Re: [Finale] Disappointed
Aaron Sherber writes: > The latency I was seeing went far beyond "incovenience". Since it's not consistent on your system, it seems like you're talking about a different and more serious issue here. If you experience it sometime in the future, please check if you've run SoftSynth playback prior to when the problem started. Are you using DirectX 8? Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 04:57 PM 8/28/2003, Aaron Sherber wrote: >Yes, but not good ones. An app like this should be able to run not just on >brand-new hardware, but on some reasonable collection of recent hardware, >so that you don't require much of your user base to upgrade hardware in >order to use your software. And reasonable people can argue for days as to >what constitutes a "reasonable collection of recent hardware", but I feel >strongly that my system would be in that collection. We recently decided that we will no longer support win9x-me. There are too many missing functions that make it unreasonable to support old OS when writing new products. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 04:19 PM 8/28/2003, Richard Huggins wrote: >I'm happy for Simple's improvements, but really...this isn't a Simple vs. >Speedy war! Anytime one feature of Finale is made better, easier to use, >faster, more convenient, and such it benefits all of us and MM as well, as >it makes the product that much superior and worth using and certainly >expands the options. Yes, good point, Richard. There's no question that Simple is much better now than it was before. >competition for supremacy or perhaps even for shared power. Who knows, as >has been suggested, perhaps in the future their kingdoms will be merged I would really like to see something like that. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
And all I suggest is that you give it some time. I look at the keyboard/screen less in Simple now than I ever did in Speedy. It's not hard to get used to spotting intervals greater than a 4th. Furthermore, since it's playing each note as you enter it, if you do make a mistake, you'll hear it and you can press a key to fix it. You aren't penalized for entering the note in the wrong octave first and then fixing it. It's the same number of keystrokes as getting it correct the first time. This is another reason I'm very fond of Simple Entry now. Mistakes don't slow you down as much as they do in Speedy. Tyler --- Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:14 PM 8/28/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: > >When you press a pitch key in simple entry, it > chooses > >the octave for that pitch which is closest to the > last > >entered pitch. Since the largest interval in > London > >Bridges is a Perfect 4th, it will guess correctly > >every time in this example. > > Yes, I see that now in the Manual. That wasn't clear > to me from playing > with it -- thanks for pointing it out. And that *is* > pretty nifty. > > As I said, earlier, though, each person's situation > is different. That's a > very useful function if you're composing while > looking at the screen and > keeping track of where you are, but a lot of what I > personally do in Finale > starts with a lot of "heads-down" note entry -- > copying something from an > existing score, part, or arrangement. In Speedy, I > can do this like touch > typing, keeping my eyes on the source material and > not thinking much about > it. In Simple, as I go along and encounter leaps in > the line, I need to be > consciously thinking about whether the leap is > greater than a fourth and > whether I therefore need to switch an octave. In > Speedy, I don't need to > analyze at all -- I just go directly to the right > note, in the right octave. > > I find that every time a program tries to "think for > me" in this way, the > times it gets it right (and appears very cool in > doing so) are often > compensated for by the additional thinking I have to > do when the program > gets it wrong. > > Aaron. > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finalelist > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 06:14 PM 8/28/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: >When you press a pitch key in simple entry, it chooses >the octave for that pitch which is closest to the last >entered pitch. Since the largest interval in London >Bridges is a Perfect 4th, it will guess correctly >every time in this example. Yes, I see that now in the Manual. That wasn't clear to me from playing with it -- thanks for pointing it out. And that *is* pretty nifty. As I said, earlier, though, each person's situation is different. That's a very useful function if you're composing while looking at the screen and keeping track of where you are, but a lot of what I personally do in Finale starts with a lot of "heads-down" note entry -- copying something from an existing score, part, or arrangement. In Speedy, I can do this like touch typing, keeping my eyes on the source material and not thinking much about it. In Simple, as I go along and encounter leaps in the line, I need to be consciously thinking about whether the leap is greater than a fourth and whether I therefore need to switch an octave. In Speedy, I don't need to analyze at all -- I just go directly to the right note, in the right octave. I find that every time a program tries to "think for me" in this way, the times it gets it right (and appears very cool in doing so) are often compensated for by the additional thinking I have to do when the program gets it wrong. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
I think we're not on the same page here. Your London Bridges example makes me think you haven't quite seen what's happening in the new Simple entry yet. There would be no octave switching in that example (assuming we're both just talking about the melody - I wouldn't know which harmony you're referring to if that's the case). When you press a pitch key in simple entry, it chooses the octave for that pitch which is closest to the last entered pitch. Since the largest interval in London Bridges is a Perfect 4th, it will guess correctly every time in this example. Similarly, if you had a five octave scale, in Speedy you would need to switch octaves while in Simple you would not. Tyler --- Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:44 PM 8/28/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: > >Yes, if the notes constantly change rhythms and > are > >continuously jumping octaves, you have a situation > >where Speedy is faster. But this is extremely > uncommon > >in the music I've seen. > > I would say the truth is somewhere in the middle. > Most music is not made up > of 'constantly changing rhythms', but neither is it > made up of a string of > 8th notes. Hum any few bars of classical music, and > I think you'll find a > good mix of different rhythms. > > >into play. After all, continual octave jumping > >passages are probably most "common" in keyboard > music, > >right? > > It's not just octave jumps, though -- it's any > passage which includes notes > on either side of the single octave Simple gives > you. Imagine 'London > bridge' in D major, starting on A on the staff. > Simple requires you to > change octaves several times, whereas Speedy just > asks you to move your > hand a little. (Actually, since the Speedy octave > runs C-B instead of A-G, > this particular example lets you stay all in one > octave, but that's just a > coincidence.) > > >With Simple Entry, you now have the ability to > >make chords quickly > > Yes, this is a big help. I personally don't do a lot > of piano parts, > though, and I've got some nifty tricks in Speedy to > help me when I do. > > >I'm going to go out on a limb and > >suggest that these two features alone will more > than > >make up for that single scenario for virtually > >everyone. > > That's a rather narrow limb you're on. If there's > one thing that this list > has shown over the years, it's that each person has > his own preferred > working method, and one of the strengths of Finale > is that it doesn't force > you into one way of doing things. > > > And there are MANY more advantages in simple > >entry. > > Yes, and I wish some of them had been added to > Speedy as well! > > >No, in Simple you can map the keys however you > want. > >Put them in in a row. It's quick and easy, and > that's > >the reason we included the feature. > > Yes, but remapping the pitch keys means remapping > the things that were on > the keys I remapped to -- and I haven't looked > enough at this to see how > much work that will entail. And I still maintain > that having only one > octave of pitches available -- and an octave that > runs A to G, at that -- > is far less intuitive and simple that having three > octaves available at > once, even if Simple does have an octave jump key. > > Aaron. > > > > > >Tyler > > > >__ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site > design software > >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 11:17 AM 8/28/2003, Jari Williamsson wrote: >Aaron Sherber writes: > >>But this doesn't change my basic point, which is that my >> current hardware is far from obsolete, and there's no >> reason why an app written today should >> not run just fine on it. > >Of course there are reasons!!! Yes, but not good ones. An app like this should be able to run not just on brand-new hardware, but on some reasonable collection of recent hardware, so that you don't require much of your user base to upgrade hardware in order to use your software. And reasonable people can argue for days as to what constitutes a "reasonable collection of recent hardware", but I feel strongly that my system would be in that collection. At any rate, as I've posted elsewhere, this is moot, since a reboot cleared things up. Perhaps the Finale installer should reboot when it's done. >3. It WILL be fixed, but other things than optimization had higher priority >prior to the initial release. I don't consider this "optimization", since the latency I was seeing really made Finale unusable. Again, though, it seems to have gone away. >4. I did mentioned it in my review Yes. From what you said, though, I was expecting something like a slightly longer delay when exiting the Speedy box, or more frequent redraws, or something like that. The latency I was seeing went far beyond "incovenience". Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 03:44 PM 8/28/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: >Yes, if the notes constantly change rhythms and are >continuously jumping octaves, you have a situation >where Speedy is faster. But this is extremely uncommon >in the music I've seen. I would say the truth is somewhere in the middle. Most music is not made up of 'constantly changing rhythms', but neither is it made up of a string of 8th notes. Hum any few bars of classical music, and I think you'll find a good mix of different rhythms. >into play. After all, continual octave jumping >passages are probably most "common" in keyboard music, >right? It's not just octave jumps, though -- it's any passage which includes notes on either side of the single octave Simple gives you. Imagine 'London bridge' in D major, starting on A on the staff. Simple requires you to change octaves several times, whereas Speedy just asks you to move your hand a little. (Actually, since the Speedy octave runs C-B instead of A-G, this particular example lets you stay all in one octave, but that's just a coincidence.) >With Simple Entry, you now have the ability to >make chords quickly Yes, this is a big help. I personally don't do a lot of piano parts, though, and I've got some nifty tricks in Speedy to help me when I do. >I'm going to go out on a limb and >suggest that these two features alone will more than >make up for that single scenario for virtually >everyone. That's a rather narrow limb you're on. If there's one thing that this list has shown over the years, it's that each person has his own preferred working method, and one of the strengths of Finale is that it doesn't force you into one way of doing things. > And there are MANY more advantages in simple >entry. Yes, and I wish some of them had been added to Speedy as well! >No, in Simple you can map the keys however you want. >Put them in in a row. It's quick and easy, and that's >the reason we included the feature. Yes, but remapping the pitch keys means remapping the things that were on the keys I remapped to -- and I haven't looked enough at this to see how much work that will entail. And I still maintain that having only one octave of pitches available -- and an octave that runs A to G, at that -- is far less intuitive and simple that having three octaves available at once, even if Simple does have an octave jump key. Aaron. > >Tyler > >__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
I'm happy for Simple's improvements, but really...this isn't a Simple vs. Speedy war! Anytime one feature of Finale is made better, easier to use, faster, more convenient, and such it benefits all of us and MM as well, as it makes the product that much superior and worth using and certainly expands the options. All hail to the new Prince Simple (some may call him King) as it takes a new position of authority alongside King Speedy, and may they enjoy a spirited competition for supremacy or perhaps even for shared power. Who knows, as has been suggested, perhaps in the future their kingdoms will be merged Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
--- Aaron Sherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:41 PM 8/27/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: > >Actually for your example it's the same number of > >keystrokes. In Speedy Entry you press the pitch > key > >and then the rhythm key for each note. In Simple > Entry > >you press the octave key and the pitch key for > each > >note. 2 each. > > Okay, but if the pitches are on different rhythms? > Yes, if the notes constantly change rhythms and are continuously jumping octaves, you have a situation where Speedy is faster. But this is extremely uncommon in the music I've seen. I don't think it can be said that this one scenario can allow Speedy to match the overall speed of Simple, especially when you consider how often the advantages of Simple Entry will come into play. After all, continual octave jumping passages are probably most "common" in keyboard music, right? With Simple Entry, you now have the ability to make chords quickly and switch layers with automatic hidden rests. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that these two features alone will more than make up for that single scenario for virtually everyone. And there are MANY more advantages in simple entry. > >To give an example, with both Speedy and Simple > >Entry, try entering a C scale in eighth notes with > an > >eighth rest after each note. Speedy can't compare > to > >Simple in this exercise. > > I'm not sure I understand. In Speedy, this > alternates left and right hands. > The left hand just runs up one row of the keyboard, > which I can do without > looking; the right hand keeps tapping 4 on the > keypad. In simple, I have to > think about where the notes are, even though I don't > have to keep hitting > the duration. > No, in Simple you can map the keys however you want. Put them in in a row. It's quick and easy, and that's the reason we included the feature. Tyler __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
--- Richard Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Tyler Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To give an example, with both Speedy and Simple > Entry, try entering a C scale > > in eighth notes with an eighth rest after each > note. Speedy can't compare to > > Simple in this exercise. > > Excuse me, Tyler, but your statement is just not > true at all. Did you mean > with or without MIDI? With MIDI, as the other person > said, in a typical > situation the LH is on the MIDI keyboard poised to > play a C scale, which, > unless you're not keyboard proficient, you can do > without looking. The RH > taps the 4 key...etc. > > "Can't compare"? > > --Richard That wasn't the topic. Aaron was exclusively comparing non-MIDI entry in Speedy and Simple. My point is correct. But in reality, Speedy couldn't even keep up with Simple with MIDI entry in this scenario. It simply takes more keypresses. Speedy w/out caps lock: (Hold C 4) 4 (Hold D 4) 4 (Hold E 4) 4 (Hold F 4) 4 (Hold G 4) 4 (Hold A 4) 4 (Hold B 4) 4 (Hold C 4) 4 Speedy w/ caps lock: C C Backspace (or numlock) D D BS E E BS F F BS G G BS A A BS B B BS C C BS OR C Cluster Chord D (CC) E (CC) F (CC) G (CC) A (CC) B (CC) C (CC) Simple: C 0 D 0 E 0 F 0 G 0 A 0 B 0 C 0 Tyler __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
Aaron Sherber writes: >But this doesn't change my basic point, which is that my > current hardware is far from obsolete, and there's no > reason why an app written today should > not run just fine on it. Of course there are reasons!!! > If I were somehow creaking along > on an old 486 and found that Finale didn't run as snappily > as it might, it would clear be up > to me to upgrade my hardware. But for Finale to run this way on recent > hardware would seem to be their fault rather than mine. 1. MakeMusic knows about the problem on lo-performance hardware/drivers (but it's probably a good point letting them know anyway, until the problem is fixed) 2. It will run ok on most hardware, and should be good on all new hardware 3. It WILL be fixed, but other things than optimization had higher priority prior to the initial release. and: 4. I did mentioned it in my review 5. The problem is much related to the size of document area. If you run a document on high resolution in maximized state, you'll have much more problems than if you run on low resolution and in a smaller document window Randy has more info on the subject, perhaps he'll join the discussion. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
> From: Tyler Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To give an example, with both Speedy and Simple Entry, try entering a C scale > in eighth notes with an eighth rest after each note. Speedy can't compare to > Simple in this exercise. Excuse me, Tyler, but your statement is just not true at all. Did you mean with or without MIDI? With MIDI, as the other person said, in a typical situation the LH is on the MIDI keyboard poised to play a C scale, which, unless you're not keyboard proficient, you can do without looking. The RH taps the 4 key...etc. "Can't compare"? --Richard ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 09:51 AM 8/28/2003, Phil Daley wrote: >If it not memory, then it is video card speed. > >I know my Nvidia 128MB card at work on a 3.06GHz P-IV with 1GB RAM is a lot >faster than the old card I have at home on a 450MHz AMDK-II with 256MB RAM. Yes, of course -- I understand that better hardware would make thing run faster. But this doesn't change my basic point, which is that my current hardware is far from obsolete, and there's no reason why an app written today should not run just fine on it. If I were somehow creaking along on an old 486 and found that Finale didn't run as snappily as it might, it would clear be up to me to upgrade my hardware. But for Finale to run this way on recent hardware would seem to be their fault rather than mine. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 8/28/2003 09:34 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: >Yes, this is true. But I think certainly 256MB RAM, 16MB on the video card, >and a 600MB paging file should be sufficient to allow for movement of >on-screen items without noticeable latency, no? If it not memory, then it is video card speed. I know my Nvidia 128MB card at work on a 3.06GHz P-IV with 1GB RAM is a lot faster than the old card I have at home on a 450MHz AMDK-II with 256MB RAM. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://personal.monad.net/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 09:21 AM 8/28/2003, Johannes Gebauer wrote: >I don't think Phil could have been talking about the Mac, OS 9 didn't allow >resizable swap files. Yes, Phil corrected me on this off-list. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
On 28.08.2003 14:31 Uhr, Aaron Sherber wrote > At 07:10 AM 8/28/2003, Phil Daley wrote: >> What amount of virtual memory do you have set? >> >> And do you have it set to start at this amount? > > Phil, if I remember correctly, you're a Mac guy (apologies if I'm wrong), > and Win machines handle virtual memory differently. As it turns out, I have > a paging file of almost 600MB, but even the 256 of actual RAM should be > sufficient for something like this. I don't think Phil could have been talking about the Mac, OS 9 didn't allow resizable swap files. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 07:10 AM 8/28/2003, Phil Daley wrote: >What amount of virtual memory do you have set? > >And do you have it set to start at this amount? Phil, if I remember correctly, you're a Mac guy (apologies if I'm wrong), and Win machines handle virtual memory differently. As it turns out, I have a paging file of almost 600MB, but even the 256 of actual RAM should be sufficient for something like this. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 11:41 PM 8/27/2003, Tyler Turner wrote: >Actually for your example it's the same number of >keystrokes. In Speedy Entry you press the pitch key >and then the rhythm key for each note. In Simple Entry >you press the octave key and the pitch key for each >note. 2 each. Okay, but if the pitches are on different rhythms? >To give an example, with both Speedy and Simple >Entry, try entering a C scale in eighth notes with an >eighth rest after each note. Speedy can't compare to >Simple in this exercise. I'm not sure I understand. In Speedy, this alternates left and right hands. The left hand just runs up one row of the keyboard, which I can do without looking; the right hand keeps tapping 4 on the keypad. In simple, I have to think about where the notes are, even though I don't have to keep hitting the duration. This becomes more pronounced if you're doing something like a descending scale in thirds: C-A-B-G- etc. In Simple, it takes a lot of thought to remember what note is next and where the key is. In Speedy, it's just like playing the piano: a third is two keys over. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 8/27/2003 04:29 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: >For starters, I wouldn't exactly call my system slow, although it is a >couple of years old. It's a PIII 733 with 256 MB RAM, running Win2K -- and >I routinely run all kind of memory and screen-intensive apps (Quark, >Illustrator, etc.) without noticing this kind of slowdown. For Finale to >run this poorly on recent hardware is inexplicable. And I'm not sure what >effect clearing the temp folder would have, but I'll take a look. What amount of virtual memory do you have set? And do you have it set to start at this amount? If you have a large swap file set, but have it set to start small, it will take a more time to increase its size when it runs out of space. Phil Daley < AutoDesk > http://personal.monad.net/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
> Not as easy as with Speedy, where I have 3 octaves > under my hand. Imagine a > simple pattern in eighth notes alternating two notes > in different octaves. > In Simple, it takes me 2 keystrokes to get each note > (unless I'm missing > something) -- in Speedy only one. Actually for your example it's the same number of keystrokes. In Speedy Entry you press the pitch key and then the rhythm key for each note. In Simple Entry you press the octave key and the pitch key for each note. 2 each. You should remap the octave switching keys in Simple Entry to something that's quicker for this. Ideal candidates might be something with the ring finger of the left hand since it isn't used with ABCDEFG or possibly even something on the number pad. Back and forth combinations between the hands can be incredibly quick. To give an example, with both Speedy and Simple Entry, try entering a C scale in eighth notes with an eighth rest after each note. Speedy can't compare to Simple in this exercise. Tyler __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
At 03:59 PM 8/27/2003, Jari Williamsson wrote: >Aaron Sherber writes: > >> The new Simple Entry commands are very powerful (and customizable), but >> contrary to Jari's opinion I do not think this is now the entry method of >> choice for those of us working without a MIDI keyboard. > >I did not say that. I said just for _adding_ new material. Ah, I must have misunderstood. You mean inserting new material, right? I took this to mean adding on to the end of a file as well -- that is, entering music. My bad. >> keyboard as a 3-octave entry tool. Having to type the letter names A-G, and >> having access to only one octave at a time, seems to make entry much slower >> than with Speedy. > >...but it's very easy to move between the octaves... Not as easy as with Speedy, where I have 3 octaves under my hand. Imagine a simple pattern in eighth notes alternating two notes in different octaves. In Simple, it takes me 2 keystrokes to get each note (unless I'm missing something) -- in Speedy only one. >Did you try clearing the temp folder? Not that this will solve all the speed >issues on hires or slow systems, which is a know issue (but let >MakeMusic! know about it anyway). For starters, I wouldn't exactly call my system slow, although it is a couple of years old. It's a PIII 733 with 256 MB RAM, running Win2K -- and I routinely run all kind of memory and screen-intensive apps (Quark, Illustrator, etc.) without noticing this kind of slowdown. For Finale to run this poorly on recent hardware is inexplicable. And I'm not sure what effect clearing the temp folder would have, but I'll take a look. >> AND it's not true that the screen now always displays correctly. > >In my review I said: "Another way of putting it: if you still encounter >situations where the screen does not display as it should, make sure to >report the bug to the technical support!" Yes, and I will -- it's just that I was surprised to find this kind of bug literally in the first 10 minutes of use. (I wasn't criticizing your review, Jari -- for the second or third year in a row, it was your review rather than the Coda marketing materials that induced me to upgrade.) >Ctrl+D will have little effect in the new update system, since everything is >cached. Instead, use Ctrl+Shift+D for buggy situations. Thanks, I'll give that a try. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Disappointed
Aaron Sherber writes: > The new Simple Entry commands are very powerful (and customizable), but > contrary to Jari's opinion I do not think this is now the entry method of > choice for those of us working without a MIDI keyboard. I did not say that. I said just for _adding_ new material. > Some of the > commands are quite nice -- especially those for adding notes to a chord -- > but it doesn't compare to the convenience of being able to use the computer > keyboard as a 3-octave entry tool. Having to type the letter names A-G, and > having access to only one octave at a time, seems to make entry much slower > than with Speedy. ...but it's very easy to move between the octaves... > Perhaps most annoyingly, the display system is unacceptably slow. Moving > almost any item (articulation, expression, smart shape, etc.) results in an > unacceptable amount of latency before the screen shows the move I've just > made. This makes tweaking the positioning of objects *much* slower than it > used to be, because I can't move at the speed I want to. If this is the > price to pay for never having to hit Ctrl-D, I'd rather have it the other > way. Did you try clearing the temp folder? Not that this will solve all the speed issues on hires or slow systems, which is a know issue (but let MakeMusic! know about it anyway). > AND it's not true that the screen now always displays correctly. In my review I said: "Another way of putting it: if you still encounter situations where the screen does not display as it should, make sure to report the bug to the technical support!" > I can > reproduce a situation where changing some things in the Expression dialog > and then closing the dialog leaves a small colored halo around each > expression's selection box, and Ctrl-D doesn't even get rid of it. Ctrl+D will have little effect in the new update system, since everything is cached. Instead, use Ctrl+Shift+D for buggy situations. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
