RE: [Finale] Logic to Finale
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
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? No, it went the other way. The 3.0 GHz machine with the Radeon 9000 was significantly slower than the 3.2GHz machine with the X600 with the acceleration off. After turning on all of the features, the 3.0GHz machine outperforms the 3.2GHz machine. This is the reason I believe that we're seeing the effect of more features being enabled for the X600. It's not a dramatically faster card than the 9000 (especially in terms of memory speed, which that article told us is the critical factor for 2D performance), and the PrintMusic file I tested has a ton of material on the page that would make any extra work being performed on a particular object be performed a great number of times. -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] Logic to Finale
Darcy James Argue wrote: 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. I do this regularly. Honestly, the quickest way is to print out all the parts individually and then re-enter them into Finale. Then send a feature request to Apple requesting MusicXML import/export from Logic. Logic has a semi-nice feature called Interpret which makes pretty good sense of the normal MIDI mumbo-jumbo. I'm not sure if there's a way to imprint this interpretation onto the MIDI itself. Matthew ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
David W. Fenton wrote: 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. Since James' machine appears to meet the stated RAM requirements, I'm beginning to wonder if one of the following is actually the case: 1) in typical fashion (typical of programs more than just Finale) the actual problem is something else and the wrong error message has popped up; 2) James misread the error message and it was actually referring to available hard-disk space; 3) James was trying to install the Garritan stuff, which may require more RAM to be available (in addition to more hard disk space); Perhaps he could be more exact in the wording of the error message? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Richard Smith wrote: [snip] because one of the two comes closer to the way we think about music. I'm glad both [Sibelius and Finale] are so mature and capable. [snip] Amen to that, Richard -- without Sibelius, Finale wouldn't have become anything near the program it is today, and without Finale, Sibelius wouldn't have any reason to keep on working to improve. The computer notation field is very different today (and far better than it might otherwise be) because of it, compared to when I first bought Finale, back in 1992 or so. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
Richard Smith wrote: 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. And I'm convinced they licensed this technology from Recordare precisely because it was becoming much harder to get the ETF format to import correctly -- Sibelius was always a couple of versions behind the current Finale, when it came to importing. With MusicXML, especially since Finale has MusicXML export (I wonder why they don't eliminate this the way that Sibelius ships without it, precisely to make moving from Finale to Sibelius more difficult?), there is no need for Sibelius to waste development dollars trying to keep up with Finale's file format. With Finale2007, that would have become near to impossible, what with the linked scores/parts in the same file and no more export-to-ETF capability. I wonder how MusicXML export works for linked score/parts in Finale? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
At 8/14/2006 06:43 AM, dhbailey wrote: Since James' machine appears to meet the stated RAM requirements, I'm beginning to wonder if one of the following is actually the case: 1) in typical fashion (typical of programs more than just Finale) the actual problem is something else and the wrong error message has popped up; 2) James misread the error message and it was actually referring to available hard-disk space; 3) James was trying to install the Garritan stuff, which may require more RAM to be available (in addition to more hard disk space); Perhaps he could be more exact in the wording of the error message? Also, he could try boosting the Virtual Memory setting. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
My Finale experience goes back about 1991 or so. I remember when nearly everyone used speedy entry nearly all of the time. Finale's new simple entry is indeed quite good. I hesitate to point out that simple entry was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When I upgraded to 2005 it was specifically to get simple entry. I respond to Finale much as you do to Sibelius. I think it's just that I am more familiar with Sibelius. Having customized Finale to reflect your own manner of working is best. Similarly I have programmed Sibelius keyboard commands for my laptop to accommodate the absence of the number keypad. This is exactly what I mean when I say Sibelius thinks like me. In your case, it sounds like Finale thinks more like you. Richard Smith www.rgsmithmusic.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tyler Turner wrote: --- 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 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 review
At 08:59 AM 8/14/2006, Richard Smith wrote: I hesitate to point out that simple entry was a response to Sibelius' note entry methods (v. 2004 I believe). When I upgraded to 2005 it was specifically to get simple entry. Well, Simple Entry had been around in Finale for a long time before that. But you're right that the way it works was greatly revised in 2004, largely following the lead of Sibelius. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
Richard Smith wrote: 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. For this kind of short polyphony I would use V1/V2 rather than layers. V1/V2 is an entirely different mechanism than layers, with its own set of quirks and limitations, but it handles the situation Richard described very well. You can also do it with layers by filling only half the 2nd layer and/or hiding rests and freezing stems ties as needed. But V1/V1 is so easy, why bother. It seems many do not know about v1/v2. This was Finale's original mechanism for showing polyphony on a single staff. Since layers were introduced (fairly early on), the program always pushes you towards layers. But v1/v2 is still fully supported. In your particular example, in Speedy enter the half note first. Then position the Speedy cursor back over the half note you just entered. (Over, because the half note will be the second part.) Hit the single-quote key. This toggles you to V2, and you should see V2 in a corner of the Speedy window. Now enter the top part, the dotted quarter 8th. Then toggle back to V1 (with the single-quote key) and enter the rest of the measure as 2-note chords, or whatever. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 review
On 14.08.2006 Richard Smith wrote: I respond to Finale much as you do to Sibelius. I think it's just that I am more familiar with Sibelius. Having customized Finale to reflect your own manner of working is best. Similarly I have programmed Sibelius keyboard commands for my laptop to accommodate the absence of the number keypad. I just wished that Finale's keyboard commands other than Simple were programmable as well... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Using plugins with parts
Gday everyone. I have just installed Finale 2007. I have Windows XP Home edition. When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none of the plugins are highlighted. How can I get the plugins to work with parts? Many thanks for your help. Paul Copeland http://members.sibeliusmusic.com/pianoedition www.mp3.com.au/paulcopeland www.geocities.com/Vienna/1153 http://www.lulu.com/pianoedition ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Logic to Finale
On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:35 PM, 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? THe client should quantize everything in Logic to within an inch of its life, to the exact rhythmic values and lengths that the musicians will be seeing on the parts, before exporting the MIDI file. This is actually impossible, as the client probably doesn't know what you know about communicating note lengths to musicians (quarter with stacatto, or eighth note eighth rest?) so the best bet is for YOU to have Logic and the original file and change quantizations inside Logic before exporting. If the client is as rushed as they usually are, they won't even be able to do that, so you will have to do it, basing your decisions on your ears. In fact, I don't think it is possible to do this job properly without Logic and the client's file, and an audio file as well, because there are octave displacements to worry about and note lengths, and countless other musical questions that might be different on your system. Someone else mentioned overlapped (legato) notes, which are a huge pain, and can be minimised by using a legato edit function. I don't know what this would be in Logic, but I used it extensively in Cubase on single-note parts. Chorded parts are impossible. In files I have gotten, sometimes the composer freetimes, that is to say, ignores the click for a short passage. Good luck with these passages! 2) What would be the recommended settings for importing the MIDI files into Finale? There is no such thing. My advice is to create hotkeys for the Quantise dialogue box, and also for the Rettranscribe option in Mass Edit, as you will be doing these two things quite a bit on individual measures once the file is imported. You might even re-open the entire file with new quantise options, as it would be quicker than editing every measure. You will quickly get very good at selecting quantise options, I predict. You will also edit individual measures extensively, sometimes to the point of getting out a pencil and staff paper (say for piano or harp parts), as one other respondent mentioned. String parts are often entered as blocks of chords, and you have to work out divisions and voice-leading from these blocks, as the number of pitches often changes. 3) Does anyone have any useful tips for efficiently cleaning up the notation of the imported MIDI files? Finale uses the settings in the Maestro Default file for importing MIDI files, so my usual second step is copying the staves to my own score template. If you think you can work from your own Maestro Default, then so much the better. Charge by the hour, as this will encourage the client to give you files that are as clean as possible. Karen (sorry I don't know her last name, is it Guthery? goes by laloba in her email) does a lot of this, and we had a long exchange a year and a half ago on this subject. I will forward you our exchanges off list. One thing she said is that the client expects the results to sound good, so you do what you can, even if it takes you outside the realm of strict transcription. I take this to mean things like a single flute line in a fortissimo sequence might be transcribed as octaves in a full woodwind section, etc. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Paul Copeland wrote: G’day everyone. I have just installed Finale 2007. I have Windows XP Home edition. When I create parts and then go to plugins for a part, none of the plugins are highlighted. How can I get the plugins to work with parts? The fact that the plug-ins are grayed out in parts mode was discussed on this list this past week. Nobody on the list knows whether it's a bug or a feature, but we're hoping that Finale will fix things in the interim release they always bring out (some years sooner than others). Some modeless plug-ins (I guess those are the ones which remain visible on screen even when not in use?) apparently will work on the parts, but you have to start them in score view. Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's web-site, but be forewarned that they designed it so as to discourage any but the most irate and determined customers from actually completing the process. Unless they have revamped it recently, that is. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
--- dhbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr The fact that the plug-ins are grayed out in parts mode was discussed on this list this past week. Nobody on the list knows whether it's a bug or a feature, but we're hoping that Finale will fix things in the interim release they always bring out (some years sooner than others). It was definitely intentional, and the reasoning was because the ability for plug-ins to add staves to linked parts could cause data corruption. If you add a staff to a linked part, you'll see that the staff doesn't exist in the score. It doesn't even show up in all of the same places as normal staves in the Manage Parts dialog. Originally they intended to disable only the plug-ins that could add staves, but it turned out to not be technically possible for them to do this. I'll be surprised if we don't see more work done in this area in a 2007 update. While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective, blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked part is a fairly effective means of protecting the majority of users. None of the included Finale plug-ins that would have been likely to catch unsuspecting users are modal. FinaleScript is the only included plug-in that can do this, and I'm guessing the number of users that are using FinaleScript to run an Add Staff command can probably be counted on one hand. And even if a few people figure out that they can sneak a staff in by starting in score view, starting FinaleScript, switching to a part and using an Add Staff script, as far as I can tell it's not going to be a definite disaster for their file (I had experimented with using added staves to create some interesting workarounds). -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
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote: Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no conversions, no links from parts to the score, etc. then it could run in less memory. Every time some fuctionality is added, additional run-time memory is required for the additional lines of code in the application. I believe that Finale NotePad runs with much lower RAM requirements, if memory is a greater issue than enhancements. If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase, then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls short in the disclosure of performance requirements. But that's just my humble opinion.. Richard ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Tyler Turner wrote: While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective, blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked part is a fairly effective means of protecting the majority of users. Perhaps it is fairly effective for the majority of users. I doubt if it will be very effective for the majority of those users who use plugins. I can count on one hand the number of plugins that add staves, including one of mine. It is the simplest change in the world to modify those plugins to hit the Score menu item to force the file into score view before executing. I submit that this would have been no more difficult to implement and far more effective at preventing the problem. (And since I could do it, it obviously didn't require any PDK changes.) The current implementation is an annoying barrier yet utterly ineffectual at preventing the problem. I hope MM gets trounced for it. As far as I can tell, they consulted no one outside the company before making this fool's choice. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
At 8/14/2006 11:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase, then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls short in the disclosure of performance requirements. But that's just my humble opinion.. Probably one of the few places Microsoft is far better than others. Vista requires 512MB RAM. I installed it on a system with only 384MB. No problems with the install and no problems running it, even with a memory hog like AutoCAD. It does run slowly, I assume because of all the Virtual Memory swapping stuff. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 14 Aug 2006, at 4:17 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: 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? No, it went the other way. The 3.0 GHz machine with the Radeon 9000 was significantly slower than the 3.2GHz machine with the X600 with the acceleration off. After turning on all of the features, the 3.0GHz machine outperforms the 3.2GHz machine. This is the reason I believe that we're seeing the effect of more features being enabled for the X600. It's not a dramatically faster card than the 9000 (especially in terms of memory speed, which that article told us is the critical factor for 2D performance), and the PrintMusic file I tested has a ton of material on the page that would make any extra work being performed on a particular object be performed a great number of times. Okay, so what you're saying is that the *slower* video card (Radeon 9000) is actually outperforming the *faster* video card (Radeon X600)... that's a pretty pertinent point, don't you think? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Radeon_9000#Mobility, the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the R200 core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200 MHz and its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the 9000 and not the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a more powerful chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and (from what I can tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the fillrate. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_ATI_Graphics_Processing_Units] So if the slower card is dramatically outperforming the faster card, it would appear that something very screwy is going on. I think you're right that more features are being enabled via the slider. But this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card with a bunch of unnecessary extra work. Since you said there was no difference in image quality from having the graphics acceleration slider down vs. up, it sure sounds like *something* (badly written driver? Some quirk of SmartMusic?) is causing a massive and unnecessary slowdown on your X600 -- so much so that it's getting spanked by a much slower graphics card. If the extra work being asked of your X600 is killing performance and not actually improving image quality, to me that sounds like a software problem and not a hardware problem, especially if the slowdown is only in selected applications. (You did mention that other apps on your computer required the hardware slider to be all the way up for maximum performance.) When I did my own Googling on this, I found lots of references to people who found that backing off one notch on the graphics acceleration slider dramatically increased performance in selected applications. According to these user reports, in some cases, an update to the application fixed the problem; in other cases, an updated driver did. I know you have the latest ATI drivers, but of course that's not to say they are necessarily 100% bug-free. 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
Hey all, The client eventually decided to prepare the parts himself using Logic's notation capabilities. He's a good and literate musician and knows exactly what the notation should look like, so that was never an issue. He was just looking to shave some time off the project, but after discussing it with him, it seemed like going from Logic to Finale would burn more time than it saved. He knows that the parts won't look as good as they would if I did them in Finale, but time is extremely short and that seemed like the most streamlined solution, at least to the client. Thanks for all the tips, though. I will save these emails, as I'm sure this situation will come up again. 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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Radeon_9000#Mobility, the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the R200 core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200 MHz and its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the 9000 and not the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a more powerful chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and (from what I can tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the fillrate. Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed thing (it's given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does not have 2.4 times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory speed. My bad. 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
I wonder how MusicXML export works for linked score/parts in Finale? If you use the MusicXML export on the File menu, then it exports whatever is in your current document - either the score or the part. With the full version of Dolet 3 for Finale, you can only export the score since Finale 2007 disables the Plug-ins menu when you view a part. It would work fine for the part if the Plug-ins menu worked. MusicXML 1.1 has no concept of linked parts or dynamic parts, so the score and each part need to be in separate MusicXML files. Best regards, Michael Good Recordare LLC www.recordare.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Radeon_9000#Mobility, the Radeon 9000 Mobility is based on the R200 core, has a fillrate of just 800 MT/s, its clock speed is 200 MHz and its memory speed is 250 MHz. (I'm assuming you have the 9000 and not the 9000 Pro). Whereas the X600 Pro is based on a more powerful chipset (R300 core), has twice the clock speed and (from what I can tell) 2.4 times the memory speed, and twice the fillrate. No Darcy. It is the 9000 Pro (or at least was advertised as such by the manufacturer), but the X600 is not the Pro version. As I said before, the memory speeds reported are very close between the two cards. Since you said there was no difference in image quality from having the graphics acceleration slider down vs. up, it sure sounds like *something* (badly written driver? Some quirk of SmartMusic?) is causing a massive and unnecessary slowdown on your X600 -- so much so that it's getting spanked by a much slower graphics card. I said that I don't see a difference visually, but considering we're talking about black and white graphics in PrintMusic/Finale (not SmartMusic), it's a little hard to conclude that nothing is different. If the extra work being asked of your X600 is killing performance and not actually improving image quality, to me that sounds like a software problem and not a hardware problem, especially if the slowdown is only in selected applications. Not if certain enhancements are being applied that just aren't terribly obvious. And keep in mind that I said that both cards exhibit a dramatic decrease in speed. It's just a greater decrease in the case of the X600 with all features enabled than with the 9000 Pro with all features enabled. Even with the 9000 Pro the decrease is going from around 10fps down to about 2fps. When I did my own Googling on this, I found lots of references to people who found that backing off one notch on the graphics acceleration slider dramatically increased performance in selected applications. According to these user reports, in some cases, an update to the application fixed the problem; in other cases, an updated driver did. I know you have the latest ATI drivers, but of course that's not to say they are necessarily 100% bug-free. I'm pretty positive that I can try this on just about any PC and find that there will be a decrease in performance. We're clearly adding more work for the GPU. Since my cards are similar in memory speed performance, and since we've read that this is a key factor for 2D performance, it's not far-fetched to guess that any extra work repeated many times over could be enough to switch things around. Making guesses at this point is just silly though. The key test would be to get a hold of a computer that has a video card with memory that runs at 3 to 4 times the speed of these cards (which today's best cards have) and see how it performs with two cards of 2 different memory speeds. 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
Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Recently I got through to tech support and received their initial reply relatively easily. I'm pretty sure I replied with an additional question (I could be mistaken) but never heard anymore from them. Looking up the case archive, it ends with their first reply. Anyway, my question to you, and anyone else who has experienced the problems you're describing is where does the process actually break down? Is the initial contact easy, like in my experience, and the real, nitty-gritty answers hard to come by? Or have you found the whole process difficult, from start to finish? Thanks, Don Hart on 8/14/06 10:02 AM, dhbailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's web-site, but be forewarned that they designed it so as to discourage any but the most irate and determined customers from actually completing the process. Unless they have revamped it recently, that is. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
--- Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed thing (it's given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does not have 2.4 times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory speed. My bad. It's not even 1.2 times. I don't trust this Wikipedia page. It's not reporting the same speeds as reported by my system, and it's not reporting the same speeds I see listed in other internet articles about the card. 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: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contact the techsupport people at makemusic's web-site, but be forewarned that they designed it so as to discourage any but the most irate and determined customers from actually completing the process. Unless they have revamped it recently, that is. Actually they've designed it so that they don't get completely ridiculous amounts of spam. It was getting worse by the day when I left support 3 years ago. I'd easily spend 30 minutes or more in the morning just going through and deleting spam e-mails, e-mails with virus attachments, etc. As I understand it, the problem had become exponentially worse. The new system is nice in that it actually assigns case numbers and gets people to include useful information which results in more productive support. It also ensures that the people who are paying for products are getting first priority - something that was never possible to achieve with the old e-mail system. You spend a little extra time filling out your support request, but you get your answers faster in return. 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
On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:00 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: No Darcy. It is the 9000 Pro (or at least was advertised as such by the manufacturer) Okay -- I didn't see a mobility version of the 9000 Pro listed in the Wikipedia pages, but I guess the entries aren't as complete as we'd like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_9000 but the X600 is not the Pro version. As I said before, the memory speeds reported are very close between the two cards. Similarly, I didn't see any non-pro versions of the X600 in Wikipedia. They show only two models, the X600 Pro and the X600 XT (which is actually faster than the Pro). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_X600 I said that I don't see a difference visually, but considering we're talking about black and white graphics in PrintMusic/Finale (not SmartMusic), it's a little hard to conclude that nothing is different. Fair enough. Not if certain enhancements are being applied that just aren't terribly obvious. Also fair enough -- but it seems to me that if the visual enhancements aren't terribly obvious, but totally kill performance, then they shouldn't really be implemented on cards that can't handle the extra workload -- and that either the OS or the driver should really take this factor into account. Ideally, if your video card was crawling along at 2 fps, the OS would adjust the graphics acceleration features on the fly to improve performance. Most games are capable of these automatic adjustments. I also had several people who seemed to be in a position to know assure me that ATI uses the same set of drivers across the line. Not just the same installer -- the same exact drivers. According to them, if your drivers are up-to-date, you can pop out one ATI card and replace it with another without needing to reinstall any drivers. (They said the same was true of nVidia, as well.) So I think it's at least within the realm of possibility that maxing out the slider is causing your X600 to enable features it is *technically* capable of, but not really designed to do very efficiently. I'm pretty positive that I can try this on just about any PC and find that there will be a decrease in performance. I'm actually quite curious what would happen if you tried messing with this slider on a PC with a 7300 GT or better! Making guesses at this point is just silly though. The key test would be to get a hold of a computer that has a video card with memory that runs at 3 to 4 times the speed of these cards (which today's best cards have) and see how it performs with two cards of 2 different memory speeds. Yes -- on this point, we are in absolute agreement. 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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 14 Aug 2006, at 2:15 PM, Tyler Turner wrote: Oops -- sorry, I definitely misread the memory speed thing (it's given differently at each Wiki page). The X600 does not have 2.4 times the memory speed, it has 1.2 times the memory speed. My bad. It's not even 1.2 times. I don't trust this Wikipedia page. It's not reporting the same speeds as reported by my system, and it's not reporting the same speeds I see listed in other internet articles about the card. It also seems to be missing some cards... so I agree, on closer investigation, it's probably not the best resource for this info. 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] Best method of re-authorizing?
I called the 800 number and talked to support. Then I essentially re-registered directly from Finale using the Internet choice. Then the software just confirmed my registration and that was all.At no time did I need to enter an authorization code, and none was given to me, neither by tech support nor via eMail. Not sure if that was because I talked to them on the phone first or not. As far as I can tell it's because when you use the Internet choice it automates the authorization part somehow. The support tech did mention something about resetting my authorization so perhaps it would have been a different process if I hadn't called first. But all I know is that now when I log into my account on the finale web page and look at my registration history, there is no longer a record of my original registration, just the current one.On 8/13/06, Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Under HELP-Register Finale. I believe there are a couple of optionsthere. 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 listFinale@shsu.eduhttp://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
Oh yeah ... even with 512 MB, I don't think there would be much happiness in playing back GPO sounds. Dean On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:24 PM, 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 -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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] Using plugins with parts
On Aug 14, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Tyler Turner wrote: While obviously not ideal from a user's perspective, blocking plug-ins from being run while in a linked part is a fairly effective means of protecting the majority of users. None of the included Finale plug-ins that would have been likely to catch unsuspecting users are modal. I confess I don't understand what modal is, so let me be specific: If I start from score view will I be able to shift into an individual part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of Parts? If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin I like? Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
At 03:01 PM 8/14/2006, Andrew Stiller wrote: I confess I don't understand what modal is, A modal window is one which must be closed before you can use the rest of the program. For example, the Document Options window is modal -- while it is open, you can't do anything else with Finale. Same with most of the built-in Finale plugins. The opposite of this is a modeless window, which can sit open on screel while you do other things. FinaleScript is modeless, as is the Edit System Margins dialog. I start from score view will I be able to shift into an individual part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of Parts? Yes to all of these. At least, all are modeless windows and will stay open when you shift to a part. I think the TGTools part extraction plugin will cause problems because it usually results in adding staves, and adding staves from within a part is a bad thing for Fin07. I'm also not sure how JW Space Systems will work (haven't tried it). If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin I like? This is also true. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote: But this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card with a bunch of unnecessary extra work. I am not really getting back into this thread, but I too was curious about the slider which I have never even though of moving it. I have a loaner DELL Precision 370 P4 3.4GHz with 1.5GB RAM, XP Pro. The video card is ATI FireGL V3100. I just took a look at the accelerator slider. There are 6 positions. Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive me), #1 being max, by the way. 1) Enable all the accelerator functions. Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese! Who translated this?) 2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?) 3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing. Use this to fix display (huh? What is Extended Drawing?) 4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw and Direct3D accelerator Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator. 5) Disable all but basic accelerator Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?) 6) Disable all the accelerators. Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server problem (the only sentence made sense to me!) It looks as if my translation is bad, especially the word fix doesn't really fit in the context, but this is exactly what it is saying in Japanese. Don't ask me what they really mean :-) By the way, Pshop rendering on this machine is definitely slower than my AlBook1.5/2GB. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
Very interesting. Thanks, Hiro. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 14 Aug 2006, at 3:45 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darcy James Argue / 2006/08/14 / 12:42 PM wrote: But this is why I wanted to know what those features *were* -- the slider should (theoretically) be smart enough not to swamp your video card with a bunch of unnecessary extra work. I am not really getting back into this thread, but I too was curious about the slider which I have never even though of moving it. I have a loaner DELL Precision 370 P4 3.4GHz with 1.5GB RAM, XP Pro. The video card is ATI FireGL V3100. I just took a look at the accelerator slider. There are 6 positions. Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive me), #1 being max, by the way. 1) Enable all the accelerator functions. Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese! Who translated this?) 2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?) 3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing. Use this to fix display (huh? What is Extended Drawing?) 4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw and Direct3D accelerator Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator. 5) Disable all but basic accelerator Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?) 6) Disable all the accelerators. Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server problem (the only sentence made sense to me!) It looks as if my translation is bad, especially the word fix doesn't really fit in the context, but this is exactly what it is saying in Japanese. Don't ask me what they really mean :-) By the way, Pshop rendering on this machine is definitely slower than my AlBook1.5/2GB. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Andrew Stiller wrote: If I start from score view will I be able to shift into an individual part and use a) JW Space Systems, b)TGTools/Spacing/Measure Widths, c)Patterson/Tie Mover, d) TGTools/Parts/Intelligent Extraction of Parts? Yes to all. However, only the latest version of Patterson Tie Mover is modal. Earlier versions will not allow you to shift. (I changed my plugins to be modeless because of the new limitation in Finale.) If not, am I correct in understanding that the old part-extraction paradigm is still functional, so I could go that way and use any plugin I like? Yes (essentially). Also, it is quite easy to switch back and forth between score part view, so switching back to score view to run a plugin is not necessarily too painful, depending on what you are doing. (Some situations are more painful than others.) -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Aaron Sherber wrote: I think the TGTools part extraction plugin will cause problems because it usually results in adding staves, and adding staves from within a part is a bad thing for Fin07. I'm also not sure how JW Space Systems will work (haven't tried it). JW Space Systems works great on parts. You must have the latest version of PDKTools or it will crash Finale (at least on Macs). You can get PDKTools at the TGTools site. You can set up TGTools part extraction not to add staves. This you should do. I don't understand the need to run it in part view. It is perfectly possible to run it in the full score by selecting only the staves you are interested in. I find this to be a much preferable procedure. (I'm always finished with TGTools Smart Explosion before ever I extract any parts, even in pre-Fin07.) -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Finale 2007 RAM issues
On 14 Aug 2006 at 11:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 17:41 -0400, James Gilbert wrote: Why should a notation software program require sooo much RAM in the first place? True, if all we expected of FINALE was purely notation; no conversions, no links from parts to the score, etc. then it could run in less memory. Every time some fuctionality is added, additional run-time memory is required for the additional lines of code in the application. That's an awfully naïve view of the way computer applications work. The architecture of the newly added features will determine whether or not they require more memory, not the number of newly added lines of code (which are present in the compiled executable, anyway). If new features are implemented as modules that are loaded as needed, they won't increase the memory footprint until called. I believe that Finale NotePad runs with much lower RAM requirements, if memory is a greater issue than enhancements. If your complaint is that they do not make it clear before you purchase, then I agree, but then 90% of business software on the market today falls short in the disclosure of performance requirements. But that's just my humble opinion.. He's not complaining about performance. I doubt he was expecting blazing performance installing on a machine that met only the minimum requirements. The problem is that MM says it will install on his machine and the installer won't do it. -- 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
On 14 Aug 2006 at 6:52, dhbailey wrote: (I wonder why they don't eliminate this the way that Sibelius ships without it, precisely to make moving from Finale to Sibelius more difficult?) I've posted this URL before, but there's a good reason for software vendors to make it easy to interoperate with the files created by their competition: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog52.html Interoperability makes switching to the newer software risk-free. Now, Finale and Sibelius can never reach that point, but I think it's a very good thing for Finale to ship with the MusicXML plugin. -- 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
On 14 Aug 2006 at 15:45, A-NO-NE Music wrote: I just took a look at the accelerator slider. There are 6 positions. Here is what it says (in Japanese, me translating to English, forgive me), #1 being max, by the way. Here are the original English captions: 1) Enable all the accelerator functions. Use this if your computer has no issue (bad Japanese! Who translated this?) All accelerations are enabled. Use this setting if your computer has no problems. (Recommended) 2) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerator Use this to fix mouse pointer and/or damaged image (huh?) Disable cursor and bitmap accelerations. Use this setting to correct problems with the mouse pointer, or to correct problems with corrupt images. 3) Disable cursor and Extended Drawing. Use this to fix display (huh? What is Extended Drawing?) Disable all cursor and advanced drawing accelerations. Use this setting to correct drawing problems. 4) Not only cursor and Extended Drawing, disable all the DirectDraw and Direct3D accelerator Use this to fix application(s) which uses DirectX accelerator. Disable all DirectDraw and Direct3D accelerations, as well as all cursor and advanced drawing accelerations. Use this setting to correct severe problems with DirectX accelerated applications. 5) Disable all but basic accelerator Use this to fix fatal problems (huh?) Disable all but basic accelorations. Use this setting to correct more severe problems. 6) Disable all the accelerators. Use this when computer freezes frequently or when you have server problem (the only sentence made sense to me!) Disable all accelerations. Use this setting only if your computer frequently stops responding or has other severe problems. -- 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
FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout: http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690). Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used isn’t really comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of expandability. An interesting and perhaps relevant passage: What makes the Dell so much more expensive? Surprisingly, a big chunk of the cost is the second processor. If you need only a single 2.66GHz Xeon, the Dell’s price drops a whopping $869; it’s still more expensive than the Mac Pro, but at least they’re in the same ballpark. Which means one of two things: Either Apple is getting an amazing deal on the Xeon processors used in the Mac Pros, or Dell is soaking dual-processor customers. And, uh, this: (If you’re looking to find all the technical differences between the two, good luck. If you go to Dell’s basic tech specs page for the 690—the one you encounter while building it—you get one set of specs; however, if you go to the more complete page, available before you start building, and linked at the top of the above table, you get a very different set of specs. For example, the maximum RAM for the 690 is stated as either 8GB or 64GB; that’s like Toyota saying its new Camry gets either 12mpg or 70mpg! I’ve attempted to make sense of these conflicting specs; with such a significant difference in price, at least I’ve got a good margin of error if one or two mistakes would result in a smaller or larger difference in capability or price.) And finally, this: I’m sure some Dell fans will also quibble with my choice of video cards. It’s true that less expensive cards available from Dell will be adequate for many users, and some of those will even offer comparable performance to the Mac Pro’s Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT. However, the Quadro FX 3450 was the least expensive video card from Dell that offers both dual-link and single-link ports, allowing you to drive a 30-inch Apple or Dell display along with another smaller display—something the Mac Pro’s stock card can also do, and a task that’s more popular than you might think among professional users. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: Tech support was Re: [Finale] Using plugins with parts
Never ask more than one question: apparently they stop after the first one. You have to open another inquiry to get any more answers after the first one. The tech people do NOT get the info that you so painstakingly filled in at the start of the procedure: apparently this info is for statistics only, so you have to tell them what platform, computer, system, Finale version, etc., all over again in your question. This is just nuts. Christopher On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Don Hart wrote: Recently I got through to tech support and received their initial reply relatively easily. I'm pretty sure I replied with an additional question (I could be mistaken) but never heard anymore from them. Looking up the case archive, it ends with their first reply. Anyway, my question to you, and anyone else who has experienced the problems you're describing is where does the process actually break down? Is the initial contact easy, like in my experience, and the real, nitty- gritty answers hard to come by? Or have you found the whole process difficult, from start to finish? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
More on the Core 2 rumor front: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060814180417.shtml Appleinsider reports that Apple is preparing for product launches as early as September: Based on various reports from around the world, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company this week is placing WWDC '06 in the rear-view mirror and shifting gears towards its fall product line refreshes, which are due to start turning up next month. This along with reports end-of-life notices for Apple's current iPod nano are suggestive of imminent product refreshes. This correlates with a recent Chinese report that Apple is readying both of its laptop models for Core 2 Duo Merom CPUs next month. Readers will remember that pre-WWDC reports also claimed that Apple had placed large orders of Core 2 Duo processors, with analyst speculation of the same. 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] OT: Mac Pro unveiled
On 14 Aug 2006 at 17:52, Darcy James Argue wrote: FWIW, here's MacWorld's Mac Pro vs. Dell price shooutout: http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php They used a different model Dell than I did (Precision 690). Apparently the reviewer felt that the 490 I used isnt really comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of expandability. An interesting and perhaps relevant passage: What makes the Dell so much more expensive? Surprisingly, a big chunk of the cost is the second processor. If you need only a single 2.66GHz Xeon, the Dells price drops a whopping $869; its still more expensive than the Mac Pro, but at least theyre in the same ballpark. Which means one of two things: Either Apple is getting an amazing deal on the Xeon processors used in the Mac Pros, or Dell is soaking dual-processor customers. I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this. Apple is making this high-end workstation the base model for their high-end product line. Dell is selling it only to a tiny number of customers who are buying in the workstation market. I don't know what percentage of Dell customers buy this product line, but my guess is that it's not a very large group. One could finagle the market share and customer numbers to try to come up with a situation where Dell is buying more Xeon processors than Apple, but I don't think it's likely that the chips used by Dell in this product line are purchased in numbers as high as those that Apple will be purchasing. Secondly, Dell is already a captive of Intel, while this may very well be part of the continuing deal that Apple made with Intel to make the switch. Intel may be subsidizing part of the price here to help Apple make the transition. Then again, maybe not, as that would probably violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The point is that a dual Xeon workstation on the PC side is a very very rare purchase, whereas Apple is making it the flagship model at the top of their product line, with nothing really comparable to most of Dell's product line anywhere else. That is, Dell is selling into different market segments than Apple, so the cost basis for their purchases from Intel is likely to be different. -- 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] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!
HELP!! I have a commission deadline due tomorrow I cannot print my score correctly. All of the noteheads print as fortisstissimo (FFFs) rather than regular noteheads. Other symbols are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond). Ive been using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98 (2nd Edition), same printer (HP5000). Ive always used the default font (Maestro). 10% of the time it will print a page correctly, but 90% of the timeno dice! The ONLY difference is that this is the first time Ive created a score and printed with 2006c. Ive reinstalled Finale and reloaded fonts to no avail. Ive also shut down all programs running in the background to maximize system resources. Any fixes? Brad Nelson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!
Select: Options Document Options Fonts Notation Noteheads Then scroll and selct a notehead font that you have, probably EngraverFontSet or Maestro. Default size is 24 regular. Click OK, and that should fix it. Hope this helps! Raymond Horton Brad Nelson wrote: HELP!! I have a commission deadline due tomorrow I cannot print my score correctly. All of the noteheads print as fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads. Other symbols are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond). I’ve been using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98 (2^nd Edition), same printer (HP5000). I’ve always used the default font (Maestro). 10% of the time it will print a page correctly, but 90% of the timeno dice! The ONLY difference is that this is the first time I’ve created a score and printed with 2006c. I’ve reinstalled Finale and reloaded fonts to no avail. I’ve also shut down all programs running in the background to maximize system resources. Any fixes? Brad Nelson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Printing problem - garbage for noteheads!
Get a Mac? Just Kidding. So it displays ok and prints all messed up? Try disabling the Maestro Postscript Font in Control Panels-Fonts and see if that does anything. (Quit out of Finale, then do that, then run it again). You might have a messed up postscript font. Brad Nelson wrote: HELP!! I have a commission deadline due tomorrow I cannot print my score correctly. All of the noteheads print as fortisstissimo (FFF’s) rather than regular noteheads. Other symbols are also strange (ie, whole rest appears as a diamond). I’ve been using Finale for 9 years with no problemsame computer with Win 98 (2^nd Edition), same printer (HP5000). I’ve always used the default font (Maestro). 10% of the time it will print a page correctly, but 90% of the timeno dice! The ONLY difference is that this is the first time I’ve created a score and printed with 2006c. I’ve reinstalled Finale and reloaded fonts to no avail. I’ve also shut down all programs running in the background to maximize system resources. Any fixes? Brad Nelson ___ 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] Part Extraction problems other oddities
I opened a score from WinFin2005 in my newly installed WinFin2k7. I generated parts from Manage Parts, and then extracted. The part appears with the staff spacing terribly squashed, even though I took care to specify the spacing in Page Formats for Parts (in Part Creation Preferences). Also, in moving a staff expression, it now appears in 2 places. I tried redraw update - to no avail. I have to delete the first instance. This doesn't, however, happen with all expressions. The part opens in studio view, even though my preference is (supposedly) set to Page View. WOOPS - the preference has to be set in Program Options|New|New Document windows, not the drop-down View menu - maybe this will help someone else. I see that the ToolBar is still screwed - I can't seem to get rid of the quantization button in the Options toolbar. I never use it it takes up valuable space. I don't want 2 rows of buttons. I like the idea of an inset coda staff, but this doesn't seem to work the way it should. The Horizontal Space Before Coda box is grayed out. Am I going to have recreate all my templates from scratch with WinFin2k7? I've had success in the past merely migrating my archive file (containing ALL my music) from old version to new. Thanks for y'all's help! Giz -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts
The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is Show different enharmonic spellings between the score and part. Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature? Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Enharmonic spelling and parts
Richard Yates wrote: The Fin2K7 brochure says that a feature of linked parts is Show different enharmonic spellings between the score and part. Can someone explain to me how this would ever be a useful feature? Richard Yates If you had a concert pitch score, you might want to simply some enharmonics in Eb or A parts, perhaps. Or alternate Bb and A clarinet parts (A parts in score, alternate Bb parts for the player would often have a few simplified enharmonics) RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
