Another heavily-publicized feature of Lion is Versions, which keeps older copies of files as you save new ones and allows you to go back to previous copies to compare, restore, and copy-paste things you didn't mean to change. Unlike Resume, applications will need to be changed to support this functionality.

In a Versions-supporting program like TextEdit or Preview, you'll notice that the normal "Save" or command-S function is now called "Save a Version" instead. There's no special command you need to know to save Versions - if the app supports it, this happens automatically.

 

When you want to go back and look at your previous versions, select the Revert to Saved option in the menu to open the Versions interface.

You'll be presented with a very Time Machine-esque interface that will let you browse through your previously saved copies, compare them to your working copy, and restore an old copy to be your new working copy.

So how does this work? Versions stores its data at the root of your OS volume in a hidden and locked-down folder called 'DocumentRevisions-V100". Files are saved using the UID for each user account (the UID is a unique number assigned to each user account at time of creation, and is normally hidden from the user. All UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems use UIDs for user accounts). In the screenshot below, "501" is my account's UID, and the numbered folders each correspond to an individual file.

Drill down into any of the folders stored here, and you can see where OS X is keeping the older copies of your files.

Whenever you delete the source file, all stored versions of it are also deleted, so don't try to use Versions to recover accidentally deleted files - that's not what it's for, and you'll still need to be careful about what you do and don't keep.

It's not immediately obvious how many files OS X will store versions for, or how much disk space this hidden folder will take up if you let it, but disk space seems to be the limitation here - I was able to save 63 versions of an individual file without overwriting any older copies. Given Apple's desire to hide the seams and inner workings of OS X from regular users, I feel confident in saying that (1) OS X won't allow this system folder to take up so much space that it impacts OS performance or storage of regular files, and (2) there's probably some sort of safeguard present that will eventually begin deleting older versions of things as disk space runs low. This is how Time Machine works, and Versions is obviously taking cues from that feature.

System Information Resume
Comments Locked

106 Comments

View All Comments

  • rs2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Okay, it makes sense on a touch device where your finger is actually making contact with the thing you are scrolling. But a mouse cursor is *not* a finger. It is not an analog for a finger. It is a different input paradigm entirely, and trying to make it behave as if the mouse cursor is your finger by making scrolling go backwards is stupid.

    It's good that they put in an option to disable the nonsense that is "natural" scrolling.
  • name99 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Not at all. The issue is simple : what is the metaphor?
    When I move my finger, am I moving
    - the window container? OR
    - the content?

    Claiming that one is more "natural" than the other is as stupid as claiming that English is more natural than Chinese. It's simply that you are used to one and, like a good American, you simply cannot imagine that the world could possibly be different --- after all, Jesus spoke English.
  • rs2 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Not at all. There is no "finger" when using a mouse. Touch and mouse-driven are distinct input paradigms. If a touch-based interface ever scrolled content in the opposite direction that the user moved their finger, then people would say that it was broken. And rightly so. Moving content in the same direction as the touch is the intuitive operating mode of a touch interface.

    And similarly, moving content in the opposite direction of the scroll (or more accurately, moving the scrollbar in the same direction of the scroll) is the intuitive operating mode for a mouse-driven interface. By your logic scrollbars themselves should also be inverted.

    As a side-note, a direct analog to touch style scrolling does exist in the mouse-driven paradigm, it is the drag operation. It is available in some things like Adobe PDF documents, and also work on any scrollbar. In this operation you choose an anchor-point, and then that anchor point moves in the same direction that you move, and it all makes sense. The problem with scrolling is that it has no anchor point, it is a distinct operation from a drag operation, and by conflating the two Apple has broken their interface. At least until they start incorporating touch into every computer they sell.

    Mouse-driven and touch interfaces are not the same thing, and just because a metaphor makes sense in one does not mean that it also makes sense in the other.
  • Uritziel - Friday, July 22, 2011 - link

    Agreed.
  • CharonPDX - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    On page 23 "Performance: Similar to Snow Leopard", you have a couple bar graphs comparing Snow Leopard to Lion performance. Unfortunately, you use a generic "compared to before as 1.0" metric, with no indication on a per-test basis whether higher or lower is better. In the Core 2 Duo graph, you talk about boot time skyrocketing, and the boot time graph for Lion shows Lion as "about 1.4" of Snow Leopard, yet you also talk about iPhoto having a "greater than 10% increase in performance", where the graph shows "about 1.1" of Snow Leopard. So in one line in the graph, higher is worse, in the other line, higher is better.

    You either need a per-test identifier (Higher is better / Lower is better) or you need to to standardize them all (so 'benchmark' ones would stand as-is, while 'timing' ones would use the inverse, so that both would be 'higher is better', or example.)
  • Deaffy - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Did anyone check to see whether Apple has included a UI element to enable IPv6 privacy extensions for statelest address autoconfiguration?
    And did DHCPv6 to get IPv6 addresses from your ISP's cable via IPv6 finally make it's entry?
  • Deaffy - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Oh yeah, and maybe the ability to query a name server via IPv6?
  • kevith - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    they are more and more returning to the Linux it came from. Who knows, they might even go bact to open source:-)
  • Omid.M - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Anand/Andrew/Christian,

    If you right click on a YouTube video, does it say the rendering AND decoding is "accelerated" ? I thought Lion was supposed to bring that.

    If this is now the case, it'd be enough reason for me to buy Lion and a new MBP 15". I can't stand the fans on my 2008 MBP 15 going nuts every time I watch a 30 second YouTube clip. The laptop gets unreasonably hot right now.

    @moids

    P.S. I'm not a fan of the way buttons appear on the upper borders of windows. There's no typical button "design" to signify that the text is clickable, at least not from the screen shots I saw in the article.
  • Omid.M - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    I guess it's disabled:

    http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/21/adobe-suggests...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now