Compared to all of the features they have in this program, are you seriously trying to say that an auto-save is going to be That difficult? Don't believe it for a second. While I'm not a "software engineer," I am 5 years into a masters in electrical engineer, specializing in microprocessors and know how to code proficiently in Java, C, C++, Assembly, and machine code. So I do have a bit of an understanding in these matters.
And yes, you are right, if I had not paid, I wouldn't be complaining, I would just not buy it. Unfortunately, to download that demo, it would take me about 2-3 weeks due to severe internet issues at my home. Suppose I could have gone to a library or something, but they frown upon huge downloads, etc. Figured I'd just go for it, being big name software I just figured it would work. I won't be giving up on it though, I will most likely be exchanging it for a Windows copy since I have a nice gaming rig that can easily handle PS. One thing came to mind though, do the keys work cross-platform? If so, I'll keep this copy and ask a friend to borrow his Windows install discs. Luckily, I didn't pay $2,300 or whatever crazy price it is, and only had to pay the Education discount price, so while I'm annoyed, at least I'm not fuming angry
Do you have the option to disable OpenGL entirely via Edit - Preferences - Performance? It might be interesting to see whether that stabilizes your installation.
It's interesting that on the Mac the display driver updates are coordinated tightly through Apple. You may not see as many faulty driver releases, but then I'm thinking you probably don't see updates quite as quickly either.
I really suspect that if you're seeing basic failures just while zooming in and out in a document, that your particular OpenGL implementation for your particular video card is likely at fault (with a second possibility being an intermittent hardware issue). Perhaps there are new nVidia drivers in the works that will ultimately stabilize it for you. I have no idea how long Apple tests those things before releasing them.
I don't see how the video card driver developers, who are responsible for implementing the complex OpenGL standard on their particular GPU, could be much better at making perfect Apple drivers than PC drivers - though I could be wrong.
As an OpenGL application developer myself I have come to realize that, while the video game market has spurred-on the development of more and more powerful GPUs, it's been done at a breakneck pace, with buggy drivers reaching end users simply because of market pressures. Those of us trying to use computers for serious work have had to understand that this is an area of computer development that is driven by an entirely different mindset. Go look at the release notes for any particular driver release... Photoshop barely ever rates even a mention next to Crysis this, Call of Duty that...
I think it's good that Adobe chose to embrace GPU operations through OpenGL, and I'm sure that singlehandedly they've done a lot to get the driver writers to think outside the gamer box, which is good for us all. But not everything's perfect yet, and the individual video card companies do have their internal problems. In my opinion in order of quality, best to worst today, I'd rank the video card makers ATI, nVidia, Intel. My chief engineer - an amazing guy because he's a guru with both Mac and PC architectures - prefers an ATI card in his Mac Pro.
Compared to all of the features they have in this program, are you seriously trying to say that an auto-save is going to be That difficult?
Based on many discussions on this same topic, yes. Photoshop would be better engineered as a node or object based image editor to successfully implement partial or incremental saves. That is a huge turn in how Photoshop runs.
Chris has been clear in explaining the issues in other discussions on this topic. He's probably worn out describing them and that is why he resorted to a quick quip here. We already received an answer from another Adobe employee earlier in the dicsussion. Chris apparently added his note after the original employee was ignored or not believed.
Hi, I just lost about 2 hrs worth unfortunately because this box wasn't on a UPS...it is now. I read this year long thread and am amazed Adobe hasn't solved this issue way back. I am an old engineer using ACAD all the way back to 2.0. I believe they started AutoSave in version 9 (Late 80's) and has been bullet proof since and minimally disruptive even on large files...considering the alternatives. Your code jockey's may want to confer with them for tips especially with AI.
Thanks for those above with the tips of 3rd party code to help with the issue. I downloaded 2 of them and will give them a spin. I have Production Premium CS4 and Design Premium CS5 on a dedicated XP Box and found Premiere to be painful in this issue...definitely got a solid habit of ^S with several large projects...this time my bad from the weather/power glitch and adding the UPS. Adobe should fix this in my opinion...and give choice on big file save timing if necessary.
Your code jockey's may want to confer with them for tips especially with AI.
Small changes to vector data are inherently easier (and faster) to save incrementally than image data. You're talking kilobytes versus gigabytes of data.
Did you know Premiere has autosave already?
Auto-saving a relatively tiny Premiere project file that simply references external video files is very different than how Photoshop works. Premiere project files do not need to move the amount of data that is in a Photoshop project file.
I'm going to side with the folks who feel Adobe should add more sophistication re: saving files. I realize the architecture may not suit doing this easily, but perhaps it's worth putting some extra effort into... Even a LOT of extra effort. It's software - it could be done with sufficient expenditure.
I hate to point out the obvious but... Photoshop can clearly write gigabytes to the Scratch temp file without blocking user operations much. It's rather a thin argument to say that it's impractical to write to the disk in the background, even when we're talking about large blocks of data.
I'd really like to see the following implemented... I believe this would make Photoshop a more professional tool:
1. A configurable background autosave process. Off by default, those with computers more than capable of supporting large disk operations without affecting interactivity (or who are willing to take a performance hit for a little peace of mind) could enable it.
2. A recovery process that will allow one to recover an image from a remnant Scratch temp file (invoked during the next Photoshop startup).
3. Use of the Recycle Bin on Windows systems to hold files that are superseded via Save operations. This covers the rare case where something goes wrong during save, leaving the user with no file at all.
Note that if we had #2, we might not need #1 quite so badly.
I'm all for a good implementation of auto-save. I just don't want to be hassled by a bad implementation.
But some people seem to think that all this stuff is easy, just because we make it look easy in the end.
Just because the concept is simple, does not mean that a useful implementation is simple.
If done to perfection, I would tend to agree. I have relied on a few Premiere Pro AutoSaves, but not THAT often.
I've been using PS from the first release for the PC. I have used the top-of-the-line computers for each iteration. However, an AutoSave, while I have an intricate Selection in progress would frustrate the heck out of me.
Going back to PS 3.0, I had the largest HDD of the day, 1GB. To work on a triple-truck ad, I had to first uninstall most programs, but PS. I could do one Save, and then had to take a break to archive that to tape (DLT was still a bit in the future, so it took 20 - 30 mins. to archve the Image), so that I could continue working and then do another Save, when the time came. Not a very quick workflow, but it worked, and was the best of that day.
Now, HDD's are giant, fast and cheap. Doing planned Saves, Save_As and Save_As_a_Copy, all work fine for me. I have lost 1 Image form PS over almost 2 decades, and that was a combo of an anomaly plus OE. Even with PrPro, with its AutoSave, I know to do a structured combo of Save, Save_As and Save_As_a_Copy. As mentioned above, in PrPro, one is only Saving a very small XML file, the PRPROJ file, and on a fast system, this takes only the blink of an eye. Even on one "opus" Project, with 9 hours of Video, they take maybe 5 sec.. During that process, however, one looses control of the GUI. If I am creating that mega Selection, and I hit an AutoSave, that looses THAT, I would be miffed.
I would assume that if implemented, even at the very best, there would be user control, as with PrPro, that would allow the "feature" to be toggled OFF. Even if it were perfect, I do not think that I would use it, or deviate from my normal PS workflow with utilitzation of the various Saves. I feel that too few users understand those, their similarities, their differences, and how to use them to one's advantage. If they did, they would not clamor for AutoSave.
Just my 02¢,
Using the keyboard command/contol+S frequently is a very good habit to acquire.
It is short, sweet and reliable, and best of all.... under the operator's control and works with every program flawlessly.
Autosave would just be in the way with my workflow.
I do not even think about hitting Cmd/Cnt+S. It is like looking in the rearview mirror while driving.
Please excuse me for mentioning this, but you, the operator, are the most important part of the process.
All computers and programs hang, and with all due respect, it sounds like Adobe is being blamed for poor work habits.
It seems thsat the autosave feature is very much needed when projects take days to complete and overlooking something so elementary as File Save when creating the file. I spent days on creating a montage of layers only to loose it during a Save For Web and Devices memory error in which hangs photoshop in a loop. Then called support took 2 hours to get started becasue the phones kept dropping (20% unemployment and we still outsource our calls to India? BAD Capiltolists!) Once I got a good call I was able to get "No you cant recover from a temp file" that will be $39.00.
Tip to the developers
Try to find ways to help us save the file WHEN we create a new psd. We are bad humans, with terrrible habits and are in need of your skills to better ours!
Tip to the coproration
Try and find ways to eliminate outsourcing unless you too want to move over there. Maybe you can lobby congress into giving you tax breaks for doing so. Or maybe you can fix Indias phone / power problems
I can't believe this is even up for discussion.
It would be an autosave OPTION. let the user decide whether or not to save that 'gigabyte file' periodically, and they might (*gasp*) want to if the file is that important. I came to this thread becasue I kicked my power cord and lost a days worth of work. Would have been nice to have an autosave. But the thing is there are MANY reasons why you would have an improper PS shutdown: computer error, power loss, windows crash, adobe crash..etc. If you don't want to give the user the OPTION of enabling an autosave (yes even for that 1GB file) thats fine, but know that you are sitting back as people lose literally thousands of hours of work and productivity across the PS userbase, because, let's face it: when every program on your computer has some autosave feature (audacity, word, excel, pdf annotator, acrobat, etc..) you are NOT in the habit of saving every 10 seconds. This seems so obvious to me, I don't know why there is such reluctance.
But the thing is there are MANY reasons why you would have an improper PS shutdown: computer error, power loss, windows crash, adobe crash..etc.
And this is exactly why most PS power-users have, long ago, incorporated systematic Save_As operations into their workflow, when they want them, and not during an intricate Selection process, where if there was an AutoSave, all would be lost.
I feel that too many PS users do not understand, or even know of, Save_As, and Save_As_a_Copy. They should become great friends with each, along with the Ctrl+S (Save).
In almost 2 decades, and working with some monster images, I have never lost more than about 30 mins. work. I always have my Save_As to go back to.
If such was introduced, I would demand that it have a toggle, and that there was some sort of a flag, visible in the GUI, when it was on. I can just imagine all the folk complaining that they just lost a 2 hour Selection, when AutoSave kicked in.
"And this is exactly why most PS power-users have, long ago, incorporated systematic Save_As operations into their workflow, when they want them, and not during an intricate Selection process, where if there was an AutoSave, all would be lost."
Really? Do you have something aside from anadotal evidence to back this up? Actually it's not really that relevant because...
"I feel that too many PS users do not understand, or even know of, Save_As, and Save_As_a_Copy. They should become great friends with each, along with the Ctrl+S (Save)."
Maybe. But it would also be nice if there was an OPTION for those of us who have not habituated yet. Remember we are talking about habit here, and when the entire computng industry relies on autosave, it's diffitcult to say, "why don't you just save periodically', because "NO OTHER PROGRAM MAKES ME DO THAT SO I FORGOT!"
"In almost 2 decades, and working with some monster images, I have never lost more than about 30 mins. work. I always have my Save_As to go back to."
Oh, well since you haven't had any trouble then I guess that must hold true to the rest of the world. (In the meantime I've been using PS heavily for 5 years and have lost at least half-a-week's work if you sum it up).
"If such was introduced, I would demand that it have a toggle, and that there was some sort of a flag, visible in the GUI, when it was on. I can just imagine all the folk complaining that they just lost a 2 hour Selection, when AutoSave kicked in. "
Exactly! That's how you please those who care about the Selection and those who dont, those who have an unstable computer and those you dont, those who can't remember to save and those who dont--you give them the *OPTION*. Otherwise the sentiment is, "well I don't see why we need that feature, if people would just work the way *I* do." This is the most narrowminded sentment in computing and if we all stuck to it we would all be using the console or running windows XP ad infinitum.
Really? Do you have something aside from anadotal evidence to back this up? Actually it's not really that relevant because...
As a matter of fact, I do. I have been using PS commercially, from almost the first day that version 2.5 hit for the PC. Instantly, I developed just such a workflow. This was even back in the days, when a single 1GB HDD was as big as one could go, and my triple-truck ads pretty well filled it up. I would do a Save_As to DLT, so that I could continue working, with a fairly recent backup. The DLT took some time, so I always had coffee in the studio, to kill those few minutes. As stated above, I have never lost more than about 30 mins. work.
If you look over this thread, and several very similar ones, you will see how those, who make their living with, and know PS, do it. The workflow will be similar for each, if not the exact same. I do not recall any PS power-user having an issue, so it's not just me.
If you have issues, then I would suggest that you look into a modification of your workflow, just like many of us have done.
Continue to file your Feature Requests, and maybe one day you will get what you want. I will just turn it OFF, and continue with what has always worked for me.
"As a matter of fact, I do. I have been using PS commercially, from almost the first day that version 2.5 hit for the PC. Instantly, I developed just such a workflow. This was even back in the days, when a single 1GB HDD was as big as one could go, and my triple-truck ads pretty well filled it up. I would do a Save_As to DLT, so that I could continue working, with a fairly recent backup. The DLT took some time, so I always had coffee in the studio, to kill those few minutes. As stated above, I have never lost more than about 30 mins. work."
Umm. I think this is the definition of anecdotal. And as stated above I have lost DAYS of work because of the lack of an Autosave.
"If you look over this thread, and several very similar ones, you will see how those, who make their living with, and know PS, do it. The workflow will be similar for each, if not the exact same. I do not recall any PS power-user having an issue, so it's not just me."
Again, this is very provincial thinking. PS is not all power users, there is a LARGE userbase of people who would lose their work if, say, the power went out. I challenge Adobe to get past this constrained design philosophy that is borne out of a pure 'just-work-like-me' ideology so stringent that you would even deprive the users of an **OPTION** otherwise.
"If you have issues, then I would suggest that you look into a modification of your workflow, just like many of us have done."
Thank you for your suggestion, I will do that. But in the meantime, it would be nice for the other XX% of us out there that Adobe actually consider (*GASP*) an OPTION to protect us who use photoshop in a different way or at a different frequency than the 'power-users'.
"Continue to file your Feature Requests, and maybe one day you will get what you want. I will just turn it OFF, and continue with what has always worked for me."
Ummm, yes, I think that's how an OPTION works. Actually in deference to the 'power-users' I would be fine if autosave was off by default, then you 'power-users' won't have to do anything different *whatsoever* and that makes any recalcitrance completely absurd since denying an option that would be helpful for a large percentage of the userbase when the 'power-users' dont have to do *anything* different smacks of PURE ideology.
Keep in mind, up-thread I've made my request known. Go back to page one and read it.
However, that said, Photoshop is now on version 12.1. As far as I can tell, none of the conditions you've noted have changed: It's been possible to lose a lot of work for a very long time.
At this point I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for an autosave feature. If it ain't in there by now, after 12 major releases and several minor, I'm guessing it's not going in any time soon.
Given that, what Bill has said in good faith is very valid - the tool simply has limitations; it's up to us to learn to work effectively within them.
I totally agree with Jack here. I do understand the use of workflows but come on! Some PS users use PS to "quick" edit a file because they are more familiar with say the pen tool then in other apps. Should I have to build a workflow for that?
I need to cut out a photo and paste it into powerpoint. This photo requires some detail on the cut to show in ther graphic. This could be a 45 minute cutout. I start the cutout @ 11:00am and get pulled away due to an emergency. I come back @ 11:35am and the power went out @ 11:32am. I have lost that work and a 30 minute autosave would have saved my work.
PS is not cheap in fact its quite expensive and takes me an act of congress to get approval for an upgrade every time. I understand that this is quite complex but so is AutoCAD. Also, I get the "Moon Rock" thing but thats where NASA came into play. With the money spent for this product there should be more development into this feature. Just because PS is preferred it is not the only one. I see a lot of pundits here and it is quite discouraging.
This seems to be as painful as asking for flash on my ipad \\\///
If you are so dissatisfied with my comments, then perhaps you can do a poll of PS users, tabulate your results and decide what to use to make your point.
Good luck, and I look forward to your poll.
BTW - have you filed your Feature Request yet?
...(20% unemployment and we still outsource our calls to India? BAD Capiltolists!) Once I got a good call I was able to get "No you cant recover from a temp file" that will be $39.00.
Getting someone to pay $39 (for a question that can be more quickly and better answered here) seems like "good capitalists".
I've used an autosave plugin in the past. It was too much of a nuisance. I'm assuming that Adobe's reluctance to incorporate such a feature may be due to liability. There are more things that can go wrong with an autosave (even as an optional feature) than without.
I too will file a Feature Request but I am afraid that it will not make a bit of difference but it sure has on my options in the future.
Have you ever talked to PS tech support??
You get India that has phone problems and if you get to stay on the phone that long you'll find out that you have to pay 39.00 for support - the same price as Acrobat Reader (free). Once you get past this then you get to try and explain your problem and if you're lucky they will put you on hold for 15 minutes and come back and tell you something you've already tried or that they cannot help you.
My point is if I have to go through this kind of pain then maybe I should find other products that can do the same thing but honor their product better than Adobe. Adobe should really pay more attention to their customers and provide better customer support. HP and Dell are providing better support and I thought they were the worst out there.
You know I wouldnt have ran into the problem of autosave if PS didnt get a memory error and hangs when doing a "Save for Web & Devices..." on large files it gives me a out of memory prompt hangs which to me is a bug. However, I am sure that there will be 20 of you pundits that will tell me I am not doing it right...
Given these recent experiences, I will take my interests elseware, I have wasted my time, and even though I am only one person perhaps I am not the only one.
I have been enjoying the latest lively discussion...and that is the point I think. Maybe if this thread gets long enough it can effect change. With that said and my earlier post here, I have adopted an avid (no pun to Premiere) Save As strategy because I had to. I recently did a restoration of a family Tin Type in really bad shape. I worked at <5px for several days...besides going pixel blind and having to walk away every hour or so, I realized my file size was quite large and started saving copies for backups as well as direction changes if I needed to, and I did, twice. I ended up with 15 copies in various states (pushing a Gig). The point is I could Not allow any possibility of having to go through all or any part of that process again.
Additionally, I recently did some research on PNG/PNG-A file architecture and had a pretty big Ah Ha about what Chris had said before about Gigs of data in a save. If you take 24bit color and add 24 bits of alpha to that and confined to a shape...whoa, but the key is the compression algorithm and it's pretty magical. The issue as I see it is the current architecture of PS based on 12+ revs, And the high probability that no one can think of a clean way to do what we are asking. I have no idea if PS has had a full rewrite in those 12+ revs, or not? I do know that I have worked with PLC code that was started poorly went through 10-12 revs until it became unbearable (Spagetti Code) to add or change things, so it had to be rewritten from scratch with all the newest Code and strategies. It was never pretty.
We have come a long way since Turtle...if any of you remember, and Autodesk broke the ground and the mold on Vector based graphics with ~100k man hours on code. PS is now a pretty phoenominal hybrid using vector & Bit map with lots of toys and tools, albeit not intuitive to me anyway, to be able to produce some amazing results. I have only used it since V7 and still don't consider myself proficient, but my work flow ethics stem from engineering for 25+ years and being able to write Lisp back in the day to help my work flow...And doing what I Had To, to get the job done. Hopefully some bright mind at Adobe will get an Ah Ha and figure out a clean way to have an AutoSave feature...but it may take a while....effecting Change is not always easy.
"If you are so dissatisfied with my comments, then perhaps you can do a poll of PS users, tabulate your results and decide what to use to make your point.
Good luck, and I look forward to your poll."
HAHA. It would be nice wouldn't it? But 1) I don't think it would be scientific and 2) I just don't have the time. I think I'm happy were things are at
You with your purely anecdotal evidence
Me with my obvious claim that a large percentage of users are not 'power-users'
"I've used an autosave plugin in the past. It was too much of a nuisance."
I've used autosave in the past and it was GODSEND.
"I'm assuming that Adobe's reluctance to incorporate such a feature may be due to liability. There are more things that can go wrong with an autosave (even as an optional feature) than without."
You know that EULA you 'sign' before you use PS. This absolves them of liability of the responsibility of your work due to their product. There are not issues of liability here. I'm happy to list of the hundreds of programs out there that have autosave and have dealt with these issues of 'libability' headon and some products where issues of importance and liability trump any feasible use of PS (e.g. AutoCad has autosave). No, autosave isn't a no-brainer, there are logistical and artechitechual issues, but the point is that there is nothing prohibitive (esp. 'liability) which should prevent users from having the **OPTION***.
"However, that said, Photoshop is now on version 12.1. As far as I can tell, none of the conditions you've noted have changed: It's been possible to lose a lot of work for a very long time."
Yes this is unfortunate.
"At this point I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for an autosave feature. If it ain't in there by now, after 12 major releases and several minor, I'm guessing it's not going in any time soon."
That is also unfortunate.
"Given that, what Bill has said in good faith is very valid - the tool simply has limitations; it's up to us to learn to work effectively within them."
That's too bad too, and understandable. But I'm glad you agree that this is a 'limitation' of PS. It's too bad. If the devs didn't have that dev mindset (i.e. I'm a dev and I know what is best for everyone), then PS might actually work better for a larger number of people. Too bad.
A business angle to explore: Would an integrated "Autosave" feature sell more copies?
Perhaps the next "gee whiz" feature (like Content Aware Fill was for CS5) may be more attractive to Adobe marketing than spending money to tidy up existing shortcomings. After all, this cash cow is paying off nicely already.
I agree Noel, the concept of ROI is always king in business. I also agree about the golden calf. They are obviously creating enough revenue to be able to create all these other ventures and revenue streams. My experience has been that if you minimally support your bread and butter, it eventually comes back to bite. I would think that this feature would bolster new sales, especially if they could get a simple training for novices that actually taught work flow. The old die hards will upgrade for some juicy feature just because, but maybe not this one.
Maybe they are waiting to get in on their new Cloud so we don't have to worry about our personal crisis/crashes...but I fear the day that thousands crash at once because of bad code or a virus or heaven forbid a Hurricane or earthquake...regardless of redundancy. Could make a 100k hrs all lost to the ethers...that would be some real work flow...of lost opportunities.
I would not consider myself a "power user", but I had no difficulty getting into the "save early, save often" habit. One of my favorite features of Pshop is "Revert", which doesn't really work if you haven't saved . But seriously, I can't recall ever losing work due to Pshop crashing. I can only recall Pshop quitting itself once or twice, years ago.
If there were Autosave, I would be sure to disable it.
I was not referring to a legal liability. A developer needs to determine if a feature has a beneficial impact on performance and on the required level of user support. The previous posts in this discussion and years of similar autosave discussions that can be found on this Photoshop forum indicate a serious cost is involved with implementing autosave. There is a liability in cost.
As others have stated: I too have never ever missed an autosave feature in more than a decade of PS usage.
It would be maddening to have PS to suddenly save your file in a state which you don't want.( making selections, flattening layers, etc...)
I for sure would disable autosave and stick to save/ save as etc... It takes tenths of a second to click "save as" If you lose files by not saving and not having multiple copies, it's your own fault imho.
It would be maddening to have PS to suddenly save your file in a state which you don't want.( making selections, flattening layers, etc...)
You folks are thinking too small! It's not rocket science to realize you wouldn't want it autosaving over your master document!
The problem to be solved is this: People lose information because of unexpected crashes or power outages or whatever. Just because YOU and I haven't done so because we've developed good CYA habits doesn't mean everyone has, and like it or not your having to remember to save occasionally DOES take away some of your concentration.
What if, when you restarted Photoshop after everything was brought back up, it presented you with a dialog that said something like "Auto-recovery has found copies of the last documents you were editing. Would you like to continue editing them?" This is not dissimilar to what Microsoft Word does.
The process, of course, would need to be:
This is all an academic exercise for me, as I actually DO save my documents as a matter of habit, and my workstation is on UPS and very stable, and I don't lose work. But I do think such a feature would have merit, with little to no downside, even for folks who have already developed good work habits.
Once again Noel has stated eligantly, the simple truth of the situation and offered another good possibility to remedy the situation. Those on this thread that are experienced power users have obviously have strong, well developed work habits, probably based on past bad experiences. My first big loss (in the mid 80's) was from the local power company inspecting their meter and found it loose, jiggled it not once but twice and took down 8 systems worth of work...all of us lost at least an hour worth of work...8+hrs of Lost Opportunity! From that point on I started saving every 10-15 minutes. My loss back in June (this thread) was my bad because I had moved that UPS to another system temporarily...still I came Here to find solutions and let Adobe know my thoughts on having a AutoSave feature available after 12+ Revs.
Noel's & My point here is that Stuff Happens regardless of whether it is an Adobe problem or not. All OS systems are relatively unstable and you never know if the latest patch will kill something you use or not...same with Adobe. Then there is Malware, Viruses, Trojans, etc., Hardware, Software conflicts, and lots of other possibilities for crashing. Novice or new users are the most vulnerable to any of the myriad of possibilities. PS is the flagship and pretty much defacto standard in this arena and I am sure represents significant revenue streams for Adobe. IF a novice or new user forks out the buck$ for it, they should have some modicum of basic security in their considerable learning curve, where they are less likely to be paying attention to Save AS. I just want it because Sometimes I do get tunnel vision on a project and go beyond my 15min. protocol, and Push the envelope of Safe Workflow Practices...And IT IS MY Choice To Use It OR NOT! We Deserve that Choice!
Oh, I understand completely. But this is why you get the big bucks! I don't ask for too many features, but I believe this is one where you should think about spending some serious effort. Photoshop's file operations are simply a bit outdated.
Here's a rallying cry for you: "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes just a little longer..."
You willing to stop all work and wait 30 seconds while your autosave of your big multi-layer document completes?
It would at least have to be put into its own thread.
But even that could invoke problems... For example, suppose it takes most of the RAM in your computer to hold the autosave snapshot while it's saving. Should Photoshop's subsequent interactive operation be starved for RAM while it continues?
Or what about if the autosave is being done to the same drive as your swap file is on... Now things that were already slow because you were swapping get even slower.
How does Photoshop handle drive full problems during autosave?
And we can't forget that Photoshop has some parts that are absolutely ANCIENT, and it has had stuff added to it for decades. It might be a bit messier under the covers than we'd like to believe.
All this stuff has to be considered if an autosave feature is to be properly coded. Not that it can't be done, but it's pretty clear to do it right would be well beyond what's implied by a "why can't you just perform some sort of..." comment.
It actually seems to me that it would be best integrated into the swap file. All Photoshop does now with remnant swap files (e.g., Photoshop Temp322472996988) is (sometimes) delete them if it finds them laying around. Processes for writing to that file efficiently are already in place.
I get it too Chris...with my latest PNGiffany and last time you explained briefly about Gigs of Data. The most difficult issue as I see it is the Transparency to continued work. Maybe it would be possible to use a dual caching system that incrementally backs up one of them based on resource usage? Kind of a hybrid mirroring system for a particular file. The most difficult would be if you had multiple files open as we often do in our work flow and not have sufficient HD space for a dual cache. I still think the compression algorithm is a big part of the key.
"You willing to stop all work and wait 30 seconds while your autosave of your big multi-layer document completes?"
No but I would easily wait 5 min every 3 hours.
"But even that could invoke problems... For example, suppose it takes most of the RAM in your computer to hold the autosave snapshot while it's saving. Should Photoshop's subsequent interactive operation be starved for RAM while it continues?
I want it to do whatever 'save as' does, every 3 hours.
"Or what about if the autosave is being done to the same drive as your swap file is on... Now things that were already slow because you were swapping get even slower."
I (and I dont think Im alone here) couldn't care less about the speed. It can take 5 minutes as far as I'm concerned, as long as I have a backup. That's how unbelieveably imporant a backup is.
"All this stuff has to be considered if an autosave feature is to be properly coded. Not that it can't be done, but it's pretty clear to do it right would be well beyond what's implied by a "why can't you just perform some sort of..." comment. "
Maybe. Or it could be that the devs are reaching too far. They want an autosave that will work for *everyone*, when it probably should only work for those who really need it (the non-power user, unstable-computer-type people). If you lower the goal post slightly it helps out those of us who need it, and since we already discovered the power-users could care less it doesnt make much of a difference. Again: Time: don't care. Ram: don't care. Swap file: dont' care. Speed: don't care. I want something I can set every 3 hours that will take 5 min to save. Which is actually laughable when you consider the time it takes for us non-power users to run a Save As opperation. And for those of us who have lost days worth of work, I really don't think I"m alone here.
Europe, Middle East and Africa