Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
...That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade their software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of programs, including Microcrap Office, on the new Intel macs. No need to upgrade there. Some with Adobe's software. Same was true when Apple went with OS X. You could run many, many applications in Classic, and ALL the new hardware for years supported classic. Classic does not work on the new Intel macs Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac? Does it run on a new G5? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Finale on G5
Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern computer?? Because it took me a long time to write it (about 12 years ago), and I don't want to rewrite it. -- Ken Moore Musician and engineer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac? No Does it run on a new G5? Yes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Finale on G5
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote I'm told OpenOffice and StarOffice are compatible, but it's risky to beta-test your editing work on live clients. :) I regularly use OpenOffice to read Word documents and have returned .xls files to their originators after having modified them in QuattroPro. -- Ken Moore Musician and engineer ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
On 25.05.2006 Lawrence David Eden wrote: Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac? No. Does it run on a new G5? Yes. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
On May 24, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern computer?? Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program, historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old files. As a publisher, it is crucial that I be able to print out old files in exactly the form in which they were created, and the practical consequence of that has been that I have had to keep about 5 old versions of Finale (going back to FinMac 2.6, wh. dates from 1992) on my hard drive specifically to print out files that were created in those versions. None of these old versions will run in OSX. For some time I have been able to avoid this problem by printing from Classic, or even rebooting in real System 9. But it is now clear that my next computer, whatever it may prove to be, will not run Classic. Therefore, prudence dictates that I must finally update all those old files (many hundreds of them) in anticipation of that day. These are not, as I said, transparent updates. Things go wrong, and I don't always catch them. This degrades my product and therefore, undoubtedly, my reputation. Just yesterday I discovered that an updated file originally created in FinMac 3.2 is now showing an extra, nonsensical word in the middle of a song lyric--because a white-out shape expression that I had created to hide the word no longer hides it. I have sold maybe half a dozen copies of this song volume since updating it, all containing this stupid error. Thanks ever so much, MakeMusic; and thanks ever so much, Apple. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Audio file conversion to midi format
Eric Dannewitz / 2006/05/24 / 12:28 AM wrote: Nor does anything do it really well. You might want to check out Melodyne. Depending on material, Digital Performer does fair job. Not as good as Melodyne, tho. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Something is wrong with this thread. You buy software, not physically, but the right to use at the moment. If you can't accept this then you probably shouldn't use computer for your work. No software is responsible to support future unknown platform. If you need to run the old software, the correct thing to do is to keep the machine that the software was designed for. If you try to run old software on newer platform, it is simply not supported. Whether you like to be lucky with Windows than Mac is different subject. I still keep PowerTowerPro/G3 (very well made Mac clone!) running OS8.6 for two reasons, running FinMac97 and Claris Works which contains all of my invoices of the clients. Later I bought FileMaker but transfer was too time consuming and I said keeping PTPro, booting it up when needed is much more time saver. As to Finale, do you really want to run older version with newer OSes? I always get unexpected errors like layout corruption and font problems (Remember NewPort?). I rather keep older platform available. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
But that kind of logic is why Microsoft is having such problems. There has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW computers, your old software might not run. In fact, it probably won't. We're sorry. We recommend keeping whatever you have around to use the older software if you need to. To me, it seems absolutely insane to keep support for old programs. I can't imagine Apple keeping support for System 6 programs in OS X so people can run Pagemaker 1.5 or whatever. The points about importing from older versions is valid, but isn't that more the company who makes the software's problem than the OS's problem? I mean, if Finale 3.5 files don't import correctly, would you blame MakeMusic or Microsoft/Apple? Seems like the reason people keep the older versions around are to compensate for MakeMusic's shortcomings... dc wrote: A-NO-NE Music écrit: No software is responsible to support future unknown platform. Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me. Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility possible. And this without keeping as many machines as versions of Finale... Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] romanic numbers
On May 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Dragoş Oltean wrote: I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II, III, IV You have to enter each Roman numeral as a separate text-block on each page. TTBOMK there is no program that will provide Roman numeration automatically, though certainly it would be easy enough to do. I have long thought that this is a feature that Finale ought to provide--but then, I use Finale as my word processor... Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
At 5/25/2006 01:06 PM, dc wrote: Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me. Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility possible. And this without keeping as many machines as versions of Finale... Absolutely. Some users don't appear to see the problem. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
There has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW computers, your old software might not run. I suspect someday that day will come for Windows. So far it has not and shows no signs of it. This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is whether Win *does* provide better backwards compatibility, not whether it *should*. Nothing in this post offers any evidence to counter the proposition that Windows does in fact provide better backwards compatibility. BTW: I mean to beg the question in its traditional sense. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
So because MakeMusic can't import files from older versions of Finale into a newer version properly, you have to cripple Windows/Mac OS X with the necessity of running older versions of the program? Now, that doesn't make sense at allno wonder Microsoft is in such dire straits with that kind of logic.. Phil Daley wrote: At 5/25/2006 01:06 PM, dc wrote: Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me. Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility possible. And this without keeping as many machines as versions of Finale... Absolutely. Some users don't appear to see the problem. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
I'd say it's obviously that Windows provides better support for OLD programs. But Apple has and does provide support for older programs, but at some point Apple does cut the cord to keep on the cutting edge Robert Patterson wrote: There has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW computers, your old software might not run. I suspect someday that day will come for Windows. So far it has not and shows no signs of it. This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is whether Win *does* provide better backwards compatibility, not whether it *should*. Nothing in this post offers any evidence to counter the proposition that Windows does in fact provide better backwards compatibility. BTW: I mean to beg the question in its traditional sense. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] romanic numbers
On May 25, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: On May 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Dragoş Oltean wrote: I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II, III, IV You have to enter each Roman numeral as a separate text-block on each page. TTBOMK there is no program that will provide Roman numeration automatically, though certainly it would be easy enough to do. I have long thought that this is a feature that Finale ought to provide--but then, I use Finale as my word processor... I would have thought that a program designed to do book layouts and the like would need Roman page numbering. I hardly pick up a book ever that doesn't number its preface and foreword this way. Is that all done manually, then? What a drag! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
On 25 May 2006 at 14:53, Robert Patterson wrote: Leave it to David Fenton to argue with me when I'm agreeing with him. I wasn't arguing. I was correcting what seemed to me to be misstatements of the history you were outlining. [] I believe that current Pentium chips use a form of emulation for real mode operations. But the chip runs them, which is what I said. Hence, there is no need for a software emulation layer in the OS, as there was both for 68K on PPC and now PPC on Intel in the Mac world. But this supports my point, that backward compatibility *could* be maintained if Apple had chosen to do so by getting Motorola to engineer the emulation into the chips they were using. Intel and Microsoft did a lot of affirmative things in terms of engineering and architecture to insure that backward compatibility was more easily implementable. Apple and Motorola chose not to, for whatever reason. This is a topic that's somewhat orthogonal to your points, but it's worth bringing up, I think, given that the difference is not just one of the resources Microsoft had available to throw at the problem, but of planning from the earliest stages of the conception of the major changes in hardware/software platform(s). [] You're conflating two different Windows kernels. No, I'm not. I know about the NT kernel. . .. That may be, but the comments you made applied only to the Win9x kernel and not to the NT kernel. . . . I know about the DOS based kernel. My statement conforms exactly with David's (unnecessary for the topic) history lesson. By ca. 2000, all platforms were no longer DOS-based. That is, there no longer was a DOS-based kernel. I can't remember where WinME (DOS-based) fit into the dates, . . . It was released after Win2K, which came out in 1999, so I'm guessing it was released in 2000 or so. I told all my clients to avoid it entirely. Indeed, I had them skip Win98, too, and go to NT 4, and later Win2K (this was before WinXP came out, of course). . . . and I wasn't paying much attention to the details of Home Edition, so it could actually be a year or two after 2000. WinXP Home is built on the NT kernel. It is nothing more than a crippled version of the full WinXP Workstation, for which you have to pay extra, unfortunately. There is no justification for the existence of WinXP Home as Microsoft designed it, and no one should be buying it at all. Again, that's not a direct response to anything you wrote, just an appropriate detail. But it does show, I think, that your original comments were not clearly informed about the distinctions between the Win9x and NT kernels and which versions of Windows used which. And that was why I commented. I don't know why Apple could not figure out how to implement virtual memory management without tossing their original OS. That is what my original post explains, should David choose to read it. The original MacOS required programs to access kernel memory, it was vastly more complex than DOS, especially by the time they were trying to implement virtual memory management, and Apple gave themselves only a couple of years, as compared with Microsoft's 10-15 (depending on how you count). Actually Apple attempted for many years to do the full monty with the Copland project, but when that failed, they were forced to do something qui ckly. Enter Unix and OSX. Sorry, but this is not a satisfactory explanation. Microsoft managed to create a DOS virtual machine that can run programs that try to manipulate memory directly by simply providing virtualizations of the actual hardware so the DOS program thinks it's writing to real memory. I don't see why that was not possible for Apple to have done the same thing, unless, of course, it's a matter of the Motorola chips simply not supporting that kind of virtual memory architecture. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Robert Patterson / 2006/05/25 / 01:32 PM wrote: This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is whether Win *does* provide better backwards compatibility, not whether it *should*. Nothing in this post offers any evidence to counter the proposition that Windows does in fact provide better backwards compatibility. I agree that Windows supports older stuff a lot better than Mac does, but there are reasons for that, I believe. Remember I was mentioning the problem of color matching between Mac and Windows a while back? Later I received a professional help from print house expert. I was explained that Mac graphic code traditionally runs on chip, while Windows renders using software codes, meaning there is no way to predict even help from 3rd party profiler. The answer I was given was to use Mac. This could explain why Mac is so machine dependent, and bad with backward compatibility. Meanwhile, I still believe there is no excuse that Finale never offered SaveAs older version format, do you not think? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] romanic numbers
On 25 May 2006 at 13:22, Andrew Stiller wrote: TTBOMK there is no program that will provide Roman numeration automatically, though certainly it would be easy enough to do. Microsoft Word provides it as one of the default numbering styles and has done so as long as I've used MS Word (which would be starting in 1990). There should be nothing difficult about implementing it, seems to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
On 25 May 2006 at 10:17, Eric Dannewitz wrote: dc wrote: A-NO-NE Music écrit: No software is responsible to support future unknown platform. Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me. Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility possible. And this without keeping as many machines as versions of Finale... But that kind of logic is why Microsoft is having such problems. What problems are you referring to there? The delays in the release of Longhorn/Vista? Those are almost all due to problems implementing *new* technologies, not in supporting the older software, so I can't imagine that would be what you're referring to. There has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW computers, your old software might not run. In fact, it probably won't. We're sorry. We recommend keeping whatever you have around to use the older software if you need to. But Microsoft makes no claims that it will support all software forever. But they design their OS's so that programs that don't depend on undocumented or deprecated methods of accomplishing tasks will continue to run as long as the APIs they are written to are supported in MS's OS's. To me, it seems absolutely insane to keep support for old programs. I think the key part of this comment is in the opening clause. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Mac / Win Equivalency Question
Dear list: I'm a mac user, and haven't had to do this on a windows machine in a long time so am unable to remember the procedure. If you want more than one word to set under a single note as a lyric, on a mac, you can type option-space to insert the null space character. What, pray tell, is the equivalent method in windows? Thanks for your help. My Mother-in-law will thank you. -Scot -- Scot Hanna-Weir Music Engraver A-R Editions, Inc. Middleton, WI -- www.areditions.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] romanic numbers
At 01:33 PM 5/25/2006, Barbara Touburg wrote: Adobe InDesign does. So does MS Publisher. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
David Fenton: That may be, but the comments you made applied only to the Win9x kernel and not to the NT kernel. Sez you. I don't see why that was not possible for Apple to have done the same thing, Sometime have a look at Inside Macintosh Vols 1-3, which describe the API up thru System 6. Then you might be able to see. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
On 5/25/06, dc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A-NO-NE Music écrit: Meanwhile, I still believe there is no excuse that Finale never offered SaveAs older version format, do you not think? Couldn't agree more. Especially that this seems to be a deliberate choice on their part... Probably why they didn't is because several of the updates along the way would have involved changes in data structures and in the way that the enigma files were encoded. These changes in data architecture would not be able to be duplicated in an older format because they were new features/structures, or significant changes to old structures. Therefore, there wouldn't have been a way to save as an older version with the guarantee of no data loss, and as we were talking about previously, with our unwillingness to update older files due to unpredictable changes, I don't think we'd be excited about loss of data going the opposite way. However, it sure would have been nice. -Scot -- Scot Hanna-Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Andrew: Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program, historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old files. As a publisher, it is crucial that I be able to print out old files in exactly the form in which they were created, and the practical consequence of that has been that I have had to keep about 5 old versions of Finale (going back to FinMac 2.6, wh. dates from 1992) on my hard drive specifically to print out files that were created in those versions. None of these old versions will run in OSX. For some time I have been able to avoid this problem by printing from Classic, or even rebooting in real System 9. But it is now clear that my next computer, whatever it may prove to be, will not run Classic. Me: Which seems to me to be an argument for keeping your old computer as it currently is once you get your next computer. Same as keeping a turntable to play LPs after purchasing a CD player. Knock-wood, I've never had to replace a Mac because it stopped working. I don't see Andrew's problem as a flaw of computer, software, or user, but just part of life. There may not be an elegant solution that fits all possible contingencies, but it strikes me that an old-machine-for-old- files solution doesn't seem so out of whack... ng ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Meandering moment, Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
At 08:24 PM 5/25/06 -0400, Neal Gittleman wrote: it strikes me that an old-machine-for-old- files solution doesn't seem so out of whack... I don't think it's a bad concept in theory. But it comes up against the reality of an ever-increasing load of quickly consciously obsoleted formats. Why accept something that doesn't have to be quickly obsoleted? As a technological composer/musician, I've used so many formats that work can quickly become lost. I try to minimize loss, maintain forward compatibility, or forward-convert. There is no insurmountable barrier to recapturing most earlier past formats if there is awareness, desire, time, and cash to do so. Right now I have a studio full of hardware to run older formats, but no time to move it along. (A real history lesson is Laurie Spiegel's studio -- rooms of equipment to run formats and even software dating from the 1960s.) Here we're only talking about Finale and the ability to forward-shift a software format through evolving versions. Eventually it stops, as does the hardware. But with Finale, at least we have the option to print our results on acid-free paper using archival printers. How does one create software-dependent work that will last? This has been on my mind lately as the process of forward-shifting becomes impossible to achieve -- so much material (even the good stuff!), so little time, and new barriers in software. My earliest non-paper composition dates from 1969. Since then I have use more than fifty different formats for composition, from plain stereo tape and paper tape straight through multichannel software studio files and flash cards. One complex interactive soundscape installation was EPROM-based, and although the hardware survives in storage, the EPROMs have self-erased in the intervening 23 years. Who knew? The program can be re-entered from paper copies, but the stored interactive data is gone, the entire record of the work's native place effect. I have a 2-minute cassette document recorded just before the soundscape was dismantled. After the failure of my dbx I reel recorder, I found another in almost-new condition being dumped. But that was a stroke of luck. I have one of what is probably the last generation of DAT recorders, and with more than 1,000 DATs on my shelves, I'll have to triage them at some point. And appropos of the topic here, a 1994 live performance piece with computer control depends on software that continues to work properly only through the good graces of Windows' ability to run earlier programs. I had thought web technology would offer a more lasting way of working, but its formats are evolving quickly as well, though fortunately not yet obsoleting the work of its first generation (except for Flash artists). The cycle increases in speed. Radio tubes were replenished (and continue to be replenished) 50 years after the transistor entered the mainstream. Not all of them, but the leading tubes can still be found to original spec. New designs continue to be built around them. 35mm film, first made in 1889, is only slowly reaching the end of its life -- but earlier digital camera formats are already unreadable. And the leading operating system vendors, hardware makers, and software manufacturers? How long? I'm increasingly sensitive to manufacturers arbitrarily cutting off customers' ability to read and execute work they might have done just a few years earlier, whether by simply dismissing the ability to archive as insignificant or uneconomical, or deliberately developing technological barriers. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Meandering moment, Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print the file. Editing it would require the original version, of course, unless you are prepared to re-edit the whole thing: a proposition that is not as daunting as it once was, due to the availability of powerful plugins, large screens, and much faster screen redraws. Before my old Powermac died, I upgraded all my pre 2.x files to the last 2.x version. (I have hard-copy of all of them.) Since then, I've gradually upgraded them to late-model versions as occasion requires. One thing I've figured out is that it is wise to upgrade old files in stages: first to, say Fin2k or Fin03, then to Fin05 or Fin06. Fin03 and later versions displayed some weird anomalies upgrading 2.x files. I figure PDF has about as much shelf-life as any format is likely to. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Or the other possibility is to start a petition to get MakeMusic to actually make Finale import old files correctly...yeah, like that will happen. Neal Gittleman wrote: Andrew: Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program, historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old files. As a publisher, it is crucial that I be able to print out old files in exactly the form in which they were created, and the practical consequence of that has been that I have had to keep about 5 old versions of Finale (going back to FinMac 2.6, wh. dates from 1992) on my hard drive specifically to print out files that were created in those versions. None of these old versions will run in OSX. For some time I have been able to avoid this problem by printing from Classic, or even rebooting in real System 9. But it is now clear that my next computer, whatever it may prove to be, will not run Classic. Me: Which seems to me to be an argument for keeping your old computer as it currently is once you get your next computer. Same as keeping a turntable to play LPs after purchasing a CD player. Knock-wood, I've never had to replace a Mac because it stopped working. I don't see Andrew's problem as a flaw of computer, software, or user, but just part of life. There may not be an elegant solution that fits all possible contingencies, but it strikes me that an old-machine-for-old-files solution doesn't seem so out of whack... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Meandering moment, Re: [Finale] Finale on G5
Very wise words. Robert Patterson wrote: While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print the file. Editing it would require the original version, of course, unless you are prepared to re-edit the whole thing: a proposition that is not as daunting as it once was, due to the availability of powerful plugins, large screens, and much faster screen redraws. Before my old Powermac died, I upgraded all my pre 2.x files to the last 2.x version. (I have hard-copy of all of them.) Since then, I've gradually upgraded them to late-model versions as occasion requires. One thing I've figured out is that it is wise to upgrade old files in stages: first to, say Fin2k or Fin03, then to Fin05 or Fin06. Fin03 and later versions displayed some weird anomalies upgrading 2.x files. I figure PDF has about as much shelf-life as any format is likely to. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
