Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 01.10.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: OK, if you're so smart, explain to me, if it's a fully open non- proprietary standard, it's not installed by default on any PCs except Apple and Sony? Why is it that the only hardware manufacturers who routinely provide firewire ports are the ones who created the standard? Not really disagreeing, but Firewire is standard on Asus laptops, too. I believe one reason it is not standard on all machines is the simple fact that USB 2 provides the same speed and is supported by more add-ons. Firewire seems to be much better suited to all sorts of streaming (Audio/Video), yet it may be more expensive to implement than USB 2. 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] BAK.files
Noel Stoutenburg wrote: A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 12:47 PM wrote: Where, exactly, does Windows require a floppy disk? When you need to do emergency boot. This was true in WIN 98 SE, but is not true in WIN XP. Emergency boot in WIN XP is from CD or DVD. It didn't even have to be true in Win98 -- it was possible to create a bootable CD, and whether a computer can boot from CD or DVD or has to boot from a floppy or hard drive is purely a function of the computer's CMOS setup, nothing to do with windows. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] OK, if you're so smart, explain to me, if it's a fully open non- proprietary standard, it's not installed by default on any PCs except Apple and Sony? Why is it that the only hardware manufacturers who routinely provide firewire ports are the ones who created the standard? My Toshiba laptop (and most laptops I looked at 18 months ago when I bought mine) had firewire connectors. Most video cameras come with firewire connectors. I'm not saying this is a good thing -- I think it's terrible, since it's a very good technology. But my surmise is the reason it's not universal (like the vastly inferior and unreliably USB) is that it was perceived as (or was) being controlled by two companies for their own interests. Maybe my explanation is wrong. Maybe you can provide a better explanation of why such an obviously superior technology (this I won't dispute) is not universally supported? Microsoft hasn't put its weight behind firewire technology, preferring to support its own USB standard. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 02:04 PM wrote: Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. You are not helping, David. None of my lowly PCs, Dell Dimension P-III 1GHz, homemade P-II, and two ThinkPads boots off USB. ThinkPads even doesn't boots off CD. Floppy is the only way. We have gone through this twice in the past. Even if it booted off Windows installer CD, you can't do anything, like launch PQDI to restore image. All are needed to be done with Floppy boot. It is a bit surprising to hear from you that I have to buy a new PC :-) Where a computer can boot from is a function of the CMOS setup, NOT the operating system. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Javier Ruiz wrote: Only 5% of Mac's out there? We should start wearing any kind of bracelet to recognize ourselves. We are s few. [We'll revise the figures after Windows Vista makes 70% of the installed PC's unusable] [snip] That assumes that at least 70% of the installed PCs actually upgrade to Vista, something which isn't very likely to happen. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
dhbailey / 2006/10/02 / 06:00 AM wrote: It didn't even have to be true in Win98 -- it was possible to create a bootable CD, and whether a computer can boot from CD or DVD or has to boot from a floppy or hard drive is purely a function of the computer's CMOS setup, nothing to do with windows. Unless I am remembering things totally wrong, I don't recall OS/2 had boot location (which bus and where) limitation like DOS/Win has. -- - 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] BAK.files
On 2 Oct 2006 at 0:16, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 04:06 PM wrote: None of the machines you describe should need a boot floppy. Maybe you just don't know how to use the Windows installation disk and the command console. You are correct, David. I don't know how to launch CLI from Win2K installer disk. I just tried it, and it has no such option. The command console should be one of the repair options. The CD should boot by default to the re-install/repair/run command console prompt. And the command console is a command prompt that gives you full access to all the disk drives (if they haven't failed in hardware, of course). How do you launch CLI from Win2K installer disk? Command console from the prompt that's given you. It can run from the CD or it can be installed on the hard drive so you can get a boot menu without the CD to run the command console at boot instead of booting the GUI. And you are saying I can launch win32 apps from there as the same as you launch from Win2K? No, I never said that. And I can remove Win2K installer disk to access backup image from a DVD-R? That I don't know. If you install the command console on the hard drive, you can activate the boot menu with F8 during boot and then boot to the command prompt and then insert any CD or DVD that's readable by the command prompt environment (I have no idea if DVDs are supported by the command console). But if those require a Win32 app, then that isn't going to work. Oh, wait, to restore image to C:, I can launch application, PQDI on the C: drive. What is my alternative? On my Mac, I just boot off a backup drive which is bootable, and restore image in no time. What do you do on PC? All the imaging software I've ever used provides a non-GUI command prompt utility to restore images without needing to boot the GUI. I have been doing this with Floppy disks, including swapping floppy many, many times. Very time consuming. If there is one DVD solution, I'd jump on it. I don't have a DVD drive and doubt that there is, since DVD support is still provided in software and not in the base OS installation. Which is stupid, of course. -- 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] BAK.files
On 2 Oct 2006 at 13:01, A-NO-NE Music wrote: dhbailey / 2006/10/02 / 06:00 AM wrote: It didn't even have to be true in Win98 -- it was possible to create a bootable CD, and whether a computer can boot from CD or DVD or has to boot from a floppy or hard drive is purely a function of the computer's CMOS setup, nothing to do with windows. Unless I am remembering things totally wrong, I don't recall OS/2 had boot location (which bus and where) limitation like DOS/Win has. OS/2 installed a boot manager on your hard drive that took care of this. A client of mine had a Win95/DOS 6 system that used the OS/2 boot manager to give a choice of boot environment. Don't ask me why she thought she needed to do that, but she did, and somebody who was an OS/2 guru set it up for her. It was still the primary boot hard drive that was doing the booting -- there was no magic that allowed you to boot from any device just because you had OS/2. You had to have the boot manager configured to boot from the particular device. -- 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] BAK.files
David W. Fenton / 2006/10/02 / 01:49 PM wrote: It was still the primary boot hard drive that was doing the booting -- there was no magic that allowed you to boot from any device just because you had OS/2. You had to have the boot manager configured to boot from the particular device. I don't really want to sound we are debating meaningless Mac vs Wintel, but Mac can boot off anywhere by just pressing Opt key on boot which lists all the possible boot volumes. That alone, crisis control on Mac is much easier and faster than PC without even talking about registry. I am just curious. When I go to location recording job including my own performance, I always carry 2.5 emergency drive. If and when my Powerbook flips due to HD trouble or something, I just attach 2.5 drive, boot it off, and finish recording. This has happened once, actually. If I have time before the show, I can even run Utility to repair the problem, or restore the internal volume itself from the emergency drive in time. On PC, how do you control crisis like this? -- - 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] BAK.files
Darcy James Argue / 2006/09/30 / 04:36 PM wrote: Also, I noticed that OS X is not quite as smart about this as I thought. Sometimes, changing the file extension to .PDF really will cause Finale files to (try and fail to) open in my PDF reader. I'm not quite sure why this doesn't happen consistently. OSX maps file to app by both meta data and extension, and meta data has higher priority. Both mapping is written to LaunchServise database by installed application. You can of cause add the database item by Always Launch With Finder option. If a file passes non Mac environment, i.e., Windows file system or the Internet, resource folk is stripped, and so is metadata. The file no longer has metadata so application mapping becomes extension dependent. -- - 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006 at 12:42, Richard Yates wrote: What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. My favorite current one is repairing permissions, something that no vesion of Windows has ever required. -- 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006 at 15:47, Darcy James Argue wrote: The problem on Windows seems to be that for some strange reason, when saving backups, it's normal for Windows apps use the .bak extension instead of the usual filetype extension. That doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. Er, how else would have two files with the same root filename in the same location? Is it possible to have more than one MyMusic.mus in the same folder on a Mac? -- 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006 at 18:46, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Completely different issue than a file extension. And that is a OS 9 and before thing, so, maybe 6 years ago that would be a fair dig. But it's about as outdated now as Floppy disks. Oh, but Windows still uses those Where, exactly, does Windows require a floppy disk? Dell's default desktop configurations haven't been shipping with floppy disks for a while now. As to current problems, what about repairing permissions? That's a specifically OS X problem that is ridiculous from the point of view of a reliable security system, one that NT-based Windows has had for quite a long, long time (over 15 years). -- 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] BAK.files
David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 12:47 PM wrote: Where, exactly, does Windows require a floppy disk? When you need to do emergency boot. Seriously, I'd love to know how to create bootable Win32 CDR with applications (but not DOS) of your choice such as maintenance tools. Any pointer would be appreciated. This is my biggest problem with PC. I can't boot off FW drive. For Mac, I carry emergency 2.5 FW/USB drive which boots into any Mac. -- - 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] BAK.files
I'll take repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) over the virus/security hole of the day/week that Microsoft has any day. David W. Fenton wrote: As to current problems, what about repairing permissions? That's a specifically OS X problem that is ridiculous from the point of view of a reliable security system, one that NT-based Windows has had for quite a long, long time (over 15 years). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
And my favorite Windows thing is the daily Windows Update to see if Microsoft got off it's ass and fixed Windows flaw #445325 or perhaps #787534 or did they get around to closing hole #421233 in Internet Explorerwho knows. It's a daily treat though! David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 12:42, Richard Yates wrote: What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. My favorite current one is repairing permissions, something that no vesion of Windows has ever required. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Eric Dannewitz / 2006/10/01 / 01:03 PM wrote: repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) As far as I know, cron script does not invoke repair permission. It is mainly for cache cleaning task. -- - 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] BAK.files
I believe, at least on FreeBSD systems, it's in /etc/periodic/security. There are scripts that are run, I think, weekly on a system to check out user id (uid) and other file permissions. Perhaps it's run monthly. I think the periodic stuff that is run daily is, as you said, to check out caches and what not. A-NO-NE Music wrote: Eric Dannewitz / 2006/10/01 / 01:03 PM wrote: repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) As far as I know, cron script does not invoke repair permission. It is mainly for cache cleaning task. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
No, but there are two very easy solutions: 1) Specify a different folder for backups. OR: 2) Have the application append bak BEFORE the file extension. This is what Finale does with autosaved files (not backups). If the regular file is MyMasterpiece.mus, the autosave file is MyMasterpiece asv.mus. Both of these seem much better than creating a bunch of .bak files that don't automatically open with the correct application when double-clicked, and don't show up as valid choices in Finale's Open menu unless you force it to by choosing All Files. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 01 Oct 2006, at 12:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 15:47, Darcy James Argue wrote: The problem on Windows seems to be that for some strange reason, when saving backups, it's normal for Windows apps use the .bak extension instead of the usual filetype extension. That doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. Er, how else would have two files with the same root filename in the same location? Is it possible to have more than one MyMusic.mus in the same folder on a Mac? -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 12:57, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 12:47 PM wrote: Where, exactly, does Windows require a floppy disk? When you need to do emergency boot. Since when? I haven't done a floppy disk boot (intentionally) in ages. I always do emergency boots from the Windows CD, in order to use the command console and recovery tools. Seriously, I'd love to know how to create bootable Win32 CDR with applications (but not DOS) of your choice such as maintenance tools. Any pointer would be appreciated. For emergency recovery, there are too things to do: 1. install the command console on your Windows system drive (this allows emergency recovery without the CD, as long as the hard drive is working, if not bootable into Windows). 2. boot from the Windows installation CD. This has been the case for, oh, five years at least -- since it became completely common for all PCs to be able to boot from CD. Nowadays you can also boot from USB drives. This is my biggest problem with PC. I can't boot off FW drive. For Mac, I carry emergency 2.5 FW/USB drive which boots into any Mac. Firewire is a Sony/Apple technology and simply not well-supported elsewhere (because it's a closed technology). USB drives are bootable with newer BIOSes. All Dells allow it these days. Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. -- 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] BAK.files
I stand corrected -- Javier points out that Finale appends copy to the name (not the file extension) of backups when they are set to save in the same folder as the original files. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY On 01 Oct 2006, at 2:00 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: No, but there are two very easy solutions: 1) Specify a different folder for backups. OR: 2) Have the application append bak BEFORE the file extension. This is what Finale does with autosaved files (not backups). If the regular file is MyMasterpiece.mus, the autosave file is MyMasterpiece asv.mus. Both of these seem much better than creating a bunch of .bak files that don't automatically open with the correct application when double-clicked, and don't show up as valid choices in Finale's Open menu unless you force it to by choosing All Files. 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: As to current problems, what about repairing permissions? That's a specifically OS X problem that is ridiculous from the point of view of a reliable security system, one that NT-based Windows has had for quite a long, long time (over 15 years). I'll take repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) over the virus/security hole of the day/week that Microsoft has any day. What are you talking about? I and my clients have not had a virus or worm for years. Of course, we don't use Microsoft's brower or email clients, but that's been a no-brainer for a decade for email clients (since they have always been substandard for Internet email), and for the last 5 years or so for the browser (since Mozilla started being usable c. 2001). I don't even have full-time virus monitoring on my home PC and have not had for nearly 10 years, and haven't had a single virus/worm. Part of that is due to proper firewalling, which many Windows user were not aware of, but which nowadays they get by default (with WinXP SP2, and with most broadband services providing NAT routers in their cable/DSL modems), the other part is due to sensible choice of email clients (ones that don't auto-execute content). I do have AVG's free AV program installed, but rarely have to use it. People who have problems with viruses are probably not using up-to- date versions of Windows or sensible Internet connection procedures. Last of all, damaged permissions are pretty serious. There is no reason that aan OS should stop properly-designed security system should have its ACLs damaged (or changed) on a regular basis. Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired. -- 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] BAK.files
Yeah, you are right again. It's CLOSED technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire That is why it's on digital camcorders, and is an IEEE standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers Yep. You are correct again. David W. Fenton wrote: Firewire is a Sony/Apple technology and simply not well-supported elsewhere (because it's a closed technology). USB drives are bootable with newer BIOSes. All Dells allow it these days. Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 01 Oct 2006, at 2:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired. It doesn't. Earlier versions of OS X were prone to permissions errors, but this hardly ever happens any more. I have a script set to automatically repair permissions weekly, but that's more out of habit than anything. It's pretty rare that someone actually needs to repair their permissions, although people still counsel this as a generic first step for anyone having problems with their setup. 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:05, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 12:42, Richard Yates wrote: What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. My favorite current one is repairing permissions, something that no vesion of Windows has ever required. And my favorite Windows thing is the daily Windows Update to see if Microsoft got off it's ass and fixed Windows flaw #445325 or perhaps #787534 or did they get around to closing hole #421233 in Internet Explorerwho knows. It's a daily treat though! Who in his right mind uses IE in the first place? And as security and other patches, I'm observing a long thread on another list about a set of OS X updates that have hosed the OS into an unbootable state. As to Windows Update, I don't use it. I monitor threats and manually download and install updates *where appropriate*, and have none of my clients automatically applying Window Updates (something the user need not do anything about). According to you, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't -- the mere process of wanting to check for updates condemns Windows to hell from your apparent point of view. In reality, the ease of applying updates makes Windows safer than it would be without it. It's *good* that updates get pushed out regularly. Last of all, Windows is a codebase developed over 20 years, with backward compatibility found on no other major OS. That imposes certain restrictions on how quickly you can re-architect your codebase. Windows Vista is going to reflect a major rebuilding of the security infrastructure (though I'm not sure if I agree that it's doing it right). OS X really isn't comparable in terms of legacy code (despite its origins in Next and UNIX). Also, it reflects a different design philosophy, one that was more network and security aware from the ground up. You could argue that MS was stupid to design Windows around single computer norms, but at the time they did it, it made sense (the Mac OS that existed before OS X had lots of the same kind of legacy problems as Windows does). It is the way it is. Bashing Windows doesn't accomplish anything, anymore than bashing OS X would. -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 13:19, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Eric Dannewitz / 2006/10/01 / 01:03 PM wrote: repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) As far as I know, cron script does not invoke repair permission. It is mainly for cache cleaning task. Casn't you create a cron job to do the permission repair? -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 14:00, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 01 Oct 2006, at 12:45 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 15:47, Darcy James Argue wrote: The problem on Windows seems to be that for some strange reason, when saving backups, it's normal for Windows apps use the .bak extension instead of the usual filetype extension. That doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. Er, how else would have two files with the same root filename in the same location? Is it possible to have more than one MyMusic.mus in the same folder on a Mac? No, but there are two very easy solutions: 1) Specify a different folder for backups. (which I'd ruled out as a possibility in the discussion, since the default installation of Finale does *not* specify any backup or autosave folder) OR: 2) Have the application append bak BEFORE the file extension. This is what Finale does with autosaved files (not backups). If the regular file is MyMasterpiece.mus, the autosave file is MyMasterpiece asv.mus. I don't know why WinFin doesn't offer this option. Is it user controllable, or does it just happen because that's the way MacFin is written? Both of these seem much better than creating a bunch of .bak files that don't automatically open with the correct application when double-clicked, and don't show up as valid choices in Finale's Open menu unless you force it to by choosing All Files. I agree that it's better and don't understand why WinFin isn't set up exactly the same way. Makes no sense to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
David W. Fenton wrote: On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote: I'll take repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) over the virus/security hole of the day/week that Microsoft has any day. What are you talking about? I and my clients have not had a virus or worm for years. Of course, we don't use Microsoft's brower or email clients, but that's been a no-brainer for a decade for email clients (since they have always been substandard for Internet email), and for the last 5 years or so for the browser (since Mozilla started being usable c. 2001). Yes, but IE was still considered the STANDARD in 2001. I don't even have full-time virus monitoring on my home PC and have not had for nearly 10 years, and haven't had a single virus/worm. Part of that is due to proper firewalling, which many Windows user were not aware of, but which nowadays they get by default (with WinXP SP2, and with most broadband services providing NAT routers in their cable/DSL modems), the other part is due to sensible choice of email clients (ones that don't auto-execute content). I do have AVG's free AV program installed, but rarely have to use it. People who have problems with viruses are probably not using up-to- date versions of Windows or sensible Internet connection procedures. Last of all, damaged permissions are pretty serious. There is no reason that aan OS should stop properly-designed security system should have its ACLs damaged (or changed) on a regular basis. Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired No, it does not have it's ACLs damaged or changed on a regular basis. Stop the FUD. http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html is a good start on your path towards enlightenment. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:15, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: Firewire is a Sony/Apple technology and simply not well-supported elsewhere (because it's a closed technology). USB drives are bootable with newer BIOSes. All Dells allow it these days. Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. Yeah, you are right again. It's CLOSED technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire That is why it's on digital camcorders, and is an IEEE standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_E ngineers Yep. You are correct again. OK, if you're so smart, explain to me, if it's a fully open non- proprietary standard, it's not installed by default on any PCs except Apple and Sony? Why is it that the only hardware manufacturers who routinely provide firewire ports are the ones who created the standard? I'm not saying this is a good thing -- I think it's terrible, since it's a very good technology. But my surmise is the reason it's not universal (like the vastly inferior and unreliably USB) is that it was perceived as (or was) being controlled by two companies for their own interests. Maybe my explanation is wrong. Maybe you can provide a better explanation of why such an obviously superior technology (this I won't dispute) is not universally supported? -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 14:16, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 01 Oct 2006, at 2:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired. It doesn't. Earlier versions of OS X were prone to permissions errors, but this hardly ever happens any more. I have a script set to automatically repair permissions weekly, but that's more out of habit than anything. It never should have been a problem in a robustly designed system, seems to me. Do you know if the problem was due to misbehaving applications or a problem with OS X? You can certainly screw up the permissions in Windows to get it in an unbootable state. I've done it while trying to lock down NT 4 (fortunately I was able to boot to a command prompt on a floppy disk and change the ACLs to get it bootable again; this is c. 1998), and there's no easy way short of reinstalling Windows to get back the default permissions (I'd like to have a script that would reset to default permissions on Windows, but it's only because I've fiddled with permissions that I'd ever have needed it -- it's not something that I've ever seen happen without meddling from a human being like me). But application installations and regular Windows updates and OS operations can never screw up permissions in a way that causes unreliable operation of the OS or of applications. So, I have a hard time understanding why OS X was ever so fragile in this regard. It's pretty rare that someone actually needs to repair their permissions, although people still counsel this as a generic first step for anyone having problems with their setup. The same way, perhaps, that voodoo Windows troubleshooters start out reinstall Windows. -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 11:23, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote: I'll take repairing permissions (which is a cron job that most unix systems run weekly as well) over the virus/security hole of the day/week that Microsoft has any day. What are you talking about? I and my clients have not had a virus or worm for years. Of course, we don't use Microsoft's brower or email clients, but that's been a no-brainer for a decade for email clients (since they have always been substandard for Internet email), and for the last 5 years or so for the browser (since Mozilla started being usable c. 2001). Yes, but IE was still considered the STANDARD in 2001. Its security flaws were manifest to anyone paying attention long before that point (the whole ActiveX thing was a disaster waiting to happen, and guess what? It did) I don't even have full-time virus monitoring on my home PC and have not had for nearly 10 years, and haven't had a single virus/worm. Part of that is due to proper firewalling, which many Windows user were not aware of, but which nowadays they get by default (with WinXP SP2, and with most broadband services providing NAT routers in their cable/DSL modems), the other part is due to sensible choice of email clients (ones that don't auto-execute content). I do have AVG's free AV program installed, but rarely have to use it. People who have problems with viruses are probably not using up-to- date versions of Windows or sensible Internet connection procedures. Last of all, damaged permissions are pretty serious. There is no reason that aan OS should stop properly-designed security system should have its ACLs damaged (or changed) on a regular basis. Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired No, it does not have it's ACLs damaged or changed on a regular basis. Stop the FUD. Well, sorry. I don't have first-hand knowledge -- Im just relating my understanding, which I admit may be wrong. http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html is a good start on your path towards enlightenment. Ah, I see. OS X is an old-fashioned UNIX system that doesn't have ACLs, just UNIX-style creator/group/world permissions. Pardon me for assuming that OS X was in the modern world in regard to security. Makes it even more mystifying as to why the permissions get out of whack. I couldn't find any explanations as to why it happens in any of the links I followed from that useful URL above. -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 13:27, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 12:47 PM wrote: Where, exactly, does Windows require a floppy disk? When you need to do emergency boot. This was true in WIN 98 SE, but is not true in WIN XP. Emergency boot in WIN XP is from CD or DVD. Win2K also. In other words, it's been the case since 1999 or so. -- 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] BAK.files
On 01 Oct 2006, at 2:26 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: I don't know why WinFin doesn't offer this option. Is it user controllable, or does it just happen because that's the way MacFin is written? I believe it's the way MacFin is written. However, in many cases OS X will also rename files with the same filename automatically rather than overwriting -- for instance, if you are downloading a file from the web, and a file with the same name already exists in your default download location, OS X appends 1 to the filename of the more recent file. Same thing if you are expanding a zipped archive and the expanded file would have the same filename as an existing file in the same folder. 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] BAK.files
David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 02:04 PM wrote: Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. You are not helping, David. None of my lowly PCs, Dell Dimension P-III 1GHz, homemade P-II, and two ThinkPads boots off USB. ThinkPads even doesn't boots off CD. Floppy is the only way. We have gone through this twice in the past. Even if it booted off Windows installer CD, you can't do anything, like launch PQDI to restore image. All are needed to be done with Floppy boot. It is a bit surprising to hear from you that I have to buy a new PC :-) -- - 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] BAK.files
At 02:33 PM 10/1/2006, David W. Fenton wrote: On 1 Oct 2006 at 14:16, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 01 Oct 2006, at 2:10 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Something is wrong with the design of OS X's security subsystem if it has to be constantly repaired. It doesn't. Earlier versions of OS X were prone to permissions errors, but this hardly ever happens any more. I have a script set to automatically repair permissions weekly, but that's more out of habit than anything. It never should have been a problem in a robustly designed system, seems to me. When I used OS/2 for several years, IBM had file type stuff stored in an attributes file. This emulated the Mac, that the same file extension could be associated to different programs. Unfortunately, this part of OS/2 was very prone to breaking and rendering files unusable. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 15:04, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 02:04 PM wrote: Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. You are not helping, David. None of my lowly PCs, Dell Dimension P-III 1GHz, homemade P-II, and two ThinkPads boots off USB. ThinkPads even doesn't boots off CD. Floppy is the only way. We have gone through this twice in the past. You're conflating two different assertions of mine. I said that CD booting had been around for a very long time, and that recent machines offer USB booting. Thinkpads are not Windows-friendly, in general, as IBM seems never to have forgiven MS for the OS/2 vs. Windows fight. This is the only reason I can think of to inconvenience the vast majority of the users of their Thinkpads by omitting the Windows key. BTW, I booted a Thinkpad from CD just the other day, so it must be an older one (this one will be two years old in October). Even if it booted off Windows installer CD, you can't do anything, like launch PQDI to restore image. All are needed to be done with Floppy boot. That's simply not true. If you boot to the command console, you'll get a command line that would allow you to launch anything that can run in a command prompt. It is a bit surprising to hear from you that I have to buy a new PC :-) If you want to boot from CD and use the command console, you need a PC built after c. 1999. If you want to boot from USB, you need a PC built in the last couple of years. None of the machines you describe should need a boot floppy. Maybe you just don't know how to use the Windows installation disk and the command console. -- 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] BAK.files
Phil Daley wrote: When I used OS/2 for several years, IBM had file type stuff stored in an attributes file. This emulated the Mac, that the same file extension could be associated to different programs. Unfortunately, this part of OS/2 was very prone to breaking and rendering files unusable. Maybe, but it was very easy to fix, and keeping a backup of the attributes file was pretty much SOP for most of the people in my OS/2 users group. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Hmm, well, my home made PCs can boot off CD-Rom/DVD. This includes my lowly dual pentium III server computer, bought and built by me in 1998. But, what you can do when you boot, that is a different matter. You can't really do anything useful with the Windows XP CD. Perhaps the emergency disk helps? But I think when one runs Windows, you pray to God that you never have to go through the hell of fixing it. At least, I do. A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 02:04 PM wrote: Seems to me you're just behind the times, which is pretty typical of those who criticize both Windows and Mac. You are not helping, David. None of my lowly PCs, Dell Dimension P-III 1GHz, homemade P-II, and two ThinkPads boots off USB. ThinkPads even doesn't boots off CD. Floppy is the only way. We have gone through this twice in the past. Even if it booted off Windows installer CD, you can't do anything, like launch PQDI to restore image. All are needed to be done with Floppy boot. It is a bit surprising to hear from you that I have to buy a new PC :-) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
I have no clue as to why it's not supported more. However, a lot of newer motherboards do have firewire on them now. I imagine PC makers, and it's users, are slow adapting to anything new. Look at PC cases. They haven't changed in 20 years. Still boxes. They still have PS/2 connectors. And Parallel ports (though it looks like Dell isn't offering Parallel ports on computers anymore) http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_410?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs There are a lot of OPEN, non-proprietary things out there (bluetooth for example). I just thing the majority of PC users, mainly Windows users, would stick with something forever..like having software written in 1992 still run on their current system.. David W. Fenton wrote: OK, if you're so smart, explain to me, if it's a fully open non- proprietary standard, it's not installed by default on any PCs except Apple and Sony? Why is it that the only hardware manufacturers who routinely provide firewire ports are the ones who created the standard? I'm not saying this is a good thing -- I think it's terrible, since it's a very good technology. But my surmise is the reason it's not universal (like the vastly inferior and unreliably USB) is that it was perceived as (or was) being controlled by two companies for their own interests. Maybe my explanation is wrong. Maybe you can provide a better explanation of why such an obviously superior technology (this I won't dispute) is not universally supported? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 13:38, Eric Dannewitz wrote: You can't really do anything useful with the Windows XP CD. You can if you boot to the command console. -- 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] BAK.files
The reality is there are still 70-80% IE users. The breakdown at my site in 2006: MS Internet Explorer 75.9 % Firefox 2.4 % Safari 3.7 % Unknown 3.3 % Mozilla 1.4 % Opera 1.2 % Netscape 0.8 % Windows 89.4 % Macintosh 5 % Unknown 4.5 % Linux 0.8 % ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Only 5% of Mac's out there? We should start wearing any kind of bracelet to recognize ourselves. We are s few. [We'll revise the figures after Windows Vista makes 70% of the installed PC's unusable] Javier (80% Mac-20%PC Pentium [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get the wireless signal from my sister's apartment ;) The breakdown at my site in 2006: MS Internet Explorer 75.9 % Firefox 2.4 % Safari 3.7 % Unknown 3.3 % Mozilla 1.4 % Opera 1.2 % Netscape 0.8 % Windows 89.4 % Macintosh 5 % Unknown 4.5 % Linux 0.8 % ___ 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 14:10, Richard Yates wrote: The reality is there are still 70-80% IE users. The breakdown at my site in 2006: MS Internet Explorer 75.9 % Firefox 2.4 % Safari 3.7 % Unknown 3.3 % Mozilla 1.4 % Opera 1.2 % Netscape 0.8 % The website of a client of mine has: IE 50% Netscape 16% Mozilla10% Safari 9% Konquerer 0.62% (the rest of the traffic is spiders/bots) Windows 89.4 % Macintosh 5 % Unknown 4.5 % Linux 0.8 % Windows 58% Unknown 15% Mac 12% Linux 0.72% My personal website has: Netscape (compatible) 40% IE29% Mozilla/Firefox7% Safari 1% Opera 1% Unknown OS 62% Windows 36% Mac 2% Unix 1% So, it largely depends on who the audience is for your website whether you are seeing 70-80% IE traffic or not. None of the sites I'm involved with are seeing anything close to that. In any event, nobody in his or her right mind designs a website for a particular browser's rendering engine, but instead designs first for web standards, then does what is necessary to make the page render properly in the most widespread browsers. In practical sense, this means design for Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera then add all the tweaks necessary to make it come out right in the three distinct rendering engines of Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE5.1, IE5.5, IE6.x), all of which are severely broken in regard to standards compliance. It might seem that it would be more sensible to design for IE first, but it's easier to hack for IE than it is to hack IE-compatible HTML to work in standards-compliant browsers. Secondly, IE7 is going to be more standards-compliant (though not compliant enough -- MS has decided not to implement full CSS/CSS2 compliance, sadly), so you'd be boxing yourself into designing for a soon-to-be-obsolete rendering engine. -- 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] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 13:55, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: OK, if you're so smart, explain to me, if it's a fully open non- proprietary standard, it's not installed by default on any PCs except Apple and Sony? Why is it that the only hardware manufacturers who routinely provide firewire ports are the ones who created the standard? I'm not saying this is a good thing -- I think it's terrible, since it's a very good technology. But my surmise is the reason it's not universal (like the vastly inferior and unreliably USB) is that it was perceived as (or was) being controlled by two companies for their own interests. Maybe my explanation is wrong. Maybe you can provide a better explanation of why such an obviously superior technology (this I won't dispute) is not universally supported? I have no clue as to why it's not supported more. I was offering one explanation as to why the adoption of Firewire would be slow, because it was proprietary. However, a lot of newer motherboards do have firewire on them now. Which? What major PC manufacturers have firewire ports on their default configurations (not an add-on)? I imagine PC makers, and it's users, are slow adapting to anything new. You mean like USB? Once it was supported well by the OS (i.e., with the Win2K), it took off like crazy. It was only delayed by Win98's patchy support of USB. Look at PC cases. They haven't changed in 20 years. Still boxes. Um, who cares? And so far as I can tell, there are lots of different form factors available in different product lines from different manufacturers. And top-of-the-line Macs are still just plain old boxes, too, no? Doesn't have anything to do with how good a computer they are. They still have PS/2 connectors. Because USB is so unreliable and problematic, it's a good thing that they still have PS/2 connectors. And Parallel ports (though it looks like Dell isn't offering Parallel ports on computers anymore) Really? The most recent Dell purchases my customers have made have all had parallel ports in them. I don't like USB printers, myself, because there's too much problem with contention on the single bus. I think it's better to have a port dedicated to printing, rather than sharing the bandwidth with a dozen or more other devices. http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_410?c=u scs=19l=ens=dhs I can't find a single Dell desktop with a parallel port, and only two models with PS2 and serial ports. Sad, actually, since everything's been replaced with USB, which simply doesn't work very well. This is a quick change for Dell, as a machine ordered from them only 3 months ago had a parallel port (don't know if it had a PS2 port). There are a lot of OPEN, non-proprietary things out there (bluetooth for example). I don't see any purpose for bluetooth myself, but I'm unimpressed wireless input devices because of the battery issues and the potential radio interference (i.e., as with USB, you're sharing your bandwidth and, worse than USB, have no control over others' use of the bandwidth you're sharing). I just thing the majority of PC users, mainly Windows users, would stick with something forever..like having software written in 1992 still run on their current system.. Is there something wrong with that? If the software does what you want and runs reliably, why in the world would you want to replace 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] BAK.files
The reality is there are still 70-80% IE users. The breakdown at my site in 2006: MS Internet Explorer 75.9 % The website of a client of mine has: IE 50% Windows 89.4 % Macintosh 5 % Windows 58% Unknown 15% Mac 12% My personal website has: Netscape (compatible) 40% IE29% Mozilla/Firefox7% Safari 1% Opera 1% Unknown OS 62% Windows 36% Mac 2% Unix 1% So, it largely depends on who the audience is for your website whether you are seeing 70-80% IE traffic or not. None of the sites I'm involved with are seeing anything close to that. What are the numbers when you subtract your own visits! (Just kidding). Seriously, I am amazed the differences in these numbers. Does anyone else have any to compare with? RY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 1 Oct 2006 at 15:04, Richard Yates wrote: The reality is there are still 70-80% IE users. The breakdown at my site in 2006: MS Internet Explorer 75.9 % The website of a client of mine has: IE 50% Windows 89.4 % Macintosh 5 % Windows 58% Unknown 15% Mac 12% My personal website has: Netscape (compatible) 40% IE29% Mozilla/Firefox7% Safari 1% Opera 1% Unknown OS 62% Windows 36% Mac 2% Unix 1% So, it largely depends on who the audience is for your website whether you are seeing 70-80% IE traffic or not. None of the sites I'm involved with are seeing anything close to that. What are the numbers when you subtract your own visits! (Just kidding). Seriously, I am amazed the differences in these numbers. Does anyone else have any to compare with? Heh. You'd be right of course, as not very many people visit my website. The most traffic comes from search engine spiders/bots, which is why there's a large chunk not visible. But I only use Mozilla or Firefox and *never* IE, it does get easier to figure it out. My version of Firefox reports itself as: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/2005 Firefox/1.5 So I don't know how my website's stats programs are categorizing it. If I used a different stats view I might get a different breakdown. I suspect it's categorizing my own visits under Netscape compatible, as it makes no sense otherwise. But I'm actually surprised that I'm only making 40% of the visits to my website! Especially in the last month, where I've been testing Wiki programs and setting one up, with lots of edits. -- 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] BAK.files
David W. Fenton / 2006/10/01 / 04:06 PM wrote: None of the machines you describe should need a boot floppy. Maybe you just don't know how to use the Windows installation disk and the command console. You are correct, David. I don't know how to launch CLI from Win2K installer disk. I just tried it, and it has no such option. How do you launch CLI from Win2K installer disk? And you are saying I can launch win32 apps from there as the same as you launch from Win2K? And I can remove Win2K installer disk to access backup image from a DVD-R? Oh, wait, to restore image to C:, I can launch application, PQDI on the C: drive. What is my alternative? On my Mac, I just boot off a backup drive which is bootable, and restore image in no time. What do you do on PC? I have been doing this with Floppy disks, including swapping floppy many, many times. Very time consuming. If there is one DVD solution, I'd jump on it. Appreciate you help. -- - 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] BAK.files
Um, Windows. Go figure... Try renaming the file from .BAK to .MUS. That will work. If the BAK file is in the same directory as the original .MUS file, rename one of them like Mygreatscore_bak.mus or Mygreatscore_oldmus.mus Will Denayer wrote: Thank you everyone, Now it makes sense again. However, I do not seem to be able to open a BAK.file (I can't find it inside Finale and when I click on the icon, Windows says that it cannot open the document but that it can look up the program on the net. When I click OK, nothing happens). It's just that I do not want to lose work later on. Of course, I am going to study the manual and the tutorials. One of the reasons for choosing Finale is that I was able to use Notepad first. I found this easy to work with. But now, I think Finale is really difficult - in general, my computer skills are very poor. I'm proud of myself that I managed to subscribe to this forum without help ... Best, Will Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. *Enter now* http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/mobile_o2/*http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry. ___ 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] BAK.files
Have you tried changing the .BAK extension to .MUS? On 30 Sep 2006, at 17:23, Will Denayer wrote: Thank you everyone, Now it makes sense again. However, I do not seem to be able to open a BAK.file (I can't find it inside Finale and when I click on the icon, Windows says that it cannot open the document but that it can look up the program on the net. When I click OK, nothing happens). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006 at 10:40, Eric Dannewitz wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 8:29, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Um, Windows. Go figure... Try renaming the file from .BAK to .MUS. That will work. If the BAK file is in the same directory as the original .MUS file, rename one of them like Mygreatscore_bak.mus or Mygreatscore_oldmus.mus This just ridiculous. You don't have to change the file extension unless you want ShellExecute to open the file with a doubleclick. Just use FILE | OPEN in Finale, and change the FILES OF TYPE dropdown to ALL FILES. If you want, put *.BAK in the FILENAME box. Once you see the file listed, select it and open it. There's nothing problematic about the way Windows works here -- it's just that nobody gets any training anymore on the most basic aspects of how to use their computers. Yes, it is ridiculous. On a Mac when you double click the backup file, it opens with FinaleHowever, on my XP machine, if you double click on a .BAK file, it opens with Word. Only because you've set it to open BAK files with Word. That's certainly not the default Windows file association. Life is too short. Get a Mac. No, learn how to use your Windows machine. Yes, the Mac has metadata and keeps data about file creator and which application to use to open it, which means multiple apps can use the same file assocation (at least, it used to be that way -- did OS X's UNIX origins remove that?). Windows doesn't work that way. I've often complained about that, having the wish that MS would implement a more modern file system, but it's been that way for as long as Windows has existed and anyone who doesn't know how to work with file associations simply doesn't have training necessary to be a normal every-day Windows user. You may claim that Mac doesn't require any training, but that's obvious BS -- you have to have certain basic understandings of the conventions and workings of any OS in order to make it work. What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. -- 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006, at 1:51 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Yes, the Mac has metadata and keeps data about file creator and which application to use to open it, which means multiple apps can use the same file assocation (at least, it used to be that way -- did OS X's UNIX origins remove that?). Yes. OS X uses file extensions and not metadata, same as Windows. The reason Finale's backup files open in Finale when you double-click them is that on Mac, Finale's autosave appends .mus and not .bak. If it appended .bak, you would have exactly the same problem as Windows (unless you set Finale to be the default application to open all .bak files. 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] BAK.files
Even fewer steps... right click the file and choose OPEN WITH and then choose Finale200x version that you wish to open it with. If it is a finale Bak it will show Finale as an option to open it with. ___ J. Scott Jones Band/Orchestra Director/Freelance Trumpet Player-Teacher/Music Engraver On Sep 30, 2006, at 1:15 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 at 8:29, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Um, Windows. Go figure... Try renaming the file from .BAK to .MUS. That will work. If the BAK file is in the same directory as the original .MUS file, rename one of them like Mygreatscore_bak.mus or Mygreatscore_oldmus.mus This just ridiculous. You don't have to change the file extension unless you want ShellExecute to open the file with a doubleclick. Just use FILE | OPEN in Finale, and change the FILES OF TYPE dropdown to ALL FILES. If you want, put *.BAK in the FILENAME box. Once you see the file listed, select it and open it. There's nothing problematic about the way Windows works here -- it's just that nobody gets any training anymore on the most basic aspects of how to use their computers. -- 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006 at 15:07, Scott Jones wrote: Even fewer steps... right click the file and choose OPEN WITH and then choose Finale200x version that you wish to open it with. If it is a finale Bak it will show Finale as an option to open it with. That's right click on WinXP and Win2K3 Server (and some service packs of Win2K) and shift right click on all other versions of Windows. And be sure to uncheck always use this program to open these files or you'll end up having Finale open BAK files created by other applications (it's a generic extension for any backup). -- 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] BAK.files
David W. Fenton wrote: No, learn how to use your Windows machine. Yes, the Mac has metadata and keeps data about file creator and which application to use to open it, which means multiple apps can use the same file assocation (at least, it used to be that way -- did OS X's UNIX origins remove that?). Windows doesn't work that way. Cause Windows is a kludge. And I know how to use my Windows system thank you very much. I've often complained about that, having the wish that MS would implement a more modern file system, but it's been that way for as long as Windows has existed and anyone who doesn't know how to work with file associations simply doesn't have training necessary to be a normal every-day Windows user. See the above. Windows is a kludge. You may claim that Mac doesn't require any training, but that's obvious BS -- you have to have certain basic understandings of the conventions and workings of any OS in order to make it work. What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. You stated above that the Mac has metadata that keeps track of things. So, even though I have .BAK word and .BAK Finale and other files, the Mac OS can open the right program to run them. Hell, you can even get rid of the extensions and it will know what to open the files with. So, it's NOT BS. The Mac KNOWS what to open files with. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Will Denayer wrote: Thank you everyone, Now it makes sense again. However, I do not seem to be able to open a BAK.file (I can't find it inside Finale and when I click on the icon, Windows says that it cannot open the document but that it can look up the program on the net. When I click OK, nothing happens). It's just that I do not want to lose work later on. Depending upon what platform you are one (I am on Windows XP), and how you have chosen to structure your workflow, you may or may not be well advised to just edit filename extensions to ~.mus so as to be able to open the file. The way I use is to select File open, and in the dropdown menu in the open file dialog box to select the file type I want (all files, if I need to open a ~.BAK or ~.ASV file. I then highlight the desired file in the open file dialog box, and click open. Another resource you can use to help learn Finale, is to study the efforts of other users. If you are doing choral music, the Choral Public Domain Library (www.cpdl.org) has a number of scores in Finale; if you are doing instrumental music, a good place to start is the Finale showcase. Download a score, and see how the copyist / editor / notesetter did what he did. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006, at 3:31 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Not true at all. You stated above that the Mac has metadata that keeps track of things. So, even though I have .BAK word and .BAK Finale and other files, the Mac OS can open the right program to run them. Hell, you can even get rid of the extensions and it will know what to open the files with. So, it's NOT BS. The Mac KNOWS what to open files with. OS X uses file extensions, same as Windows. It's just a little smarter about it than Windows -- it knows which applications can open which file types. If I change the file extension of a Finale document to .doc, it will still open in Finale, not Word. If I change the file extension to .pdf it will still open in Finale, not Acrobat or Preview. And if I change the extension to .bak, it will still open in Finale. Problems do arise, though, when you start dealing with files that were not created on your computer, with a file extension that OS X doesn't recognize. The problem on Windows seems to be that for some strange reason, when saving backups, it's normal for Windows apps use the .bak extension instead of the usual filetype extension. That doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. 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] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006, at 3:42 PM, Richard Yates wrote: What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. Not since they switched to OS X. If we're going to have platform wars, perhaps they could at least be up-to-date. OS X is up to 10.4.8 at this point, with 10.5 due next year. OS 9 is a distant memory for most 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: [Finale] BAK.files
At 03:47 PM 9/30/06 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's just a little smarter about it than Windows -- it knows which applications can open which file types. If I change the file extension of a Finale document to .doc, it will still open in Finale, not Word. If I change the file extension to .pdf it will still open in Finale, not Acrobat or Preview. And if I change the extension to .bak, it will still open in Finale. Does that mean you cannot force another app to open any file on Mac? Or is the 'sticky' association more of a convenience? I often clone copies and then change file extensions to force another program to open it. It's very handy for quick changes of a file as 'text', looking at seemingly broken files that arrived via email, grabbing internal content for another purpose, or opening a different kind of file into a sound editor or graphics editor. Great for source material. And I added Notepad to my context menu to peek at any file. Just in case. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
On 30 Sep 2006, at 4:28 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 03:47 PM 9/30/06 -0400, Darcy James Argue wrote: It's just a little smarter about it than Windows -- it knows which applications can open which file types. If I change the file extension of a Finale document to .doc, it will still open in Finale, not Word. If I change the file extension to .pdf it will still open in Finale, not Acrobat or Preview. And if I change the extension to .bak, it will still open in Finale. Does that mean you cannot force another app to open any file on Mac? Or is the 'sticky' association more of a convenience? The latter. I can, for instance, drag my Finale files to TextEdit and force-open them that way. Also, I noticed that OS X is not quite as smart about this as I thought. Sometimes, changing the file extension to .PDF really will cause Finale files to (try and fail to) open in my PDF reader. I'm not quite sure why this doesn't happen consistently. 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] BAK.files
On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 30 Sep 2006, at 4:28 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Does that mean you cannot force another app to open any file on Mac? Or is the 'sticky' association more of a convenience? The latter. I can, for instance, drag my Finale files to TextEdit and force-open them that way. You can also right-click (control-click for one-button folks) and select Open With... You can also select the file, hit command-I for file info, and change the Open With... default to whatever you want. You can also make ALL files with that type open with the new app, which caused me problems when I set Preview to be my default .pdf reader. As it turns out, Finale can only use Acrobat Reader for the manual, so I kept getting error messages until I changed those files back again. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] BAK.files
Completely different issue than a file extension. And that is a OS 9 and before thing, so, maybe 6 years ago that would be a fair dig. But it's about as outdated now as Floppy disks. Oh, but Windows still uses those You can read up on OS X via Wikipedia or even http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/2 Richard Yates wrote: What you have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. Not true at all. Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
