[Finale] NI into FinMac

[A-NO-NE Music]

I have a stoopid question, and has been afraid to ask because
surprisingly I found no one seems to have the same problem.

When you purchase NI V.I., how do you make FinMac to see it?  UPS
tracking shows my FinMac2007 is due Monday so I guess new install will
solve my problem, but I just wanted to ask.

When I got JaBB, I had to run FinMac2006 installer again to make JaBB
appear in Finale, then I copied GarritanJazzinstrument.txt to the 2nd
machine.  I just bought Kontakt2.  Do I have to run FinMac2006 installer
again?  I hoped there is a better and easier way.  Any help appreciated.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 13.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote:

If Finale is still QD app then graphic card isn't doing much for its 2D
drawing _on Mac_ as I believed that was your point as well, but somehow
I found you are disagreeing with me so I am veiling out on this thread.



Hiro,

Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became 
possible.


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 mailing list probe message

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 13.08.2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I would appreciate being kept in the loop regarding others to whom you sent 
this message.



Isn't there an extremely easy solution to the problem? Just get another 
email address, like gmx, hotmail, or whatever. Use that for Finale, and 
you are done. No problems, no bounces.


Johannes
(who used to have an AOL address years ago, and gave it up because it is 
simply not worth the effort. Never looked back...)

--
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 2007 SmartMusic SoftSynth Playback not working

[dhbailey]

Kurt Gnos wrote:

Hi,

I could solve the problem by copying the contents of the softfont folder 
on the finale DVD into my component files folder. I found out I could 
find no soft fonts in the finale 2007 folder. Copying into the main 
folder or a subfolder softfonts did not work, however copying the 
contents into the Component Files folder did.


Why the finale installer did not copy them I cannot understand. I 
installed three times, everytime selecting everything manually. I guess 
it's a fault in the installation script. I hope MakeMusic will pay me 
the working hours I needed to fix the problem by myself.




Thank you for sharing your solution with us -- it will be interesting to 
see if others run into the same problem.


If we do, then you should definitely send an invoice to MakeMusic, attn: 
Accounts Payable and bill them for your time resolving the issue.  If 
nobody else runs into the problem, you simply ran into some ghostly 
problem on your machine alone.


My copy is supposed to arrive on Thursday -- if there's a  problem I'll 
let you know.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Ways Finale could get ahead of Sibelius

[dhbailey]

Robert Patterson wrote:
One of the simplest things Finale could do first is provide long slur 
marks that have more than 4 control points. Right now, now desktop 
system offers proper long slur marks. SFAIK, the only one that ever did 
offer them was Score.




WinFin offers 5 control points: 2 end points, center point of the curve 
and 2 others which are half-way between center and each end.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[dhbailey]

Richard Smith wrote:
Yes. On the keypad (under the second tab) there is a button the toggles 
between full size and cue size. Select any note or passage, click the 
button and it becomes a cue. Click it again and it's full size. 
Disabling the sound (if you want) is a second step found in the 
properties panel. Again, just a single click  for any selected note or 
passage.


If your not familiar with Sibelius, the keypad is an on screen 
representation of the ten keypad on a full size keyboard. The buttons 
may be clicked on screen with the mouse or selected at the actual 
keyboard. There are selectable five tabs on the keypad and the cue note 
switch is under the second. The entire process can be carried out 
(except note selection) without a mouse.




but to be honest, Sibelius only recognizes cue notes as small notes of a 
particular size and has provided a convenient way to change music 
entered into a staff into that size.  Sibelius doesn't recognize cues as 
relating to some other part so that edits in the original part are not 
reflected in any cues which were copied from that original part.  And 
cues don't remain in the original clef if the clef for the part which 
the cues are in is changed.


such a mirrored function would be a wonderful feature for whichever 
software product introduced it first!


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[dhbailey]

Richard Smith wrote:
I think different people think and work differently and this is why a 
feature some like is deplored by others. Although I had almost 10 years 
of successful Finale experience before moving primarily to Sibelius, I 
much prefer the way Sibelius works. I have frequently said it seems to 
think more like me. Perhaps Finale "thinks" more like you do. I think 
this is why we have to very mature and very capable notation packages 
that are quite different from each other.


Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 at 15:31, Richard Smith wrote:

 
If your not familiar with Sibelius, the keypad is an on screen 
representation of the ten keypad on a full size keyboard. The buttons

may be clicked on screen with the mouse or selected at the actual
keyboard. There are selectable five tabs on the keypad and the cue
note switch is under the second. The entire process can be carried out
(except note selection) without a mouse.



I find this interface incredibly difficult, as I'm constantly having 
to switch between the different keypads to find what I want (which 
never seems to be on the tab that I expect). This is one of the 
reasons I find Sibelius difficult to use -- it just seems to me to be 
a false limitation of the GUI because of a binding to the keyboard.


  

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



Richard's points in the top paragraph are very true.  I, like David 
Fenton, find the numeric-keypad paradigm of the Sibelius interface to be 
very unintuitive and have a hard time, no matter how much I try.  But 
there are those who love it and who flourish with it.


Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users 
(admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius' 
wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used 
keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands.  The biggest of these (and 
maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the old 
Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface.


But there is definitely a huge difference between the two and I have yet 
to meet anybody who likes both -- there are quite a few folks who use 
both, but I haven't read any messages from anybody who really likes 
both.  Most prefer one over the other.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale mailing list probe message

[dhbailey]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

"The Finale mailing list has received a number of bounces from you,
indicating that there may be a problem delivering messages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Regarding bounced messages, I posted two or three months ago with a 
subject line that indicated that I was receiving a majority--but not 
all--of the Finale List posts. I knew that was the case because 
occasionally I would read a post that quoted something written 
previously that I had definitely not received.


The result: no one responded to my post. Perhaps no one got it, or no 
one was interested.


As I review the names and address of others who are bouncing posts, it 
includes some of the most active members of the list, such as Lawrence 
Yates. On the other side of the ledger, all of the members you listed 
were on AOL. I don't know if that's a representative sample of members 
who are bouncing posts, or whether you simply batched your AOL 
subscribers. If the former, then it's clearly an AOL problem.


Listen: nobody knows what the hell is wrong with AOL, including, or 
especially, AOL. People (like me) use it because it's a handy way to 
keep in touch with colleagues using IMs. That may all change. I don't 
know exactly what the critical mass of discontent is that will cause 
people to change their ISP, but I think we're getting very close.


I would appreciate being kept in the loop regarding others to whom you 
sent this message.




You don't need to be a member of AOL to use AIM -- perhaps it's time to 
get a different ISP?


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Ways Finale could get ahead of Sibelius

[Robert Patterson]

dhbailey wrote:



WinFin offers 5 control points: 2 end points, center point of the curve 
and 2 others which are half-way between center and each end.




The center control point is merely a UI feature that allows the real 
control points to be moved simultaneously and symmetrically. I'm talking 
about true, independently moveable control points.


FWIW: The UI also constrains the endpoints and moves the interior 
control points when you drag an endpoint. This is also a UI feature. The 
actual graphic is implemented as parallel bezier curves, which have 
exatly four independent control points. A likely solution for what I 
want is 2 sets of parallel beziers, joined in the center and 
automatically smoothed.


--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Christopher Smith]

On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 12.08.2006 Richard Smith wrote:
If I understand your question, Sibelius will allow you to select a  
note or entire passage and, with one click, convert it into a cue.  
You can also easily turn off the sound in the passage (or note by  
note if you prefer).


Does this mean that Sibelius can define notes as "cues"? That  
sounds like the first step of what I imagine. Finale doesn't  
actually know anything about cues, it just knows small notes in a  
different layer, which is not quite the same...




If you are using Finale's Create Cue plugin, you get just about  
everything you need, except, of course, mirror behaviour. You can  
turn off playback for Layer 4 on any staff with a cue, assuming you  
are reserving Layer 4 for cues.


It seems to me that adding a mirror behaviour option (or even a non- 
playback option) to the existing plugin should be an easy enough task  
for some programmer. Feature Request!


And of course, the plugin already works fine on staves with music  
already entered in the same measure.


TG Tools' similar plugin gives you even more options, so you can  
choose whether the cue stems are up or down, etc.


Christopher


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[A-NO-NE Music]

Johannes Gebauer / 2006/08/13 / 03:32 AM wrote:

>Hiro,
>
>Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became 
>possible.

Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is
inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not?

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

I've never argued that the graphics card doesn't matter. My argument  
all along has been that today's graphics cards are so powerful that  
even inexpensive models can easily render 2D faster than the CPU can  
feed it. Therefore, if you only care about 2D, there's no real  
performance gain to be had when opting for a more expensive video card.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:07 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Johannes Gebauer / 2006/08/13 / 03:32 AM wrote:


Hiro,

Finale uses Core Graphics since 2k6. That's why anti-aliasing became
possible.


Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is
inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not?

--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
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

[Finale] Bounces and AOL

[Henry E. Howey]

Friends, we are currently within a week of the new Fall Semester. I will
review these concerns with the tech who has charge of the maillists run
from our server. Normally bounces occur when a listmember's mailbox has
been allowed to overflow from inattention. Fairly quickly our listserv
cancels the offending site and bars them from re-enroling without my
intervention.

There was expressed to me (offlist) concern about a vulnerability in the
archives. The archives are available only to list members, so I will also
inquire how they might appear in a search engine.


Henry Howey
Professor of Music
  Sam Houston State University
  Box 2208
  Huntsville, TX  77341
  (936) 294-1364
  http://www.shsu.edu/~music/faculty/howey.html
  Owner of FINALE Discussion List
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Finale 2006 slow on 30" monitor

[Dejan Badnjar]

Is anybody running Finale @ 2560x1600 resolution on Dell
3007WFP or Apple 30 ACD monitor? My Finale 2006 seems sluggish on Dell 3007
with GeForce 7800GTX (Win XP Pro). It feels like Sibelius 1 did on Mac when it
came out. I know this is a lot to ask of a music program (or any program) to be
responsive on 4 Mega pixel monitor but Finale 2005 runs beautifully. Sibelius 4
is also slow with all drawing options enabled. 

 

 

 

 

Dejan Badnjar

Musette Desktop Music Publishing

1 Eastview Cres.

Orangeville, Ontario

L9W 4X3

CANADA

Tel.: (519) 942-0407

Fax: (519) 942-4417

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 






___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] MacMini as semi "Receptor"?

[toronado455]

Hi, I was interested in this discussion and have some of my own questions.Is it better to use a separate dedicated computer for soft synth or just use one box for everything? What are the advantages/disadvantages?Currently I'm using one PC (P4) that has 1G of RAM and a 2496 for everything. But I have another PC (Athlon 2000+) which has 
1.5G (3G max) which I'm not using which could be set up as a soft synth box.If I wanted to do something like what you describe but with two PCs instead of a Mac and a PC, would that work? Which box would get the 2496, the one with Finale installed or the one being used as a soft synth? Or would I need to get a second 2496? And how exactly do you connect them via MIDI? Thanks.
On 8/11/06, Eric Dannewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly, if you are thinking of something like that, get a cheap,stripped down Windows XP machine with 2 gigs of Ram, a big hard drive,and the fastest processor you can get. Also, get a good sound card, likean M-Audio Audiophile 2496 which has ASIO support. I love Macs, but it
seems like such a waste of a good mac to serve another mac ;-)You'd connect them via Midi. You'd run like GPO or whatever you aregoing to be running on it, and patch the output into you mixer orwherever it is going. Simple.
I have a Athlon computer running GPO (with the above sound card) that isslaved via Midi to my Mac. The output is mixed with various soundmodules, and recorded on the Mac. It's great. GPO can really flesh out
an orchestration.ER @ HOME wrote:> Greetings all,>> I'm curious as to whether anyone has experimented with using one of> the new Intel based Mac Minis as a glorified software sample playback
> module, a la the Muse Receptor? I'm on an iMac G5 and was wondering if> I purchased an new Mac Mini (which I would devote exclusively to> sample playback) if this little network-of-sorts could work? It would
> take all the computational heavy lifting for sample playback off the> iMac and place it on a processor that seems to be cut out for that> sort of activity.>> -Would I need a separate monitor for the Mac Mini or could I somehow
> use get into the MacMini from the built in monitor of the iMac?> -How would I send MIDI data from Finale to the Mac Mini...I've heard> about MIDIOverLan...?>> Any constructive thoughts would be welcomed.
>> Blessings,> Eric Richards___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] MacMini as semi "Receptor"?

[Eric Dannewitz]

Sure, that would work. You'd set up GPO or whatever software synth on 
the other PC, have it respond to whatever midi channels you want, hook 
it up to the other computer via midi, and connect the output from the 
synth computer into the input of the other computer or mixer what 
whatever you have.


You'd need to get another ASIO sound card, like the 2496.

Advantages->More and better sounding sounds.
Disadvantages->heat and noise from two computers being on.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi, I was interested in this discussion and have some of my own questions.
Is it better to use a separate dedicated computer for soft synth or 
just use one box for everything? What are the advantages/disadvantages?
Currently I'm using one PC (P4) that has 1G of RAM and a 2496 for 
everything. But I have another PC (Athlon 2000+) which has 1.5G (3G 
max) which I'm not using which could be set up as a soft synth box.
If I wanted to do something like what you describe but with two PCs 
instead of a Mac and a PC, would that work? Which box would get the 
2496, the one with Finale installed or the one being used as a soft 
synth? Or would I need to get a second 2496? And how exactly do you 
connect them via MIDI? Thanks.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?

[toronado455]

I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard
drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs
to be registered.  (Again).
When I log in to "Authorize Product" on FinaleMusic.com and then
enter subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and
click on "Submit Authorization" it says:

"We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are
experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel free
to enter your Location and User Code below."

How do you authorize directly from Finale?
Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code they give me into Finale?I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all over again. Or is that just how it's done?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Roger Cain]

It seems that Video Card/Display adapter reviewers assume (without providing
evidence that I can find) that 2D performance is acceptable on all adapters
from 2003 on. Adobe says that "...hardware, operating system settings, and
software settings...(and a) damaged font."

Doing stuff other than gaming or viewing such editing, manipulating, and
saving images is essetially ignored in the reviews I have found. It is
likely that GPU/CPU tradeoff occurs in these tasks ignored by reviewers but
central to this thread and the tasks that most of us perform.

1. 2006 Q&A to the point: "Topic Title: What matters in a video card for 2D
windows acceleration?"
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1908172 
refers to Adobe's site:
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html


2. 2004 Article
http://www.a1-electronics.net/Graphics_Cards/Various/2004/Review_Dec04.shtml
"What will you be using it for?
Is perhaps the first question asked. What will the intended use be of your
ATI or Nvidia video card. Will you be mostly working with 2D applications or
3D such as games. If you are only looking to run say 2D office applications
such as Corel WordPerfect, Photoshop and alike then you do not need to buy
an expensive top of the range card but something from the mid-range of ATI
or Nvidia will give you the all the performance you need and more for 2D
work while still giving you acceptable 3D performance."

3. 2002 Article.
The issue may be drivers as in the article linked and quoted below.  "...
it's a real problem. Now that graphics chips are getting the internal
precision to produce some truly stunning images, we'll want to capture that
high-quality output and store it."
http://techreport.com/etc/2002q3/agp-download/index.x?pg=1
"..today's graphics subsystems have gobs of bandwidth, from main memory
(2.1GB/s or greater) to the AGP bus (1GB/s for AGP 4X) to the graphics
card's own internal memory (20GB/s in some cases). Graphics cards can render
hundreds of frames per second for display. But once the frames have been
sent out the RAMDAC to a monitor, standard operating procedure is simply to
discard them. 

That's all well and good when all you want to do is play video games, but
for other uses, it's a real problem. Now that graphics chips are getting the
internal precision to produce some truly stunning images, we'll want to
capture that high-quality output and store it. Unfortunately, even the very
newest cards and drivers don't seem to be up to the job. Despite over 1GB
per second of potential bandwidth on the AGP bus, current cards transfer
data back into main memory much, much slower than needed. At least, that was
the claim of more than one person who wrote in response to my article."
 
Roger


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David W. Fenton
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:04 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

On 11 Aug 2006 at 22:47, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 11 Aug 2006, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > So, then, you're saying that, on the Mac at least, my use of the 
> > analogy of printer drivers and vector-based font descriptions does 
> > not hold?
> 
> Again, David, if you're interested in learning more about how drawing 
> is handled in OS X, I highly recommend the Ars Technica pages I linked 
> to earlier:

Im not really interested in how drawing works on OS X. What I'm interested
is your assertion about how drawing interacts with graphics cards *on PCs*.
My reading and understanding lead me to believe that it works differently
than the way you've described the process.

-- 
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 mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?

[Eric Dannewitz]

When you did it originally, they should have sent you an email that 
would have the codes to reauthorize it (I think).


You do get two authorizations with each Serial Number (or copy) of 
Finale.You can authorize your newly formated computer, and then email 
MakeMusic and tell them the situation, and they will deauthorize the 
other computer (even though it is the same computer).


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard 
drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs 
to be registered.  (Again).
When I log in to "Authorize Product" on FinaleMusic.com and then enter 
subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and click on 
"Submit Authorization" it says:


"We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are 
experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel 
free to enter your Location and User Code below."


How do you authorize directly from Finale?

Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an 
authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code 
they give me into Finale?


I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without 
re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all 
over again. Or is that just how it's done?

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 GPO Usage

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Muchas gracias ...

Dean

On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:




--- "Dean M. Estabrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Ok, I've sort of been paying attention  so, if I
were to upgrade
to Fin2007, using my one year old Mac G5, there
should be no prob
accessing both GPO and SoftSynth libraries, and no
diff in my FinGPO
playback ... right?  We're just talking about the
newer Intel based
Macs having some issues, yes?



Correct. You shouldn't notice a difference, other than
perhaps improved performance using Finale GPO with
Kontakt Player 2 (and if not, you can still use the
old player).

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.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

[Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?

[Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct]

Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 
2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta?


Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be?

Matthew
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?

[toronado455]

It's a different computer so I probably need a new auth code. But regardless of whether I call to get one or request it be eMailed to me on the web site, I don't understand how or where to enter the new auth code into Finale.
On 8/13/06, Eric Dannewitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When you did it originally, they should have sent you an email thatwould have the codes to reauthorize it (I think).You do get two authorizations with each Serial Number (or copy) ofFinale.You can authorize your newly formated computer, and then email
MakeMusic and tell them the situation, and they will deauthorize theother computer (even though it is the same computer).[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> I first registered Finale 2006 in March. Now I've reformatted my hard
> drive and reinstalled Windows XP (and Finale) and Finale says it needs> to be registered.  (Again).> When I log in to "Authorize Product" on FinaleMusic.com and then enter> subsequent info (product/version/ownertype/serial number) and click on
> "Submit Authorization" it says:>> "We recommend that you authorize directly from Finale. If you are> experiencing trouble with authorization directly from Finale, feel> free to enter your Location and User Code below."
>> How do you authorize directly from Finale?>> Or if I enter my location and user code on the web and it eMails me an> authorization code, where/how would I enter the authorization code
> they give me into Finale?>> I guess what I'm asking is is there a way to re-authorize without> re-registering. Because it doesn't make sense to me to register all> over again. Or is that just how it's done?
___Finale mailing listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[James Gilbert]

Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that
says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not
continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing
about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation
software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?

James Gilbert
www.jamesgilbertmusic.com

PS. WinSupport at MakeMusic has been notified.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?

[Robert Patterson]

In my experience, quite significant. But I have not done a great deal of 
comparing. What's even more revealing, perhaps, is to compare 
Fin07-Intel with Fin07-PPC under Rosetta.


Unfortunately, if you depend on TGTools (Pro), you will be forced to run 
Fin07 under Rosetta to use it on your Intel Mac. I hope Tobias is 
working on a Universal Binary of TGTools, but I haven't seen one yet.


Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct wrote:

Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 
2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta?


Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be?

Matthew
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Eric Dannewitz]

256 Megs of Ram? Why not treat yourself and get more RAM? I mean, you 
can get a Gig of RAM for about $100.


I'd say they probably assume most people have 512 Megs of RAM as most 
computers seem to ship with that now, and if you really want performance 
out of a system, you need more RAM. I can't imagine Windows XP on 256 
Megs of RAM. Actually, I've seen it before. A friend was running an old 
PC with Finale 2006 with just 256 Megs of physical ram. It was dirt 
slow. Adding more ram seemed to turn night into day on that machine.


James Gilbert wrote:

Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that
says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not
continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing
about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation
software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?

James Gilbert
www.jamesgilbertmusic.com

PS. WinSupport at MakeMusic has been notified.

__


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Best method of re-authorizing?

[Eric Dannewitz]

Under HELP->Register Finale. I believe there are a couple of options 
there. I can't tell as mine is already registered.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a different computer so I probably need a new auth code. But 
regardless of whether I call to get one or request it be eMailed to me 
on the web site, I don't understand how or where to enter the new auth 
code into Finale.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?

[Bruce E. Clausen]

I'm new at all this.  What is TG Tools and how do you use it?


- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?


In my experience, quite significant. But I have not done a great deal of 
comparing. What's even more revealing, perhaps, is to compare 
Fin07-Intel with Fin07-PPC under Rosetta.


Unfortunately, if you depend on TGTools (Pro), you will be forced to run 
Fin07 under Rosetta to use it on your Intel Mac. I hope Tobias is 
working on a Universal Binary of TGTools, but I haven't seen one yet.


Matthew Hindson Fastmail acct wrote:

Just out of interest, can anyone inform us about the speed of Finale 
2007 on Intel Macs compared to, for example, 2006 under Rosetta?


Is the speed boost as significant as perhaps it should be?

Matthew
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale




--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.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

Re: [Finale] NI into FinMac

[Darcy James Argue]

Hiro,

Copy the contents of the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2006"  
folder into the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2007" folder.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 13 Aug 2006, at 3:06 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:



I have a stoopid question, and has been afraid to ask because
surprisingly I found no one seems to have the same problem.

When you purchase NI V.I., how do you make FinMac to see it?  UPS
tracking shows my FinMac2007 is due Monday so I guess new install will
solve my problem, but I just wanted to ask.

When I got JaBB, I had to run FinMac2006 installer again to make JaBB
appear in Finale, then I copied GarritanJazzinstrument.txt to the 2nd
machine.  I just bought Kontakt2.  Do I have to run FinMac2006  
installer
again?  I hoped there is a better and easier way.  Any help  
appreciated.


--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
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

[Finale] 2007, FULL GPO, AND KONTAKT 2

[Williams, Jim]

Hi, all...
My 2007 will arrive tomorrow, I hope.  I am hearing that the bundled Kontakt 2 
player will NOT load the Full GPO...the Full GPO has to go in the old Kontakt 
player.  True?
 
Also--does the Finale Kontakt 2 player have scripting capability??
 
Jim


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 13.08.2006 Christopher Smith wrote:

If you are using Finale's Create Cue plugin, you get just about everything you 
need, except, of course, mirror behaviour. You can turn off playback for Layer 
4 on any staff with a cue, assuming you are reserving Layer 4 for cues.


No, that plugin regularly requires _a lot_ of manual tweaking to get 
correct display. It really is the one area I spend most time in

--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 13.08.2006 A-NO-NE Music wrote:

Then Mac too suffers from drawing speed in Finale when graphic card is
inferior, which contradicts with Dercy's claim, does it not?



Not really. All Darcy is claiming is that currently sold graphic cards 
already have enough 2D power to cope with all this, with very little 
difference between the medium quality and the higher quality cards.


Whether this is true is beyond what I know, although personally I have a 
feeling that Darcy is correct, at least as far as Finale on the Mac 
goes. I really do not think that a better graphic card will improve my 
Finale _experience_. A faster machine might...


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 2007 RAM issues

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote:

Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that
says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not
continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing
about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation
software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?



Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at least 
512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything.


However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why Finale 
doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on Windows, and I 
don't know much about windows...


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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 12 Aug 2006, at 4:59 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


Tyler is telling you that he's demonstrated that the graphics card on
Windows *does* greatly affect 2D operations. You continue to deny it,
but that's what his experiment has shown.


No, Tyler's experiment has shown that the settings on that slider  
greatly affect 2D performance on his specific computers (both of  
which are budget video cards using 3-4 year-old chipsets). Tyler may  
be right that his video cards are underpowered for his computers.


Anyway, I regret getting bogged down in that issue because it doesn't  
actually have much to do with my central point, which was that adding  
a faster video card to the *Mac Pro* probably won't significantly  
improve 2D performance -- in either Mac OS X or WinXP.



For me, everything you've written has been very confusing. When you
provide citations of articles that show the way OS X works, it is to
show how much the CPU is involved.


Quite the opposite -- did you even read those articles? They talk  
about how OS X 10.4 uses the Mac's graphics card more heavily than  
before (much like Vista will). However, today's video cards are so  
powerful that even the additional 2D demands of OS X are easily  
handled by any card currently on the market.



And you have minimized the main point, which is the only reason he
brought up the issue of 2D drawing and graphics cards, which was that
investing in the graphics card gives more bang for the buck for
application performance *in Finale* than adding processor cores.

I don't think you've contested that point (just minimized its
importance)


No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or  
additional processor may not improve Finale performance much on  
Windows, but I *also* think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro  
a more powerful graphics card than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much  
of a difference to 2D performance on that machine.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Speed of 2007 on Intel Macs?

[Richard Yates]

An immensely useful plugin collection: 

http://www.tgtools.com//index-en.htm

> I'm new at all this.  What is TG Tools and how do you use it?


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 14.08.2006 Darcy James Argue wrote:

No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or additional 
processor may not improve Finale performance much on Windows, but I *also* 
think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro a more powerful graphics card 
than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much of a difference to 2D performance on 
that machine.


May I just add that on my iBook graphics performance in Finale improved 
dramatically with 2k6, the first version of Finale to use CoreGraphics 
as opposed to QuickDraw. Considering that the iBooks don't exactly have 
state of the art graphics adapters and perform very poorly with games 
this seems to show that
a) CoreGraphics makes very good use of the 2D capabilities of compatible 
graphics cards, but
b) even the meager graphics cards in the iBook is pretty sufficient for 
Finale.


Now, in my experience I have literally no wait time for anything in 
Finale that is screen related, while I have lots of wait time for things 
like plugins doing their jobs on whole files, re-spacing, and, in 
Fin2k7, especially vertical collision removal, which is the biggest 
slow-downer I currently have in Finale. Now, honestly, that does 
certainly not rely on the graphics card, at least as I understand it, 
and adding a better one (impossible on the iBook) would not solve that 
problem, while getting a faster machine with a faster CPU undoubtedly would.


I am by no means an expert on all this, and I would not even try to 
claim that the same is true on Windows.


However, I sort of doubt that vertical collision remover would run 
faster with a faster graphics board. On the other hand I do not doubt it 
would run significantly faster on a faster processor. On Windows just as 
much as on Mac.


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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

Thanks for that link, Roger.Tyler was extremely insulted when I asked "I'm assuming you've installed the latest drivers for both these cards, correct?" -- but based on the Adobe article you referenced, the most common cause of Tyler's problem is old/bad drivers. That may not have been a factor in Tyler's specific case, but it wasn't an inappropriate question.Solution 10: Reduce or disable hardware acceleration in Windows.Reducing or disabling hardware acceleration may temporarily resolve problems caused by older video card drivers.To disable or reduce graphics hardware acceleration in Windows XP:1. Choose Start > Control Panel > Display.2. Click the Settings tab.3. Click Advanced.4. Do one of the following:-- To disable hardware acceleration, move the Hardware acceleration slider to None.-- To reduce hardware acceleration, move the Hardware acceleration slider to a setting between None and Full.5. Click Apply and then click OK to accept the new setting and close the dialog box.6. Restart Windows and Photoshop.Cheers, - Darcy-[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://secretsociety.typepad.comBrooklyn, NY___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Logic to Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

Hello,

It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's  
Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some  
questions:


1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI  
files exported from Logic. Is there anything the client should do (in  
terms of quantization or whatever) to make this process easier?


2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI  
files into Finale?


3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the  
notation of the imported MIDI files?


Answers to these questions, plus any other advice/input, would be  
greatly appreciated.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] 2007, FULL GPO, AND KONTAKT 2

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 6:18 PM, Williams, Jim wrote:


Hi, all...
My 2007 will arrive tomorrow, I hope.  I am hearing that the  
bundled Kontakt 2 player will NOT load the Full GPO...the Full GPO  
has to go in the old Kontakt player.  True?


Yes. GPO full and JABB will eventually be updated for the K2 Player,  
but Garritan have not announced a timeframe for this yet.



Also--does the Finale Kontakt 2 player have scripting capability?


I'm not sure.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Scott Amort]

Hi James,

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote:
> Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
> cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that
> says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not
> continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing
> about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation
> software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?

Does your motherboard have onboard video?  If so, part of that 256MB is
being used as RAM for your video card, resulting in the report that you
don't have at least 256MB.

Best,
Scott

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote:

Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM you
cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a message that
says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the install does not
continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic advertises says nothing
about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256 minimum). Why should a notation
software program require sooo much RAM in the first place?



Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at least 
512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything.


However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why Finale 
doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on Windows, and I 
don't know much about windows...


Johannes


The fact that there is a ram card in the slot which says it has 256MB of 
ram doesn't mean the operating system gets it all.


Depending on the graphics processor and the sound card (especially if 
these are built into the motherboard) some of that RAM is used for video 
memory and soundcard memory.


Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run.  So there won't be 
256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such 
a small portion available that the installer simply won't run.





--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Logic to Finale

[Colin Broom]

This is the kind of job that can range anywhere from somewhat painless to 
completely nightmarish.  It depends largely on the music and the way it has 
been sequenced, and of course on how well the client knows Logic.


Yes, it pretty much has to be a MIDI file import.  I cant think of another 
way to go from Logic to finale.


My experience of this is that the more a midi file has been quantized prior 
to exporting, the slightly easier  it is to work with the file.  To put it 
another way, if the file has been quantized, the notes should be in the 
right place, if not exactly the right duration.  (I think there is a way to 
quantize durations also in Logic, but I can't remember where it is, and I 
dont have Logic currently installed.)


As to quantize values, this is completely dependent on the music.  If it was 
all 8th notes, then obviously a quantize value of 8 would be correct.  Logic 
also has hybrid quantize options such as 8th + 12th, for music which 
consists of 8th notes and also 8th triplets.  The chances are its like most 
music and varies throughout, and so would the quantize values have to.  But 
basically if on the whole it has been quantized, it should make your life a 
bit easier.  Remember also however that Finale also has quantize options 
while importing, and so if you know what the fastest note durations in the 
music are, you can for the most part sort it at your end.


The other thing that happens a lot with realtime MIDI sequencing is that 
notes overlap slightly when having been played on a keyboard, e.g. the C 
hasn't quite come up before the D is pressed down.  Logic has an option 
called something like "Remove note overlap"  which will eliminate this.  If 
it comes across what it thinks is a chord, it prompts you and asks what to 
do.  you could try running this on the sequence.  I think it is in the 
Function menu, under Sequence parameters.  It's probably not a bad idea to 
get the client to export the logic file using this function and again 
without using it, and send you both files.


Similarly, its not a bad idea when importing into Finale to do so a few 
times with different quantize and import options.  Settings that work well  
on one section often arent so good elsewhere, so if you have multiple files, 
you can copy and past from each one .


Anytime I have done this kind of work, I have set up a fresh score with the 
appropriate staves and pasted material from the MIDI import file, rather 
than make the MIDI file look like a score, it can save a lot of messing 
around with staff groupings, brackets and transpositions to name a few.


Finally, If I were you, I'd get a hold of an audio recording of the music as 
well, for those moments where the notation may come out looking like 
Sanskrit.  If all else fails you should at least be able to trust your ear.


Hope this helps.  Good luck.

C.

_
The new Windows Live Toolbar helps you guard against viruses 
http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[dhbailey]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hello,

It's possible I may need to create Finale files based on a client's 
Logic (sequencer) files. I've never done this before, so I have some 
questions:


1) I assume the fasted way to go would be to have Finale import MIDI 
files exported from Logic. Is there anything the client should do (in 
terms of quantization or whatever) to make this process easier?




Have your client only use half notes, quarter notes, and if he's daring, 
8th notes.  No nested tuplets, no complex rhythms of any kind, no cross 
voicings.


Finale's midi import feature for anything more complex than Mary Had A 
Little Lamb (melody only with maybe whole-note sustained chords) is 
really awful.  Perhaps if you have a frustrating time with it and 
complain about it, your voice will come through to Finale's development 
team, or whomever sets the priorities for what gets improved/fixed with 
each new version, because those of us who would like to use it have 
complained about it for years, to no avail.


Seriously, though, quantization should be done at whatever resolution 
the client feels suits the music best, and he should tell you what 
resolution he used so you can set Finale's quantization to be the same.


And if you could get him to save each channel to its own midi file, it 
will open into Finale much better (I think) and then you can simply 
copy/paste the different channels into one score for him.




2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI files 
into Finale?




Listen carefully to audio files of what your friend has come up with, 
and listen especially for tuplets.  If there aren't any, then be sure to 
tell Finale that in the quantization settings.  You may have to play 
around with the settings for "allow grace notes" and such to find what 
will import the file the most accurately.


3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the 
notation of the imported MIDI files?


Have your friend write his music down and then work from the manuscript 
and input the whole file by hand from scratch.


There really isn't much encouraging to say, other than be prepared for a 
long, arduous time if the music is at all complex.


You may well end up having to select a measure or two (either from a 
single part or the whole score) and have Finale re-transcribe that 
measure with different quantization settings.  Eventually you'll have a 
final score which should resemble the original.


Answers to these questions, plus any other advice/input, would be 
greatly appreciated.




Buy a wig and wear it, so that when you start tearing your hair out in 
frustration it won't actually be your own hair.



Does Logic work with MusicXML?  If it does (www.recordare.com should be 
able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as 
MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import.


Good luck, and I hope I'm wrong about everything I said.  (other than 
the wig, you'll definitely need that!)








--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] NI into FinMac

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/13 / 06:12 PM wrote:

>Hiro,
>
>Copy the contents of the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2006"  
>folder into the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2007" folder.

That's what I did from machine A to machine B for JaBB as I mentioned. 
For Kontakt 2 I just bought, nothing is in the said FinaleAU folder. 
Also as I said, I had to run Finale installer disk to produce the JaBB
instrument.txt file in the _FinaleAU_ folder when I got JaBB, and I want
to avoid running the installer again for Kontakt 2.  I hope this is clear.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[James Gilbert]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, dhbailey wrote:

> Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run.  So there won't be
> 256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such
> a small portion available that the installer simply won't run.

The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory, only that your system
should have 256meg installed. I wouldn't of wasted my money to upgrade if
it needs 256M of "free" memory. (Along those lines, I can't justify
spending more money to upgrade my computer just for this program. Finale
2006 works well enough). I have plenty of programs that require 256M
system memory that run just fine (and as fast as any computer I've used).
I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to
notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need
a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of
bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound
and video card are separate from the system RAM.

James Gilbert
www.jamesgilbertmusic.com

"640K ought to be enough for anybody. (Bill Gates, 1981)"

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


> However, I sort of doubt that vertical collision
> remover would run 
> faster with a faster graphics board. On the other
> hand I do not doubt it 
> would run significantly faster on a faster
> processor. On Windows just as 
> much as on Mac.
> 

That's not the debate. The debate is whether a second
processor or a faster graphics card would have a
better chance of helping.

Since Finale doesn't use more than one processor,
adding a second processor, at least on Windows, would
do extremely little over a single dual core processor.

There were two things in this discussion that I was
claiming:

1. Modern graphics processors are not identical in 2D
performance. Darcy wants to get me to talk
specifically about the 7300GT, but that isn't the only
modern graphics card out there (nor is it one I'd
consider, since I am doing 3D activities that would
benefit from a better card). I believe that my one
year old computer that was purchased with the best
graphics chip available from the manufacturer at the
time, is in all fairness using a "modern" processor. I
don't care what's shipping with the Mac. All I'm
saying is that there is definitely some variance in 2D
performance among modern graphic cards. The fact of
the matter is that the video card in my machine is
still sold today, and I believe I have shown good
cause to believe that a different card would perform
2D tasks more effectively.

2. For Windows software, it currently makes much more
sense for me to purchase a computer with a single Core
2 Duo processor and a high quality graphics card than
it does to purchase a machine with 2 Core 2 Duo
processors and a bottom of the line graphics card or
integrated solution. This is because I will see more
performance gain from a high quality graphics card
than I will from a second dual core processor.


Tyler 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks for that link, Roger.
> 
> Tyler was extremely insulted when I asked "I'm
> assuming you've  
> installed the latest drivers for both these cards,
> correct?" -- but  
> based on the Adobe article you referenced, the most
> common cause of  
> Tyler's problem is old/bad drivers. That may not
> have been a factor  
> in Tyler's specific case, but it wasn't an
> inappropriate question.
> 

Why don't you also point out that the article
mentioned that users might see better performance from
a video card with at least 128MB of memory? That
doesn't sound like universal equality among 2D
performance to me.

Your comment was insulting because it treated me as if
I was an idiot. I think by that point in the
conversation I had shown plenty of reason for you to
believe that I had at least enough knowledge of
Windows and all of this for you to just kindly assume
that I know how to keep my Windows computers up to
date. How many Windows PC's have you put together and
maintained? Fewer than me? Good - just give me credit
for some beginner stuff then.

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Eric Dannewitz]

http://finalemusic.com/finale/system-requirements.aspx

I think 256 Megs of Ram means free Ram. Why are we complaining about 
this? Just go and get some ram. You spent $99 on the upgrade, why not 
splurge for a stick of 512Megs? I'm going to assume you have an older 
system, and Ram for those is cheap.


James Gilbert wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, dhbailey wrote:

  

Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run.  So there won't be
256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be such
a small portion available that the installer simply won't run.



The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory, only that your system
should have 256meg installed. I wouldn't of wasted my money to upgrade if
it needs 256M of "free" memory. (Along those lines, I can't justify
spending more money to upgrade my computer just for this program. Finale
2006 works well enough). I have plenty of programs that require 256M
system memory that run just fine (and as fast as any computer I've used).
I still want to know why a notation program has to use SOOO much memory to
notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO or the like might need
a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if needed instead of
bloating the whole software? It seems like bad programming). Oh, my sound
and video card are separate from the system RAM.

James Gilbert
www.jamesgilbertmusic.com

"640K ought to be enough for anybody. (Bill Gates, 1981)"

  


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Tyler Turner]

--- James Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I still want to know why a notation program has to
> use SOOO much memory to
> notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO
> or the like might need
> a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if
> needed instead of
> bloating the whole software? It seems like bad
> programming). Oh, my sound
> and video card are separate from the system RAM.


There are many things that eat up memory. The
soundfont is loaded into memory. Plug-ins take up
memory. The application is going to load things into
memory to speed up access to them. There are a lot of
graphics being thrown around here, and part of Finale
2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably
included making more use of system RAM. Keep in mind
that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of
memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount that
takes this into consideration. Looking at Finale in
the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB of
memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme.

-Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] NI into FinMac

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey Hiro,

Sorry, I misunderstood your original message -- I didn't realize you  
were running the full version of Kontakt 2. I'm not sure what the  
best solution is in this case. It does sound like your best bet would  
be to reinstall Kontakt 2.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 13 Aug 2006, at 8:47 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:


Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/13 / 06:12 PM wrote:


Hiro,

Copy the contents of the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2006"
folder into the "FinaleAU" folder inside your "Finale 2007" folder.


That's what I did from machine A to machine B for JaBB as I mentioned.
For Kontakt 2 I just bought, nothing is in the said FinaleAU folder.
Also as I said, I had to run Finale installer disk to produce the JaBB
instrument.txt file in the _FinaleAU_ folder when I got JaBB, and I  
want
to avoid running the installer again for Kontakt 2.  I hope this is  
clear.


--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
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

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 14:51, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> I'd say they probably assume most people have 512 Megs of RAM as most
> computers seem to ship with that now, and if you really want
> performance out of a system, you need more RAM. I can't imagine
> Windows XP on 256 Megs of RAM. Actually, I've seen it before. A friend
> was running an old PC with Finale 2006 with just 256 Megs of physical
> ram. It was dirt slow. Adding more ram seemed to turn night into day
> on that machine.

Give me a break. Before the addition of GPO, Finale was a very low-
consumption application in terms of using computing resources, except 
for screen drawing.

Finale should run just fine in 256MBs on a computer that is 500MHz or 
faster.

If you saw Finale running on 256MBs very slowly, then it was probably 
a slow computer. Additional RAM might speed up such a computer 
somewhat, but probably the graphics subsystem and a slow hard drive 
were more to blame than the RAM. It also might depend on the Windows 
version involved. WinXP needs a minimum of 256MBs to be usable, and I 
choose 512 for systems for cheap customers and 1GB for those who 
aren't cheapskates.

If it's Win2K, then 128MBs is going to work OK, but 256MBs is better.

I run a P4 500 with 768MBs of RAM (which is maxed out for this 
computer), and it's fine. Finale 2005 (the last demo I've downloaded) 
runs just as fast as Finale 2003, which is just fine.

The recommendation to add RAM is a good one, though. But I, too, am 
puzzled why the installer is refusing to install on a machine that 
has the stated minimum of RAM.

-- 
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:36 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


Why don't you also point out that the article
mentioned that users might see better performance from
a video card with at least 128MB of memory? That
doesn't sound like universal equality among 2D
performance to me.


Because -- again -- this whole thing started when you complained that  
the stock video card in the Mac Pro was not "reasonable," and that  
you wish they had gone with a better video card (instead of the  
second processor). The only claim I have any desire to defend at this  
point is that upgrading from the nVidia 7300 GT -- which has 256 MB  
of video RAM -- would not noticeably improve 2D performance on this  
computer.


Also, I haven't done an exhaustive study by any means, but I had  
trouble finding a computer being sold today equipped with a video  
card that has less than 128 MB of memory. (Apart from the computers  
with integrated graphics, obviously.)



Your comment was insulting because it treated me as if
I was an idiot.


Well, that certainly wasn't my intention, which is why I phrased the  
question the way I did ("I assume... right?"). I thought it was  
overwhelmingly likely that you had downloaded and installed the  
latest drivers from ATI's website, but I just thought I'd mention the  
possibility that the behavior you were seeing might be a driver issue  
-- if only to eliminate it.


Anyway, I apologize for the question, but I can assure you there was  
no malice in it.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:24, dhbailey wrote:

> Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> > On 13.08.2006 James Gilbert wrote:
> >> Anyone else find that even with a computer that has 256Meg of RAM
> >> you cannot install Finale 2007?? When trying to install, I get a
> >> message that says that since I don't have 256meg of RAM (I do) the
> >> install does not continue.  (The system requirments that MakeMusic
> >> advertises says nothing about having a 'minimum' of 256, just 256
> >> minimum). Why should a notation software program require sooo much
> >> RAM in the first place?
> > 
> > Sooo much RAM? You must be joking. The standard these days is at
> > least 512 MB. I think Finale's requirements are low if anything.

Finale doesn't require much in resources compared to many other 
modern programs, but to me, even 256 as a minimum is a ridiculously 
high requirement. Minimums always mean "the minimum needed to launch 
this program by itself with nothing else running." If Finale 2007 is 
using 256MBs or some large proportion of that by default, then it is 
a real pig in comparison to previous versions of Finale.

> > However, if you really think you have 256 MB I don't know why Finale
> > doesn't seem to recognize it. But I guess you are on Windows, and I
> > don't know much about windows...
> 
> The fact that there is a ram card in the slot which says it has 256MB
> of ram doesn't mean the operating system gets it all.
> 
> Depending on the graphics processor and the sound card (especially if
> these are built into the motherboard) some of that RAM is used for
> video memory and soundcard memory.
> 
> Then there is the ram that the OS uses simply to run.  So there won't
> be 256MB of free ram when installation comes around, and there may be
> such a small portion available that the installer simply won't run.

None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer check the RAM 
available when it's *running* rather than the *installed* RAM? 
Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM grabbed by the 
onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I don't know how those 
kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system that is so poorly 
designed as to be using system RAM for those purposes.

-- 
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:26 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


 I believe that my one
year old computer that was purchased with the best
graphics chip available from the manufacturer at the
time, is in all fairness using a "modern" processor.


As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI X600 uses the same  
chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally released in 2003. It's  
unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you to select a  
better graphics card at the time, but as you know, when it comes to  
computers, three years is an eternity.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Eric Dannewitz]

David W. Fenton wrote:

Give me a break. Before the addition of GPO, Finale was a very low-
consumption application in terms of using computing resources, except 
for screen drawing.
  
I'll give you a break. I saw the Task Manager and it was using a LOT of 
virtual Memory. In fact, the friend was using Finale 2005 not 2006. My 
mistake. So, no GPO. But Finale 2005 was using soundfonts, so, there 
might have been some overhead there. But it was chewing up a lot of 
memory, and the Paging file usage was great fun to watch when Finale was 
doing stuff


Finale should run just fine in 256MBs on a computer that is 500MHz or 
faster.
  
Yeah, if you like virtual memory. It would be like running a car on 
deflated tires.
If you saw Finale running on 256MBs very slowly, then it was probably 
a slow computer. Additional RAM might speed up such a computer 
somewhat, but probably the graphics subsystem and a slow hard drive 
were more to blame than the RAM. It also might depend on the Windows 
version involved. WinXP needs a minimum of 256MBs to be usable, and I 
choose 512 for systems for cheap customers and 1GB for those who 
aren't cheapskates.
  
Nope, it was a 600 Mhz Pentium III. It has a 7200 RPM drive, and the 
graphics card I don't know what it was. The friend has upgraded to 
768Megs of Ram (added a 512Meg DIMM) and he reports that he is flying 
now compared to earlier.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:41, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> http://finalemusic.com/finale/system-requirements.aspx
> 
> I think 256 Megs of Ram means free Ram. 

I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements 
in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM instead 
of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they mean, 
though, in which case, they should say so explicitly.

> . . . Why are we complaining about
> this? Just go and get some ram. You spent $99 on the upgrade, why not
> splurge for a stick of 512Megs? I'm going to assume you have an older
> system, and Ram for those is cheap.

While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an excellent 
way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually has very 
little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's not a RAM-
hungry program in the first place.

Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the 
basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I 
think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out that 
it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM.

I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no 
sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes 
not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so 
changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the 
system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you 
haven't added any actual RAM to the system.

It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead 
of INSTALLED RAM.

-- 
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 2007 RAM issues

[Tyler Turner]

--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer
> check the RAM 
> available when it's *running* rather than the
> *installed* RAM? 
> Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM
> grabbed by the 
> onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I
> don't know how those 
> kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system
> that is so poorly 
> designed as to be using system RAM for those
> purposes.


I believe if you look at the amount of memory reported
by Windows as being installed on the system, system
memory that has been dedicated to video will not be
reported. So a system with 256MB of Ram with
integrated video that uses 32MB from this will only
report that it has 224MB of memory. If the program
isn't installing and is reporting that the computer
doesn't have enough memory, this would be my guess as
to what's going on.

-Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:48, Tyler Turner wrote:

> --- James Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I still want to know why a notation program has to
> > use SOOO much memory to
> > notate music. (I can understand why playback or GPO
> > or the like might need
> > a lot more, but why can't those be loaded in only if
> > needed instead of
> > bloating the whole software? It seems like bad
> > programming). Oh, my sound
> > and video card are separate from the system RAM.
> 
> There are many things that eat up memory. The
> soundfont is loaded into memory. . . .

Not if you're not using it.

> . . . Plug-ins take up
> memory. . . .

Not when you're not running them, and even then, only a very small 
amount.

> . . . The application is going to load things into
> memory to speed up access to them. . . .

If Finale 2006 runs just fine on this James's system, then I can't 
see why Finale 2006 would not. Can anyone with both 2006 and 2007 
profile memory usage? Perhaps the code to support linked parts has 
vastly bloated Finale.

> . . . There are a lot of
> graphics being thrown around here, . . . .

You of all people should know that this is much less an issue of 
system RAM than it is of the graphics card installed on the machine.

> . . . .and part of Finale
> 2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably
> included making more use of system RAM. . . . 

Perhaps. But James says Finale 2006 runs just fine on his system, so 
that makes this point completely irrelevant.

> . . . Keep in mind
> that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of
> memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount that
> takes this into consideration. . . .

The WinXP RAM minimum does not mean that WinXP takes over 128MBs of 
RAM, it is only the basic amount of RAM that is needed to boot the OS 
and run an application or two.

> . . . Looking at Finale in
> the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB of
> memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme.

Maybe not, but I just loaded up a large file in Finale 2003 and it's 
taking only 23MBs. The same file loaded into the Finale 2005 demo 
takes up 57MBs. If each version of Finale is doubling the RAM needs, 
that would be 120MBs for Finale 2006, and 240MBs for Finale 2007, but 
it would be ridiculous to assume such a doubling with every version.

What version of Finale do you show using 110MBs?

All that aside, the VMM of Windows should still allow you to run such 
an application that grabs that amount of memory, albeit slowly.

I know of no software that specifies its minimum RAM requirements as 
FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM, as free RAM is so incredibly 
variable with operating environment and dependent on things like swap 
file settings that don't really get you additional performance (swap 
files only stretch what you can barely run).

-- 
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 2007 RAM issues

[Eric Dannewitz]

David W. Fenton wrote:
I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements 
in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM instead 
of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they mean, 
though, in which case, they should say so explicitly.
  

Well, isn't it assumed that it means free Ram? It is confusing though.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/productinfo/systemreqs/
Says 256Megs of Ram as well.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html
And this says 320Megs. So, if I have a system with just that I can run it?
While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an excellent 
way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually has very 
little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's not a RAM-

hungry program in the first place.
  
I think we have had this debate before, and Finale does run better with 
more Ram. I think it was a discussion about using a Ram disk for temp 
files or something of the like.


Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the 
basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I 
think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out that 
it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM.


I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no 
sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes 
not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so 
changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the 
system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you 
haven't added any actual RAM to the system.


It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead 
of INSTALLED RAM.
I suppose you can argue that running photoshop with just 320Megs of 
actual ram is possible, but who really does it? Again, $20-$40 and the 
problem is solved (IE: more RAM).

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Tyler Turner]

--- Darcy James Argue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI
> X600 uses the same  
> chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally
> released in 2003. It's  
> unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you
> to select a  
> better graphics card at the time, but as you know,
> when it comes to  
> computers, three years is an eternity.

I did my research at the time of the purchase though.
The X600's were not slow for notebook graphic
solutions. While I'm guessing the mobile 9700's would
have been faster (if you could find them), the mobile
X800's hadn't been released at the time I purchased my
system (they came a couple of weeks later). 

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 8:25, dhbailey wrote:

> Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users
> (admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius'
> wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used
> keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands.  The biggest of these
> (and maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the
> old Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface.

Even though I'm a keyboard person, I don't find keyboard shortcuts in 
visual programs like Finale to be terribly helpful.

My problem with the keypad UI is that the freedom in the visual 
interface has been sacrified to the limits of the keyboard. Of 
course, perhaps it's because I think of the onscreen keypad as a 
toolbar, and I'm frustrated that too many of the things on the 
"toolbar" are in hard-to-reach locations (I keep all my main Finale 
toolbars active at all times).

Secondly, it's modal, which means the same location onscreen has 
different meaning for each tab. This can be OK, but in this case, it 
just gets in the way of my being able to remember what's what.

The one thing that I really liked about the Sibelius UI was the note 
selection, where you could ctrl-click individual notes to add them to 
a selection and then use the keypad to apply multiple things to the 
group of notes at once. This non-contiguous selection is something 
I'd *really* like to see in Finale. It would make the decomposition 
of combined parts much easier, for instance.

-- 
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] Logic to Finale

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote:

> Does Logic work with MusicXML?  If it does (www.recordare.com should
> be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as
> MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import.

Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's 
available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then 
exporting to XML for import into Finale.

Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available.

-- 
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:39 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


As I've pointed out several times already, the ATI
X600 uses the same
chipset as the ATI 9600, which was originally
released in 2003. It's
unfortunate that the manufacturer did not allow you
to select a
better graphics card at the time, but as you know,
when it comes to
computers, three years is an eternity.


I did my research at the time of the purchase though.
The X600's were not slow for notebook graphic
solutions. While I'm guessing the mobile 9700's would
have been faster (if you could find them), the mobile
X800's hadn't been released at the time I purchased my
system (they came a couple of weeks later).


I've linked to this before, but here is a chart comparing ATI's  
graphics card offerings:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units

You can see that the Radeon 9600 Pro uses the RV350 chipset and has a  
fillrate of 1600 MT/s. The Radeon X600 Pro uses the RV380 (which is  
derived from the RV350) and has exactly the same fillrate -- 1600 MT/s.


I don't know about ATI, but nVidia definitely had faster options for  
laptops at the time.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey David,

I'm afraid I don't own a copy of Sibelius anymore.

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY



On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:46 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote:


Does Logic work with MusicXML?  If it does (www.recordare.com should
be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as
MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import.


Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's
available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then
exporting to XML for import into Finale.

Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available.

--
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 mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 18:33, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 12 Aug 2006, at 4:59 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> > Tyler is telling you that he's demonstrated that the graphics card
> > on Windows *does* greatly affect 2D operations. You continue to deny
> > it, but that's what his experiment has shown.
> 
> No, Tyler's experiment has shown that the settings on that slider 
> greatly affect 2D performance on his specific computers (both of 
> which are budget video cards using 3-4 year-old chipsets). Tyler may 
> be right that his video cards are underpowered for his computers.

You're missing the point of Tyler's comparison. He showed that with a 
better graphics card, a computer with an older and slower CPU (i.e., 
much less CPU processingn power) could perform better in Finale than 
a newer computer with a lesser graphics card and beefier 
CPU/performance.

That's incontestable.

Yet you insist on contesting it.

You can't have it both ways, Darcy. If 2D performance of graphics 
cards has not changed in 10 years (which you've argued at certain 
points in the discussion), then Tyler's experiment is relevant to 
current hardware.

> Anyway, I regret getting bogged down in that issue because it doesn't 
> actually have much to do with my central point, which was that adding 
> a faster video card to the *Mac Pro* probably won't significantly 
> improve 2D performance -- in either Mac OS X or WinXP.

And it seems to me that Tyler has shown that for Windows that is 
simply not true.

> > For me, everything you've written has been very confusing. When you
> > provide citations of articles that show the way OS X works, it is to
> > show how much the CPU is involved.
> 
> Quite the opposite -- did you even read those articles? . . .

I skimmed them.

> . . . They talk 
> about how OS X 10.4 uses the Mac's graphics card more heavily than 
> before (much like Vista will). . . .

And the way Windows already does (and has for a long time), according 
to my understanding. Vista only adds the same kind of ridiculous 
graphics overhead that Aqua's useless transparency added to OS X. It 
may very well be that for these kind of layering and the new 3D 
requirements, the newer graphics cards add a great deal (I don't 
doubt it). But none of those things are involved in Finale's 2D 
rendering (though, of course, on Mac, the new anti-aliasing is part 
of Quartz, though it didn't need to be, seems to me).

You seem to be arguing that all these new things that have been added 
(and will be added) to the OS make Tyler's arguments about 2D 
rendering irrelevant, at the same time you are saying that 2D issues 
have not changed in a long time because those were highly optimized a 
very long time ago.

> . . . However, today's video cards are so 
> powerful that even the additional 2D demands of OS X are easily 
> handled by any card currently on the market.

If the Mac now uses the graphics card for graphics operations, then 
I'm very happy for Mac users that they now have what Windows users 
have had for ages. What *I* learned from the articles you cited was 
that the CPU was still pushing massive numbers of pixels around once 
they came out of the GPU.

> > And you have minimized the main point, which is the only reason he
> > brought up the issue of 2D drawing and graphics cards, which was
> > that investing in the graphics card gives more bang for the buck for
> > application performance *in Finale* than adding processor cores.
> >
> > I don't think you've contested that point (just minimized its
> > importance)
> 
> No, I absolutely contest that point. Adding an additional core or 
> additional processor may not improve Finale performance much on 
> Windows, but I *also* think it's unlikely that upgrading the Mac Pro 
> a more powerful graphics card than the nVidia 7300 GT would make much 
> of a difference to 2D performance on that machine.

Again, You're smiply refusing to see the whole point -- you've turned 
Tyler's argument on its head. He wants to spend his money on more 
graphics performance, not on a second pair of CPU cores.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to continue this discussion with you.

-- 
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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 10:58 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


You can't have it both ways, Darcy. If 2D performance of graphics
cards has not changed in 10 years (which you've argued at certain
points in the discussion),


I have never claimed this. I have explicitly denied this multiple times.

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:30, Tyler Turner wrote:

> --- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > None of that makes any sense. Why would an installer
> > check the RAM 
> > available when it's *running* rather than the
> > *installed* RAM? 
> > Perhaps you're right, though, if the system RAM
> > grabbed by the 
> > onboard devices is showing up as unavailable. I
> > don't know how those 
> > kinds of things work, since I'd never buy a system
> > that is so poorly 
> > designed as to be using system RAM for those
> > purposes.
> 
> I believe if you look at the amount of memory reported
> by Windows as being installed on the system, system
> memory that has been dedicated to video will not be
> reported. So a system with 256MB of Ram with
> integrated video that uses 32MB from this will only
> report that it has 224MB of memory. If the program
> isn't installing and is reporting that the computer
> doesn't have enough memory, this would be my guess as
> to what's going on.

James has already reported that this does not apply to his system, 
that there are no devices utilizing system RAM, so it's not the 
reason Finale is refusing to install.

I have no experience with such machines, as I would never buy one or 
allow one of my clients to buy one.

-- 
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 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 19:38, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

> David W. Fenton wrote:
> > I've never ever seen any pieces of software list system requirements
> > in that way and assume you'll understand they mean *free* RAM
> > instead of *installed* RAM. You may be right that that's what they
> > mean, though, in which case, they should say so explicitly.
> 
> Well, isn't it assumed that it means free Ram? 

I've never made such an assumption, as free RAM is going to be 
completely variable, which means the installer could run at one point 
and not run at another. That would result in lots of tech support 
calls.

> . . . It is confusing though.
> http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/productinfo/systemreqs/ Says
> 256Megs of Ram as well.

One I hear "256Megs of Ram" I hear "256MBs of RAM chips installed in 
the computer." If someone means FREE RAM, they should say "256MBs of 
MEMORY" or they should specify AVAILABLE MEMORY.

> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html And this says
> 320Megs. So, if I have a system with just that I can run it? 

> > While I agree that RAM is cheap and that adding it is an
> > excellent way to speed up an old system, additional RAM actually
> > has very little effect on how fast *Finale* runs, because it's
> > not a RAM-hungry program in the first place. 
>
>   I think we have had this debate
> before, and Finale does run better with more Ram. . ..

Almost every program does, but some programs benefit more. Also, 
programs like Finale with low relatively resource requirements will 
plateau sooner and get no further benefit from additional RAM.

> . . . I think it was a
> discussion about using a Ram disk for temp files or something of the
> like.

RAM disks on Windows have never made any sense whatsoever because 
Windows always managed virtual memory and disk caching better than 
the old Mac OS. I don't know if under OS X disk caching and VM are 
now comparable to what Windows had in 1993.

> > Secondly, if the upgrade was bought by someone who is poor on the
> > basis of the system requirements listed at the URL above, then I
> > think it's reasonable for that purchaser to be upset to find out
> > that it means FREE RAM instead of INSTALLED RAM.
> >
> > I still don't believe that's the case, though, as it would make no
> > sense, as you'd sometimes be able to run the installer and sometimes
> > not. Secondly, Windows calculates free RAM using the swap file, so
> > changing your swap file size could allow you to end up with the
> > system reporting more than 256MBs of free RAM, even though you
> > haven't added any actual RAM to the system.
> >
> > It just doesn't make any sense to me for MM to mean FREE RAM instead
> > of INSTALLED RAM.
>
> I suppose you can argue that running photoshop with just 320Megs of
> actual ram is possible, but who really does it? Again, $20-$40 and the
> problem is solved (IE: more RAM).

That's not the point. If Adobe says Photoshop will run with 320MBs, 
then it had better install and run, however slowly.

In this case, MM is saying it will install and run with 256MBs 
(however slowly), but it's refusing to install on a machine that 
really has 256MBs of RAM (with no blocks of RAM permanently allocated 
to video processing/etc.).

Either the installer is broken, or MM really *does* mean 256MBs of 
FREE RAM.

In either case, MM has a problem, one that the end user shouldn't 
have to solve by buying more RAM. The end user should be able to 
trust what the software maker says, and in this case, either MM is 
untrustworthy (by using misleading terminology) or the installer is 
broken.

-- 
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 2007 review

[Richard Smith]

I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius. Most of the time 
(laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on the keyboard. 
Clicking on the "toolbar" on the screen is slower. The features I like 
to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab on the keypad (or in 
the right click context menu). Others working differently or with 
different musical requirements might have a different experience. In 
general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard and less mousing and 
has extensive keyboard shortcuts.


I find Finale's many toolbars, icons, sub-menus, and pop-ups more 
frustrating. But that's just me and the way I like to work.


Interesting that you mention the difficulty with "decomposing" combined 
parts. I had to do a job recently that involved making keyboard 
reductions from some string quartet pieces. This was a Finale job. 
Finale would not let me reassign the layer (or voice) of individual 
notes so that dissimilar rhythms could  live happily in the same bar. 
Only the entire measure could be reassigned. Posts to this list and MMs 
tech support confirmed that Finale was unable to do what was needed. 
Sibelius would easily do it but the customer had to have Finale. Much of 
the job had to be re-input from scratch.


I agree with David Baily. While some of us work frequently with both 
programs, most everyone has a (strong) preference. I think that's 
because one of the two comes closer to the way we think about music. I'm 
glad both are so mature and capable.


Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



David W. Fenton wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 at 8:25, dhbailey wrote:

  

Curiously though, there are also some heavy-hitter Sibelius users
(admittedly not many) who don't like it either and who use Sibelius'
wonderful key-mapping feature to map most of their most commonly used
keypad commands to qwerty-keyboard commands.  The biggest of these
(and maybe some others) came to the current Sibelius versions from the
old Acorn computers, which apparently had a different interface.



Even though I'm a keyboard person, I don't find keyboard shortcuts in 
visual programs like Finale to be terribly helpful.


My problem with the keypad UI is that the freedom in the visual 
interface has been sacrified to the limits of the keyboard. Of 
course, perhaps it's because I think of the onscreen keypad as a 
toolbar, and I'm frustrated that too many of the things on the 
"toolbar" are in hard-to-reach locations (I keep all my main Finale 
toolbars active at all times).


Secondly, it's modal, which means the same location onscreen has 
different meaning for each tab. This can be OK, but in this case, it 
just gets in the way of my being able to remember what's what.


The one thing that I really liked about the Sibelius UI was the note 
selection, where you could ctrl-click individual notes to add them to 
a selection and then use the keypad to apply multiple things to the 
group of notes at once. This non-contiguous selection is something 
I'd *really* like to see in Finale. It would make the decomposition 
of combined parts much easier, for instance.


  
begin:vcard
fn:Richard Smith
n:Smith;Richard
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Eric Dannewitz]

*Golf clap* Bravo!

Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hey David,

I'm afraid I don't own a copy of Sibelius anymore.

Cheers,

- Darcy


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Richard Smith]

I'm not sure Sibelius is better than Finale at midi import. Both seem to 
make quite a mess of it. in my experience, Sibelius seems to leave more 
"debris" around while Finale gives a cleaner initial look but tends to 
"truncate" complex data.


MusicXML is very effective but, unlike Finale, Sibelius requires you to 
buy the full plug-in to export MusicXML. So if you don't have the 
plug-in, this may not be a good choice.  Importing MusicXMLis, however, 
free and has become the best method for moving from Finale to Sibelius.


Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


David W. Fenton wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:34, dhbailey wrote:

  

Does Logic work with MusicXML?  If it does (www.recordare.com should
be able to tell you if it does) have your friend export the file as
MusicXML, as it is so much more accurate than Finale's midi import.



Isn't Sibelius much better with MIDI import? If so, and it's 
available, what about importing the MIDI into Sibelius, then 
exporting to XML for import into Finale.


Lots of steps, but might be easier if the software is all available.

  
begin:vcard
fn:Richard Smith
n:Smith;Richard
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Tyler Turner]

--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
 
> > There are many things that eat up memory. The
> > soundfont is loaded into memory. . . .
> 
> Not if you're not using it.
> 

I'll have to check again, but I believe this isn't the
case. Essentially, as long as the soundfont file and
the aiolib.dll file are in their correct places, these
will be loaded upon running Finale.

> > . . . Plug-ins take up
> > memory. . . .
> 
> Not when you're not running them, and even then,
> only a very small 
> amount.

Again, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Removing
plug-ins from the plug-ins folder decreases the amount
of memory Finale takes to run.

> 
> > . . . The application is going to load things into
> > memory to speed up access to them. . . .
> 
> If Finale 2006 runs just fine on this James's
> system, then I can't 
> see why Finale 2006 would not. Can anyone with both
> 2006 and 2007 
> profile memory usage? Perhaps the code to support
> linked parts has 
> vastly bloated Finale.

This is an installer issue, right? It's basically
checking to see how much memory is reported as
installed? I think Finale 2007 includes new latin
percussion soundfonts as well as new plug-ins that
would take some additional memory. This could have
been enough to make them decide to up the requirement.

> 
> > . . . There are a lot of
> > graphics being thrown around here, . . . .
> 
> You of all people should know that this is much less
> an issue of 
> system RAM than it is of the graphics card installed
> on the machine.

Yes, but the actual Finale data that it's keeping
track of?

> 
> > . . . .and part of Finale
> > 2006 getting much faster at redrawing probably
> > included making more use of system RAM. . . . 
> 
> Perhaps. But James says Finale 2006 runs just fine
> on his system, so 
> that makes this point completely irrelevant.

Not if we're talking about small changes that pushed
the requirement up to the next level. After all, you
make a requirement for the amount of memory that's
going to safely run the software - not the bare
minimum to keep it working reliably. We typically see
packaging reporte requirements for 128 MB or 256MB...
how often do we see a requirement for 206.5MB? It's
just normal for companies to express requirements in
amounts that match typical configurations.

> 
> > . . . Keep in mind
> > that Windows XP is supposed to be given 128MB of
> > memory, and so MakeMusic has to require an amount
> that
> > takes this into consideration. . . .
> 
> The WinXP RAM minimum does not mean that WinXP takes
> over 128MBs of 
> RAM, it is only the basic amount of RAM that is
> needed to boot the OS 
> and run an application or two.

Nevertheless, MakeMusic is going to consider the
stated OS requirements when it makes its own
requirements.

> 
> > . . . Looking at Finale in
> > the task manager right now, it's using about 110MB
> of
> > memory. That doesn't strike me as being extreme.
> 
> Maybe not, but I just loaded up a large file in
> Finale 2003 and it's 
> taking only 23MBs. The same file loaded into the
> Finale 2005 demo 
> takes up 57MBs. If each version of Finale is
> doubling the RAM needs, 
> that would be 120MBs for Finale 2006, and 240MBs for
> Finale 2007, but 
> it would be ridiculous to assume such a doubling
> with every version.
> 
> What version of Finale do you show using 110MBs?

I'm looking at Finale 2007. But keep in mind that the
memory usage is going to depend on how much RAM you
have installed. On computers that have more memory,
Windows XP will let Finale use a greater portion of it
(assuming it's not being used by another app). After
working with the program for a while, the amount of
RAM used can vary by hundreds of megabytes, depending
on the machine.


Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[Tyler Turner]

--- James Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> The MakeMusic site says NOTHING about FREE memory,
> only that your system
> should have 256meg installed. 

If you right-click My Computer and choose Properties,
what does it state the amount of RAM is?

Thanks,
Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 20:33, Tyler Turner wrote:

> But keep in mind that the
> memory usage is going to depend on how much RAM you
> have installed. On computers that have more memory,
> Windows XP will let Finale use a greater portion of it
> (assuming it's not being used by another app). After
> working with the program for a while, the amount of
> RAM used can vary by hundreds of megabytes, depending
> on the machine.

My machine has 768MBs of RAM and so I don't think that the RAM 
reported for Finale 2003 and Finale 2005 is going to be less than 
what they'd use on a machine with 256MBs of RAM.

And in any event, your last sentence points out the absurdity of 
interpreting the 256MB requirement as meaning FREE RAM, since the 
amount of free RAM depends entirely on what's running already.

-- 
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 2007 review

[Tyler Turner]

--- Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius.
> Most of the time 
> (laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on
> the keyboard. 
> Clicking on the "toolbar" on the screen is slower.
> The features I like 
> to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab
> on the keypad (or in 
> the right click context menu). Others working
> differently or with 
> different musical requirements might have a
> different experience. In 
> general, Sibelius works better with more keyboard
> and less mousing and 
> has extensive keyboard shortcuts.

Keyboard shortcuts are a big reason that I prefer
Finale to Sibelius. The keypad system in Sibelius is
not as efficient as Simple Entry in Finale. There are
some elements that Sibelius allows to be entered via
keystroke that Finale does not, but these are not the
most common elements. For the most common elements,
Finale's system is faster. (and actually, for the
other elements, I've created my own system for working
with Finale that is more efficient than Sibelius).

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[David W. Fenton]

On 13 Aug 2006 at 22:11, Richard Smith wrote:

> I think I was unclear about the Keypad in Sibelius. Most of the time
> (laptop on the go excluded) I use the 10 key pad on the keyboard.

But I have to use the onscreen toolbar to know what the hell the keys
do on the keypad.

> Clicking on the "toolbar" on the screen is slower. The features I
> like to have close at hand are almost all on the top tab on the
> keypad (or in the right click context menu). Others working
> differently or with different musical requirements might have a
> different experience. In general, Sibelius works better with more
> keyboard and less mousing and has extensive keyboard shortcuts.

I don't like cluttering up my mind with remembering keyboard 
shortcuts, especially for things I use only very seldom. Thus, I 
depend on the visual representation to clue me in on how to 
accomplish a task (this is what's meant by "discoverability" when 
talking about UIs). 

-- 
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 2007 RAM issues

[Tyler Turner]

--- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> And in any event, your last sentence points out the
> absurdity of 
> interpreting the 256MB requirement as meaning FREE
> RAM, since the 
> amount of free RAM depends entirely on what's
> running already.

When did I ever suggest in the least that it did? The
only thing I've ever stated is that the installer
looks at the reported amount of installed memory.

My only guesses here are that either the system isn't
really reporting 256MB of memory or the installer is
really expecting a larger amount of installed memory
to be reported. I've never thought this had anything
to do with how much memory is currently being used.

If I had any other guess, it would be that perhaps the
installer is trying to make sure there's enough room
for Finale GPO...

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Don Hart]

Hi Richard,

I may not totally understand the difficulties your job presented, but layers
can easily be reassigned if "view active layer only" is selected, and all
four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd describe as easy when
all layers are busy).

I believe that there is also a plugin to convert voices to layers but I have
never used it so I can't really comment on that.

Don Hart


on 8/13/06 10:11 PM, Richard Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Interesting that you mention the difficulty with "decomposing" combined
> parts. I had to do a job recently that involved making keyboard
> reductions from some string quartet pieces. This was a Finale job.
> Finale would not let me reassign the layer (or voice) of individual
> notes so that dissimilar rhythms could  live happily in the same bar.
> Only the entire measure could be reassigned. Posts to this list and MMs
> tech support confirmed that Finale was unable to do what was needed.
> Sibelius would easily do it but the customer had to have Finale. Much of
> the job had to be re-input from scratch.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Tyler Turner]

--- Don Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> I may not totally understand the difficulties your
> job presented, but layers
> can easily be reassigned if "view active layer only"
> is selected, and all
> four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd
> describe as easy when
> all layers are busy).
> 
> I believe that there is also a plugin to convert
> voices to layers but I have
> never used it so I can't really comment on that.
> 
> Don Hart
> 

My first thought, assuming the notes were in a single
layer and he wanted to split some of them out to a
second layer, was that perhaps explode music or
TGTools part extraction could have been used to get
them to a second staff. Or perhaps something with the
Notemover Tool, moving them to a different staff. But
the people on this list are all-too-familiar with
these solutions, so if they didn't find the solution,
there probably wasn't a good way to do it in Finale.
This is an area where Sibelius is ahead.

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review

[Richard Smith]

Say two violin staves are to be combined into one treble clef piano 
part. In one measure, violin one plays dotted quarter, eighth, and half 
notes. Violin two plays two half notes. After the two are combined, the 
second violin part has become dotted quarter tied to eighth followed by 
half. These kind of errors are common with either Finale or Sibelius 
when combining several parts on one stave.


I would like the first two beats of the measure to have the second 
violin part in voice 2. I don't want the entire bar in voice 2 because 
it's a piano part and I don't want unneeded stems hanging around. Finale 
will let me reassign the music's voice *but only a measure at a time. *I 
cannot select a *single note* in Finale and change it's voice or layer 
independently of the other notes in the measure. In Sibelius I can 
select the half note in the second violin part and change it's layer 
without changing the rest of the bar. That's what I was referring to. In 
this particular job I frequently had to rewrite voice 2 from scratch 
because I could not change just the individual notes that needed changing.


Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Tyler Turner wrote:

--- Don Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

Hi Richard,

I may not totally understand the difficulties your
job presented, but layers
can easily be reassigned if "view active layer only"
is selected, and all
four layers are not in use (doable, but not what I'd
describe as easy when
all layers are busy).

I believe that there is also a plugin to convert
voices to layers but I have
never used it so I can't really comment on that.

Don Hart




My first thought, assuming the notes were in a single
layer and he wanted to split some of them out to a
second layer, was that perhaps explode music or
TGTools part extraction could have been used to get
them to a second staff. Or perhaps something with the
Notemover Tool, moving them to a different staff. But
the people on this list are all-too-familiar with
these solutions, so if they didn't find the solution,
there probably wasn't a good way to do it in Finale.
This is an area where Sibelius is ahead.

Tyler

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___

Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale



  
begin:vcard
fn:Richard Smith
n:Smith;Richard
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
url:http://www.rgsmithmusic.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled

[Darcy James Argue]

On 13 Aug 2006, at 9:26 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:


All I'm
saying is that there is definitely some variance in 2D
performance among modern graphic cards. The fact of
the matter is that the video card in my machine is
still sold today, and I believe I have shown good
cause to believe that a different card would perform
2D tasks more effectively.


Oh, one more question...

I don't believe you ever specified, but all along I've been assuming  
that the computer with the Radeon X600 is outperforming the computer  
with the Radeon 9000 (in Finale, with the hardware acceleration  
slider up). Do I have that right?


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

RE: [Finale] Logic to Finale

[Michael Good]

Hi Darcy,

In addition to the advice you have already received:

1) It might be worth it to see if printing and scanning works faster
than MIDI transfer for your score. This is especially worth trying if
you have access to a Windows machine (either a PC or dual-boot Intel
mac) that can run SharpEye Music Reader.

2) Please contact Apple and let them know you would be interested in
having them support MusicXML export from Logic. We have had good
conversations with the different sequencer vendors regarding adding
MusicXML support. But it always helps when companies hear directly
from customers like you rather than vendors like us.

There are companies working on better general-purpose PDF-to-MusicXML
and MIDI-to-MusicXML translators. So hopefully this type of
translation will get better in the future for software that does not
support MusicXML export. But that won't help you on the current
project.

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale