I agree Fin2k2 was good, but many of the subsequent enhancements are one I could not live without (esp. auto-positioning of expressions and, yes, linked parts.)
I think those who denigrate linked parts are missing the point. Of course linked parts is only partially implemented, but the question is whether that partial implementation is valuable on its own terms. Is it viable to have a single document containing both score and parts? The answer is usually a resounding NO. But what is completely viable, even easy, is to have one document for your score and another document for *all* parts. This is so self-evidently a vast improvement over the situation that obtained before that I wonder why it seems continually necessary to justify it. Just to cite a few reasons: 1. If I need to change the File Info (title, copyright date, edition number, etc.) I now need to modify only 2 files instead of umpteen. 2. Same for any common text that typically appears on Page 1. 3. I easily can print all parts at once. (Or generate separate PDFs for all parts at once.) 4. Creating cues is MUCH easier with all the parts in one file. 5. Same for making revisions. Even substantial revisions, such as adding or removing bars, go much faster with all the parts in one file. Yes, you still must separately edit all the page layouts for each part, but everything else about it goes faster. If your Mac still supports Classic, I don't know why you can't run Fin2K now. As you move into the Mac Intel or Leopard world, your best option will be SheepShaver. SheepShaver will probably run Fin2K as well as Classic does, perhaps better in some ways. But printing from SheepShaver is not pretty, and I have no idea if SheepShaver supports MIDI. My guess is, not easily. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Stiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess I've changed my mind again. > > FinMac 2K2 was an almost perfect program. All subsequent versions have been > distinctly inferior, and MakeMusic seems to have made almost no effort to > restore the smooth, seamless operation of its last pre-OSX version, but has > rather introduced new features (notably linked parts) that are buggy, > clumsy, incomplete, and logically arbitrary. > > I only ever bought 2K4 in order to run the program in OSX. If somebody could > manage to port 2K2 seamlessly into OSX, I would get it in a heartbeat and > never look back. > > Like many other of the older list members, I have routines I like that I > worked out long ago, that work fine for me, and that I have no desire to > supplant. I always work in Speedy, for example. I have never used mirrors, > because they offer too many chances for user error, and I now realize that, > for the same reason, I will never use linked parts. That being so, what > use will 2K9 be to me? Precious little, it seems, and I am now resolved > to uprgrade beyond 2K7 only if and when my composers become unable to send > me materials in a form I can currently work with. > > Andrew Stiller > Kallisti Music Press > http://www.kallistimusic.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
