If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without
changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
Micky wrote:
As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? Easy to test. Do a save. Check the modified timestamp of the file. Do another save. Check again the modified timestamp of the file. Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On 11/7/2015 3:31 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2015-11-07 18:09, Micky wrote: As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If you mean Save a file from a program, that depends on the program. If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? The 2nd backup will replace the first one, and so on. Whether the program backs up an unchanged file depends on how it's designed. Your (Wolf K) are quite correct. I have observed that some applications will disable the save capability until the file is changed while other applications will do a save every time it is requested even if there was no change. With Office 2007, Word disables saving until the document has at least the most minor change while Excel will save even if there were no changes. -- David E. Ross Is Kim Davis a hero or a villain? See my http://www.rossde.com/KimDavis.html. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
[Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: Micky wrote: As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? Easy to test. Do a save. Check the modified timestamp of the file. Do another save. Check again the modified timestamp of the file. Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 18:09:59 -0500, Micky wrote:
As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? That's up to the individual program, not the operating system.. If the program tells the OS to save the file, it will save he file. Basically you're asking if a program is smart enough to ignore Ctrl+S (or File*» Save) if no changes have been made. If this really matters to you, try it in whatever program you're wondering about. Note the file's last-modified time in EXplorer after the first Save operation, wait two minutes without changing anything, then save again and note the time. Note that some programs may actually be altering data even if you don't -- for example, any volatile function in Excel. This is why you can close an unchanged workbook and get a prompt asking if you want to save changes. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:41:32 -0500, Micky wrote:
[Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: Micky wrote: As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? Easy to test. Do a save. Check the modified timestamp of the file. Do another save. Check again the modified timestamp of the file. Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. But you have time to post not one but two articles about it. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:13:12 -0800, David E. Ross wrote:
Word disables saving until the document has at least the most minor change while Excel will save even if there were no changes. I wouldn't have thought so, but a quick test confirms what you say. My file had no volatile functions in it. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://BrownMath.com/ http://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:41:32 -0500, Micky
wrote: [Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: Micky wrote: As a general rule, in XP and 7, if you press Cntl-S twice, without changing anything in between, will it actually save the file the 2nd time? If an editor or email program is set to save the file every 10 minutes, and nothing has changed since the last time it was saved, either by the timer or by the user, will it still save the file the 2nd and future times? Easy to test. Do a save. Check the modified timestamp of the file. Do another save. Check again the modified timestamp of the file. Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. And by the way, I'm just curious about why you care. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes: On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:41:32 -0500, Micky wrote: [Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: [] Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. And by the way, I'm just curious about why you care. I'm not the OP, but _I_ like to know the earliest time of a given version of a file, and don't particularly want its timestamp changed if it hasn't been altered, unless I specifically want that to happen (like the old Unix "touch"). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Every time I think I know where it's at, they move it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 20:41:03 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes: On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:41:32 -0500, Micky wrote: [Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: [] Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. And by the way, I'm just curious about why you care. I'm not the OP, but _I_ like to know the earliest time of a given version of a file, and don't particularly want its timestamp changed if it hasn't been altered, unless I specifically want that to happen (like the old Unix "touch"). So don't "Save" it! Most (modern) apps, I think, take note of whether there's been any change and prompts you to Save/Discard on exit. So "Exit" and respond, not "Save" -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
[Default] On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 14:45:22 -0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "Kerr Mudd-John" wrote: On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 20:41:03 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes: On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:41:32 -0500, Micky wrote: [Default] On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:00:47 -0600, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general VanguardLH wrote: [] Since many programs only show timestamps down to the minute, not seconds, wait a couple minutes between the successive saves to see if the modified timestamp changed. You're right, it would be easy. Don't have time tonight, even for easy. Maybe later. Sorry it's taken so long to answer. Problem learning how this version of Agent sorts threads. And by the way, I'm just curious about why you care. I'm not the OP, but _I_ like to know the earliest time of a given version of a file, and don't particularly want its timestamp changed if it hasn't been altered, unless I specifically want that to happen (like I AM the OP and you're reason is part of it. The other is, I just want to know if what I'm doing updates the file***. That in some cases it does and in others it doesn't is a fine answer afaic. Whatever the truth is is the right answer. ***So if ever I look at the timestamp, I'll know on what basis it was set. the old Unix "touch"). So don't "Save" it! Easier said then done. Most (modern) apps, I think, take note of whether there's been any change and prompts you to Save/Discard on exit. So "Exit" and respond, not "Save" A) I think you're assuming JP and I are exiting. Most of the time, I'm not. I have an email or post open or another file I'm editing, and when I need a break from one of them, to look something up, answer a phone call, or think about what I want to say, and I go from one program or window or tab to another, and before I leave, I save my work**. And usually that means even if I just looked at it again and didnt' change anything. B) I'm not about to wait until the last minute, exiting, to save my work. My finger might slip or I might hit the mouse by accident and say No instead of Yes. Or the computer might freeze and I can't do anything. Maybe that never happens anymore, but afaik, it could. I save my work whenever I've made changes and it's a reflex to save my work when leaving an edit or pausing during it. **Everyone has been reminded to save his work, whether he has a UPS or not. I used to think that hibernating would solve the problem that can arise when one doesn't save his work, and if everything goes well, it does, but if one later can't unhibernate properly, the changes are lost, so I always save my work, even if I just saved it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Saving the file twice with no change in between
Micky wrote:
A) I think you're assuming JP and I are exiting. Most of the time, I'm not. I have an email or post open or another file I'm editing, and when I need a break from one of them, to look something up, answer a phone call, or think about what I want to say, and I go from one program or window or tab to another, and before I leave, I save my work**. And usually that means even if I just looked at it again and didnt' change anything. If you don't want the timestamp changed when you decide to unload the document (whether by closing it in the app or by exiting the app whereupon you get prompted), make sure auto-save is disabled in the app. For example, in Word, its auto-save might be configured to save the open doc every 5 minutes. Actually it checks if there is a delta (change) in the open doc and, if so, will auto-save it at the next 5-minute interval and, if not, then skips the save since there are no changes to save. For a smart app, the auto-save feature, if present, only issues a save when there is a delta in the opened doc. Dumb apps might issue an auto-save at every scheduled interval whether there was a delta or not. Since you are not discussing specific apps then it is up to you to know if the app you are using has an auto-save feature and if it only triggers at the scheduled interval if there is a delta in the open doc. Else, you could disable auto-save and make sure any changes you make are saved only when you decided to save them. If you are opening docs merely to look at them (make no changes) and you choose to save the unchanged doc before closing it in the app or elect to save on the prompt when exiting the app, well, YOU chose to change the timestamp. Software cannot overcome all user behaviors. You told the app to save the doc even if there were no changes to it. Would you want to use an app that didn't obey your command? Regarding email, the Date header in an e-mail is created, in most e-mail clients, when you first create the new message. Let's say you start a new message or a reply (which is still a new message) on day1 hour1 minute1 but either leave the new-compose window open for hours upon hours or leave the new message sitting in the Drafts folder. Not until day2 hour2 minute2 do you actually send that e-mail. What the recipient will see as for when you created the e-mail is day1 hour1 minute1, not when you sent it at day2 hour2 minute2. The Date header is added by the client, not the server, so when you *first* create the new message then that datestamp gets put into the Date header, and it doesn't get updated despite you didn't send that message for hours or days later. The Received headers the recipient can see in the e-mail will show the actual datestamp for when your message got sent but most users don't look at those and only see the Date header that their e-mail client shows them. You might've sent your message right now but you created it days ago and that's what the recipient will see. This is a case where you might've made lots of changes to the email over several hours or days but the Date header will still show the original create date, not a last modified date. In fact, the Date header will always be inaccurate unless you quickly compose a short message inside of less than a minute. B) I'm not about to wait until the last minute, exiting, to save my work. My finger might slip or I might hit the mouse by accident and say No instead of Yes. Or the computer might freeze and I can't do anything. Maybe that never happens anymore, but afaik, it could. I save my work whenever I've made changes and it's a reflex to save my work when leaving an edit or pausing during it. Then each time the app and computer are obeying your command to change the timestamp of the file because you told them to do that. What it sounds like you really want is a file versioning system. Windows doesn't come with one. It adds overhead and increases the number of copies of files retained (although only the delta needs to be retained after the original or base version of the file, similar to how incrementals work in backups). There are some backup programs that try to emulate versioning but usually at some polling interval. They schedule a background backup job to run that does incremental backups at short intervals, like every 5 or 10 minutes. The problem with that scheme is those are incremental backups of all files or sectors changed, not just for the file you were focused upon. As I recall, Acronis True Image had this. It even added a Version tab when you right-clicked on a file and looked at Properties of that file. You could then choose to restore the file back to a prior version of it. Acronis has a huge amount of bloat with the TI product so I won't go back to using it, plus you can have almost any backup program run incrementals at very short intervals. The incrementals will be very small in size since they only capture what changed in the last 5 or 10 minutes (or whatever is the polling interval). While those can help recover earlier versions of a file, they really are not what I call a file versioning system. I remember back when working on mainframes that they did have a file versioning system. You could configure how far back (how many versions) of a file that you wanted to keep. Like incremental backups, only the base version was the full file and all later versions were deltas (that were based on other prior deltas so they were pretty small). However, with your behavior of saving a file even when there was no change to it, you would eat through your delta quota (how many versions to keep) very quickly so all you would end up with is the same file in the base and every delta (i.e., all you would have is the base version and a bunch of empty deltas). I don't recall back then if an empty delta would not get saved (to prevent empty deltas because you kept saving the same non-changed file). A proper file versioning system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system) is equivalent to a CVS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concur...ersions_System) or other versioning systems, and no small feat to include in a file system. If that is the level of file versioning control that you desire, you could install CVS and put your files into a repository and have CVS track the deltas for you. You have to check out a file. You could simply discard the checked out file if you decide that none of its changes, if any, are to be kept. Or, after changing the file, you could check it back in. In fact, you can ensure that no one else can modify the file (you have exclusive access) while you have the file checked out. CVS is free. Visual Sourcesafe is used by a lot of Microsoft engrained programmers but it's pricey. You can see some versioning systems listed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ntrol_software I've only used CVS and SourceSafe. I remember playing around with Subversion awhile back but I forget why (I think it was for a project with a buddy of mine where the IDE had Subversion integration). GIT seems to have a lot of programmers using that repository probably because it is free plus someone else is handling the load (bandwidth, disk quota) for them. For most users, those versioning systems would be alien to them and incure a steep learning curve. So using a backup program that does incrementals at very short intervals is probably more within their capability to understand and use. If all you want for "versioning info" is when the file is created (versus the last modified datestamp) then add the Create column to Windows Explorer. If you don't want to waste screen realestate in Windows Explorer for a column you won't often need, right-click on a file, look at its Properties, and check its create datestamp in the General tab of the property sheet. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|