Hmmm. Well I agree a system that saved everything would be nice in the instance that your computer blue screened or beach balled to death, but then we're getting to the point where we take all responsibility away from the user. Say for some reason it didn't save, and a user is so used to just closing the program without saving, well now it's Microsoft or Apple's fault all over again. I also wouldn't want all my changes to be saved. Say I open a word document, is it going to automatically save what I type, even if I decide I no longer want those changes? Right now I could just close it, not save, and be back to where I was. But if it saved automatically...well that's a different story. Unless it was implemented in a way where it created new files, but then again I don't want to have to go through hundreds of files just for one document because it was automatically saved all the time.
It's an interesting idea and in the instance that your computer crashes on you it would be nice to just have your work back in your face, but I'm just not sure about it.
The program saves a copy after every x changes or x minutes. However, the previous versions are also saved. Preferably they would not be separate files, but rolled into the main document. so lets say you highlight the doc, then in a preview panel all your previous revisions would show up in a list, allowing you to select one.
I think what he's suggesting is a system that uses journaling to keep constant backups of documents as you're typing them. They wouldn't appear as actual files but would exist in the background for the OS to handle. The oldest revisions of the documents would be over-written when it is deemed necessary(so they aren't really allocated for anything and will show up as empty space). That would make it so you can go to any past revision of the document without keeping millions of copies AND without needing to save.
Take a look at the Google Wave demonstration and its timeline. You want an older version? Just drag the slider backwards, and you see the document un-type itself.
Why doesn't every program that doesn't save a huge amount of data (anything that outputs text, xml, etc) have something like this?
Why do my digital camera's photos have to be called "DSC8805.JPG" and reside in /Users/Erik/Pictures/Camera/2009-05-03? Why doesn't the computer just *know* that I want to see pictures from my camera taken May 3, 2009, and they're just there, instead of having to box them away somewhere and then put a "layer" on top like Adobe Lightroom to do this tagging and sorting?
I really wish Microsoft hadn't neutered WinFS and then delayed it into the distant future. Even an absolute piece of crap version of this product would provoke others into improving on it.
They have had autosave in office since the late 90's in case your computer crashes. I know he is just trying to get his point across but lying about his computer blue screening to do so makes him a douche. He obviously doesnt know enough about technology to be writing these kind of columns.
evilspoons got it exactly right. Systems like what was demonstrated with google wave, or at the very least auto-saving with simple versioning, should be the norm. It may not be quite feasible for large image or audio files, but documents, emails, freaking text files (like source codes for html, js and css files for example) should all be continuously saved with a time line and periodic backups (just in case something gets totally messed up and even the previous versions in the time line aren't accessible).
And the whole file storing system needs a huge overhaul, and everybody knows that, even Microsoft. Unfortunately, seems that it turned out to be a bigger task than what everybody thought, and probably will take a few more years and maybe a windows version or two.
In any case, these kinds of fundamental changes take time, PC industry is too big of a ship to turn around quickly. Still, we know very little about Google OS - maybe it'll provide some of those things, or even all of them, and will serve as a kick in the butt to MS and Apple.
I think what the author is stating is interesting if it had some modifications. Autosaving revisions per application would be evolutionary instead of revolutionary, as backup software currently saves revisions as a whole. Saving would become 'tagging' a certain revision. I believe 'save as' would still have to be utilized, though, as sometimes I am working on a paper, and I alter it so far as to create a separate entity. I still want to expand upon the first revisions, but this later version has wholly developed into something on its own.
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Hmmm. Well I agree a system that saved everything would be nice in the instance that your computer blue screened or beach balled to death, but then we're getting to the point where we take all responsibility away from the user. Say for some reason it didn't save, and a user is so used to just closing the program without saving, well now it's Microsoft or Apple's fault all over again. I also wouldn't want all my changes to be saved. Say I open a word document, is it going to automatically save what I type, even if I decide I no longer want those changes? Right now I could just close it, not save, and be back to where I was. But if it saved automatically...well that's a different story. Unless it was implemented in a way where it created new files, but then again I don't want to have to go through hundreds of files just for one document because it was automatically saved all the time.
It's an interesting idea and in the instance that your computer crashes on you it would be nice to just have your work back in your face, but I'm just not sure about it.
*Ideally* what would happen is this.
The program saves a copy after every x changes or x minutes. However, the previous versions are also saved. Preferably they would not be separate files, but rolled into the main document. so lets say you highlight the doc, then in a preview panel all your previous revisions would show up in a list, allowing you to select one.
Seems like the computer is tracking more and more of what I do. That's a good thing?
Google Docs anyone?
I think what he's suggesting is a system that uses journaling to keep constant backups of documents as you're typing them. They wouldn't appear as actual files but would exist in the background for the OS to handle. The oldest revisions of the documents would be over-written when it is deemed necessary(so they aren't really allocated for anything and will show up as empty space). That would make it so you can go to any past revision of the document without keeping millions of copies AND without needing to save.
Take a look at the Google Wave demonstration and its timeline. You want an older version? Just drag the slider backwards, and you see the document un-type itself.
Why doesn't every program that doesn't save a huge amount of data (anything that outputs text, xml, etc) have something like this?
Why do my digital camera's photos have to be called "DSC8805.JPG" and reside in /Users/Erik/Pictures/Camera/2009-05-03? Why doesn't the computer just *know* that I want to see pictures from my camera taken May 3, 2009, and they're just there, instead of having to box them away somewhere and then put a "layer" on top like Adobe Lightroom to do this tagging and sorting?
I really wish Microsoft hadn't neutered WinFS and then delayed it into the distant future. Even an absolute piece of crap version of this product would provoke others into improving on it.
They have had autosave in office since the late 90's in case your computer crashes. I know he is just trying to get his point across but lying about his computer blue screening to do so makes him a douche. He obviously doesnt know enough about technology to be writing these kind of columns.
evilspoons got it exactly right. Systems like what was demonstrated with google wave, or at the very least auto-saving with simple versioning, should be the norm. It may not be quite feasible for large image or audio files, but documents, emails, freaking text files (like source codes for html, js and css files for example) should all be continuously saved with a time line and periodic backups (just in case something gets totally messed up and even the previous versions in the time line aren't accessible).
And the whole file storing system needs a huge overhaul, and everybody knows that, even Microsoft. Unfortunately, seems that it turned out to be a bigger task than what everybody thought, and probably will take a few more years and maybe a windows version or two.
In any case, these kinds of fundamental changes take time, PC industry is too big of a ship to turn around quickly. Still, we know very little about Google OS - maybe it'll provide some of those things, or even all of them, and will serve as a kick in the butt to MS and Apple.
OpenOffice recovers even unsaved documents after a crash or power outage.
I think what the author is stating is interesting if it had some modifications. Autosaving revisions per application would be evolutionary instead of revolutionary, as backup software currently saves revisions as a whole. Saving would become 'tagging' a certain revision. I believe 'save as' would still have to be utilized, though, as sometimes I am working on a paper, and I alter it so far as to create a separate entity. I still want to expand upon the first revisions, but this later version has wholly developed into something on its own.