On 6 Jun 2003 at 19:37, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > At 07:11 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 5 Jun 2003 at 23:19, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > > > > > Coda is possibly the only vendor of a > > > major software product that does not provide backwards compatibility. > > > >It depends on the product category. It is very common with database > >programs to *not* have backward compatibility, or only limited > >backward compatibility. > > I don't mean to be pedantic, but all the DB systems I am familiar with > provide the means for inter-release compatibility forward AND > backward. This includes DB2, Oracle, Access, Paradox, and rBase, to name a > few.
When you're dealing strictly with data tables, most db's can read and write to their older versions. However, many of them require conversion for more complex compatibility with other features (such as management tools, for instance). Access, which is more comparable to Finale than, say, Oracle, can convert forward, but until Access 2000, could not convert backwards. The reason I say Access is more comparable to Finale is that an Access file stores more than just data tables, with form and report layouts and VBA code in the file, just as a Finale file includes tons of things about the actual data and presentation/layout of the data. > For backward compatibility, with any of these systems, you have the ability > to build your data base in a prior format that is recognized by earlier > versions. That may prevent you from using the latest features with your > new DB. It is a trade-off of flexibility versus new function. But the key > point is that the user gets to make that decision. But they all require conversion to use the newer features. And Access 2K+ is the only one I know of that will allow you to save back into an older version. > Also, end-user database products like Paradox and Access allow SaveAs to a > multitude of formats, so it is easy to use those products on collaborative > projects. Well, you can export data from them, but you can't export the user interface objects, which are the parts of Paradox and Access that are more like a Finale file. If it's so easy to do, then you go do it -- write your own notation package that has backward compatibility of file formats. Until you've done that, you really have no business criticizing Coda for this. Yes, it's inconvenient, but it would be extremely difficult to implement. Coda would go out of business if they took the time out of their product release cycle to implement backward compatibility. And how many users would need it? Yes, the users who do need it need it really *bad*, but my guess is that this is only a very small proportion of the user base. Why should Coda devote such massive resources to something that would serve only a small part of their customer base. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
