Re: [Finale] The ultimate Sibelius question...
On 7/9/05, Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is also the issue of just how accurate Sibelius' claim of 1 users switching from Finale to Sibelius really is. I would expect that it is true that 1 users took advantage of the competitive upgrade; however, this was painless, as C/N/M keeps track of their own user base and ships out upgrades based upon its own records, there is no penalty to sending in the distribution CD (especially if you send in an older redundant version, or first burn a back-up copy). Several years ago I sent in the required cd/title-page (whatever) and received a competitive upgrade to Sibelius. (I sent in the previous year's CD, so I didn't need to burn a copy or anything. In general, I don't burn copies except for FLOSS software, where it is the norm.) I would also note that in the various forums in which I participate, since the first of the year, I have seen by actual count, a dozen different users who wrote to the lists, saying that they had originally used Finale, had switched to Sibelius, been disenchanted, and had switched back to using Finale because of Sibelius' shortcomings. I don't know that I became disenchanted (per se), but (because my composition projects are very irregular) several months passed after the upgrade to Sibelius. When I needed to engrave something, I needed to do it in a hurry, and Finale was what I knew best. Since that time, I have upgraded my Win/XP computer, and noticed the other day that I hadn't reinstalled Sibelius. (In the back of my mind I seem to recall that I had to phone Sibelius when I activated my upgrade version, and decided that I wasn't up to waiting on hold for awhile, then trying to convince them that I'm not a thief, that I really did upgrade my Duron 800 to an Athlon64, etc., etc. ... So my Sibelius CD remains on the shelf. I guess that means I'm not really a Sibelius convert ( ... yet?). --T ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
On 7/6/05, Tyler Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I think GPO is going to be a much bigger selling point that linked parts. Why? How many times do composers click play as opposed to extracting parts? I don't believe part extraction is done as commonly as some people here believe. I've been following this discussion of linked parts versus extracted parts with puzzlement, and wondered where (or whether) to step in with my comments. Before I started using Finale 6-7 years ago I had worked as a programmer for a major wordprocessor (one that is now virtually defunct, thanks to the world's dominant software company ... but I digress.) I have always thought that it is particularly awkward to have to extract parts, yielding multiple instances of the same document. In the word processor world, we had a single document with multiple views. (It is kind of like an HTML editor that lets you look at the same document either showing the HTML tags or hiding them, or ... [pick a variation]) It has always seemed like it would be much more natural if finale would treat the displaying/printing of individual parts (or subsets of parts) as variant views of the one document that constitutes the composition. Yes, there might be issues if you decide (for example) to insert a measure while editing the violin part (in the violin part-only view)--but it would be predictable: when you change to the full score view, you would see a new blank measure in all the other parts (for example) ... and could fill up the other staves. I'm not a big Sibelius fan (I purchased a switchover license several years ago, but coutinue to buy each annual Finale upgrade, and have done no serious composing with Sibelius) and don't know how they have implemented their linked parts, but extracting parts from the the main score is a real drag. A document/view model would seem to make much more sense. My two cents. (I am still an ardent fan of Finale, BTW! ... and have already paid for the 2006 upgrade.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius version 4 has dynamic score/parts linking!
On 7/6/05, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In dynamic parts, each part is nothing more or less than a special view of the score. From a software engineering standpoint, this is the way it should be. Word processors and many other applications have been doing this for years: Store the data (document) only once. Provide multiple views of that single document. (There is no linking taking place.) Just another two cents. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] WAV To MP3 Converters
On 7/1/05, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, iTunes is like that, too -- I am not going to use it for burning CDs, so I've turned off the system service it insists on installing. This means iTunes complains every time I start it that the CD burning service is not running so I won't be able to burn CDs. Well, DUH!!! I don't *want* to burn CDs. Also, much of the software that I've tried for all of this assumes you're downloading music, and want to share your own music, so it has builtin communication with various databases of music. I guess I'm in a vast minority, but I have no interest in any of that. I think I must also be part of the vast minority that doesn't want to download music. When I bought my iPod, I immediately imported my entire CD collection. I may never again listen to a CD player again--they are too much hassle when my entire collection is available at the touch of a finger without manipulating a CD. (OK, I confess that I have downloaded 4 tracks--at $0.99 a piece--just to see how it worked.) When I burn CDs/DVDs it is exclusively for saving data--for backing up my hard drives. To each her own, I guess ... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] TAN: Finale and Linux
I used to hope for Finale on Linux, because of the instability of WinDoze. However, now that the Mac runs on FreeBSD (Unix), there is no need for that. When a process (like Word, etc.) misbehaves on the Mac, I go to a console window and kill it (rather than having to reboot as on Micro$oft). Recent Macs have become very compelling! -T On 5/9/05, Noel Stoutenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Friends: Wondering, with the MAC OS having been transmogrified into Unix, whether anyone has tried (or more importantly, succeeded) in getting the MAC version of Finale to run under Unix / Linux. I am aware of the windows emulators that are being developed for Linux, and it might be that WINFin will work under these, but it seems that using the MAC version might be closer to native. Now, to clarify a bit, it's not so much that I'm planning to switch over completely to Linux, but I'm in need of replacing one of my machines, and one way to do this might be to replace my internet machine with a Linux based unit. Ability to download and open files on that box (using Notepad) would be a convenient thing. ns ___ 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
