Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> I very much doubt that this will make any difference to Finale
> sales, though.
This is the point that burns me up. Finale 2003 was a terrible upgrade--perhaps the
most useless we've ever seen. So it sold really badly. So some marketing genius
decided this must be beca
I'm certain that having your final sentence in the back of their minds makes
a lot of folks more comfortable! - see snip below! Regards, Keith in OZ
> But both Tobias and I can be somewhat cheerful about it, because in that
hopefully unlikely scenario, either one or both of us could fairly easily
> If we switch to Fin04, *we can't go back*!!!
The technology to "go back" can and will be developed (if needed) as a
plug-in, even if Finale dies. In fact, MusicXML already provides backwards
compatibility to an amazing extent.
Cheers,
Tobias
___
Fina
If the copy protection scheme were merely a challenge/response where I had to supply a
registration number every time I installed, I would be completely comfortable with it.
Legitimate users *are*, however, penalized by the scheme that Finale 2004 employs,
because it makes our continued use of F
Robert Patterson Finale wrote:
But both Tobias and I can be somewhat cheerful about it, because in that hopefully unlikely scenario, either one or both of us could fairly easily write a program to downgrade the files. :-)
Are you taking pre-orders? If so, please put my name on the list! ;-)
Robert Patterson:
Going on about 12 years, I still occasionally fire up Finale 2.6.3.
I recently discovered it still runs in Classic.
Yeah, but it doesn't *print out* (from any driver) under System 9.
For that reason, I have been systematically updating all my 2.6.3
files as orders come in for
