Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Aug 2012 13:16 UTC
Mac OS X How this passed through Apple's Mountain Lion testing is beyond me. "If one edits a document, then chooses Save As, then BOTH the edited original document and the copy are saved, thus not only saving a new copy, but silently saving the original with the same changes, thus overwriting the original." Just goes to show: do not mess with my ability to save my stuff. There is no one-size-fits-all for this kind of delicate stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 529910
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: file versioning
by quackalist on Mon 6th Aug 2012 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: file versioning"
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

hmm, voids the need for, "hysteric manual saving disorder, replacing it with an inferior hysteric manual copy disorder" from what I can gleam, though saving rather than copying, before editing, I'd have thought more prone to tears-at-bedtime than power failure.

Bit puzzled about what's actually going on here...though losing an original document to save the possible loss of an edited version is counter-intuitive to how people actually think/work editing stuff. Can imagine a 'collaborative' document could end-up having little or no relation(unintended)to the original.

Edited 2012-08-06 16:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: file versioning
by Tony Swash on Mon 6th Aug 2012 17:57 in reply to "RE[2]: file versioning"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Bit puzzled about what's actually going on here...though losing an original document to save the possible loss of an edited version is counter-intuitive to how people actually think/work editing stuff. Can imagine a 'collaborative' document could end-up having little or no relation(unintended)to the original.


See my earlier comment. I tested this behaviour and no data is being lost. What happens when you do a 'save as' is that the original version reflects the latest version and the older version appears as the most recent backed version. I really cannot see how anyone can lose any data doing any of this. Apple's logic is that it's better to have an automatic system that means everyone's data is protected than create a manual system that is nice and flexible and familiar for a few but which leaves the majority open to data loss.

Seems sound reasoning to me. Maybe Apple will tweak it's implementation to suit the few but I wouldn't bet on it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: file versioning
by quackalist on Mon 6th Aug 2012 20:16 in reply to "RE[3]: file versioning"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Can't see how data isn't been lost cumulatively. Don't use mac but from what I understand you to mean a file is in a liner process of change and unless you remembered to copy the file from the beginning you have 2 versions, the present and the previous 'save-as' as the bak which is whatever variable of 'save-as's' from the original.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: file versioning
by Neolander on Tue 7th Aug 2012 05:18 in reply to "RE[2]: file versioning"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As far as I can tell, there is no need for manual copies. Since OSX also includes automatic file versioning, a backup of the old document is also silently made when you start editing it, and one can easily go back in time and restore the old version as needed.

This file management paradigm works a bit like how Wordpress manages its blog posts : when you edit a blog post, you can create a new snapshot at any time using "Save Draft" or Ctl+S, and then restore them using a bunch of links under the editor. The online copy of the current snapshot, on its side, is silently backed up every few minutes. My experience with it is that so far, I did lose some data once or twice due to over-enthusiastic blog post editing, but that is nothing compared to the entire blog posts which I used to lose on my former CMSs when I pressed the "Submit" button without reminding to manually save the post to a text editor before, and then faced an Internet connexion or CMS failure. With the way OS X also automatically makes restore-able snapshots from time to time, I even could have reverted most of the unwanted changes easily. So as far as I'm concerned, this works perfectly.

I agree that this is at odds with current file management practices, though, and that Apple should not have pushed it to legacy users who are used to the old ways of file management without some kind of explanation and opt-in mechanism for them. What's more, as someone else mentioned, an issue with Auto-Save on a legacy OS like OS X is that not all software will implement it, resulting in an inconsistent UX. But it seems to me that this is also a sensible path to head towards in the long run.

Edited 2012-08-07 05:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: file versioning
by henderson101 on Tue 7th Aug 2012 09:12 in reply to "RE[2]: file versioning"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Let me fix the workflow:

Old workflow:

1) Open document
2) Edit document (without saving)
3) Save document as new name

New work flow:

1) Open document
2) Save document as new name
3) Edit document

Old workflow gives you no security for document safety and the backup is only as good as whatever editor has built in (usually by a third party.)

The new workflow gives you the same result, except you also benefit form OS level auto-save and file versioning.

I know which one I'd prefer.

The last time I lost a document was when Word 2010 was installed on a new machine, the install didn't have auto save turned on and Windows decided to auto restart the machine to install updates. This was a new document I'd worked on for an hour on a train. I broke my own rules - I only saved the initial paragraph then forgot to hit save (assuming auto save was doing that for me) and I lost 40 minutes work. It's a mistake I don't often repeat. One just needs to retrain oneself. That's all.

Reply Parent Score: 2