engineers to consider implementing such items into the software as a "bug fix" or "new feature?". Indeed, that is very often what happens when Apple or Microsoft or Adobe or FileMaker discover something cool that was created by a third party or plug-in developer: they sometimes acquire the rights to whatever IP is involved and enhance their software with those features.

One more time you read wrongly.

I wrote :

I do my best to help users when they face difficulties.

Since the delivery of Lion, I posted several tools which evolved according to the reactions of some users.

It doen't mean that for my point of view there are problems with the new system.

I wrote many times that I think that it's behaving very well.

My goal is just to give users which dislike the new features a way to stay with their obsolete workflow.

I hope (but I'm not sure of that) that one day they will at last understand that they are wrong and that learning the new workflow is the best thing to do.

Apple developper working onn the operating system are clever enough to be able to think by themselves that it would be easy to offer a menu item triggering Duplicate and Save… in a single call.

My guess is that from their point of view, such an item would be a brake to acceptance of the new paradigm.

If they decide one day to implement my scheme, I will be glad to see that for the second time one of my ideas is include in an Apple's operating system.

Here, in real life, I use only Save_As#3 when I work on a large Pages or Numbers document to be free of Autosave action. I didn't wait the delivery of Lion to write that from my point of view iWork apps were not coded by brains but by feets. Some days after the Lion delivery, I added that I was saying a big thank you to the Lion's developers. Thanks to the delivery of AutoSave, the iWork team will be forced to revise in depth their products. Without such drastic changes, iWork apps for OSX will be unable to behave well with iCloud. The culprit is not the operating system, it's the odd code delivered in iWork apps.

I have no plan to use iDevices but I was said that the iOS versions of iWork apps prove to be more efficient than OSX ones. Maybe the devs discovered that there is no need to recalculate the entire documents after every change. So I will wait and see.

Oops, I forgot that from time to time I use the two scripts allowing to extracts files from the hidden folder dedicated to Versions. At this time, I had no real needs for that but I feel a bit logical to test that what I deliver really apply.

I wished to add Final Cut Pro X to the list of apps treated by Save_As#3 but as I wrote, I just got the trial version which was designed before Lion delivery. I will not buy an app just to help users.

Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) lundi 13 février 2012

iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 12 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.3

My Box account is : http://www.box.com/s/00qnssoyeq2xvc22ra4k

I tend to leave documents that I have duplicated open for a while in case I need to refer to them later. Only when I'm fairly sure I am OK with not having to go back do I close them off.

But that's my work habit, because it saves me having to open up other files or refer to earlier versions unnecessarily. I developed that habit because Newton OS didn't keep versions of any document.

It's a mindset thing.

—tonza

You could have discarded 3 of those 5 steps.

Sorry.

—tonza

Wow! That's one **** of a pickup! How'd you come across that?!

;-)

That said, I try to avoid EULAs to solve or explain technical issues!

—tonza

You could have discarded 3 of those 5 steps.

Without any evidence to support your position, your comment in useless.

What I described is exactly correct when you are trying to save an open document, which has changes to it, to a new name without the original being altered. You cannot in any way do that using Duplicate without having to go through the steps to revert the original before closing it. That is something you never even have to think about with Save As.

"• Go back to the original open document"

and

"• Use the top menu to revert to its original state"

I never saw the need to do that. If you don't edit the file since duplication, you should be able to just close it off.

"• Close the original"

Only when I need to, thanks.

—tonza