At 12:56 PM +0100 8/22/04, Owain Sutton wrote:
David Hage wrote:
In my humble opinion it must be that 90% of Sibelius users never used a
music notation program before
Unfortunately, simplicity sells.
Well of COURSE simplicity sells. Simplicity is also the hallmark of
a mature technology. Simplic
John made interesting points about simplicity and mature technology, but
I'm not sure I completely agree with some of his points. For example,
he cites land-line telephony as being simple because it was a mature
technology, and I don't agree that there is any cause and effect
relationship betw
John Howell wrote:
[snip]> The power users on this mailing list--and I have enormous
respect for
them and their knowledge and skills--scoff at the idea of using Finale,
or any program, right out of the box, but I submit that the expectation
of using something right out of the box is a legitimate
On 22 Aug 2004 at 15:02, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> And how to get people to buy annual upgrades?
>
> Feature creep.
Feature creep is justified when the product is finished and bug-free
and has no components in need of redesign or fundamental re-
engineering.
Coda could get upgrade revenue by p
On 22 Aug 2004 at 15:02, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> How many of you who are not upgrading to 2k5 would be
> willing to pay the same price as the upgrade to continue using 2k4?
Not me.
I pay for upgrades when the accumulation of improvements becomes
great enough to justify paying again 50% of t
David W. Fenton wrote:
I still think Finale is riddled with too many cases of "leaky
abstractions", where the underlying plumbing shows through into the
user interface layer (see
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html), and
it doesn't seem to me that Coda is doing too m
At 5:55 pm -0400 8/23/04, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 22 Aug 2004 at 15:02, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
How many of you who are not upgrading to 2k5 would be
willing to pay the same price as the upgrade to continue using 2k4?
Not me.
...
companies *hate* paying subscriptions for software, and I don't b
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
[snip]>
Look at other companies that have switched to Copy Protection Servers:
Intuit deprecates older versions as regularly as clockwork; look at what
Microsoft is doing to every version of Windows prior to (its Copy
Protection Server "enhanced") XP.
What is Microsoft d
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
Finale has already reached subscription status.
Once users surrendered themselves to groveling before the Finale Copy
Protection Server for each installation subscription status was fait
accompli.
Why should the Copy Protection Server allow the installation of a
no-long
At 05:09 AM 8/24/04 -0500, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
>Finale has already reached subscription status.
>Once users surrendered themselves to groveling before the Finale Copy
>Protection Server for each installation subscription status was fait
>accompli.
>Why should the Copy Protection Server allow
At 6:53 am -0400 8/24/04, dhbailey wrote:
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
[snip]
Look at other companies that have switched to Copy Protection
Servers: Intuit deprecates older versions as regularly as
clockwork; look at what Microsoft is doing to every version of
Windows prior to (its Copy Protection S
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 6:53 am -0400 8/24/04, dhbailey wrote:
Microsoft has turned Windows into a de facto subscription service: All
versions prior to XP are being deprecated. None will be supported after
3/31/05. Installation of XP, or following releases, will be required to
receive esse
Reading what Dennis W. Manasco wrote (quoted below, in part) leads me to
believe that there are a number of people who did not carefully read the
license agreement upon installation. The fact is, MakeMusic!'s present
policy with respect to software installation, even with the mandatory
regist
John Howell wrote:
At 12:56 PM +0100 8/22/04, Owain Sutton wrote:
David Hage wrote:
In my humble opinion it must be that 90% of Sibelius users never used a
music notation program before
Unfortunately, simplicity sells.
Well of COURSE simplicity sells. Simplicity is also the hallmark of a
mature
On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote:
> I know one person who nearly gave
> up on Finale almost immediately in frustration, until I explained the
> difference between two identical icons (the Simple Entry and Eight
> Note buttons).
Every new user of Finale should go through *all* the tuto
On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote:
> . . . why do most people still use Internet
> Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing.
I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first two weeks I was
staying with an older couple who use AOL. Their copy of Internet
Explorer was
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote:
. . . why do most people still use Internet
Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing.
I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first two weeks I was
staying with an older couple who use AOL. Their copy of Int
On Aug 23, 2004, at 2:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Every new user of Finale should go through *all* the tutorials -- if
they did, then they wouldn't have questions like that.
What was it you were saying about winning contracts over competitors?
I understand what you mean about wishing that users w
Mark D Lew wrote:
Then again, if "tutorial" means an actual printed manual, then you've
got my attention! If it's a PDF monstrosity, or worse a little applet
that launches my browser and runs something on their website, then
phphpltt.
Amen. A brief glance (for the first time) at the 2003 ma
On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:39, Owain Sutton wrote:
> David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote:
> >
> >>. . . why do most people still use Internet
> >>Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing.
> >
> > I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first tw
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:39, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I know they haven't heard of them.
But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to
put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with
it (which would then lead to t
David W. Fenton wrote:
But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to
put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with
it (which would then lead to them finding out about the
alternatives).
There is an infrequently asked question about alphabetical or
On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing -
nobody can ignore that.
I've been pretty successful at ignoring it. Ever since I got onto OS X
and Safari last fall, Darcy has been trying to tell me how tabbed
browsing is going
Mark D Lew wrote:
On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing -
nobody can ignore that.
...
I'm not trying to argue against it, mind you. If everyone else in the
world thinks it's wonderful, that's great. I'm just rebuttin
> What I actually meant was that all of the conversions I have achieved
> (blimey, I need the Book of Mozilla in my hand or something :p ) have
> all reached their culmination *not* when I explain that they'll be much
> safer from adware and the like, but when I show them that the program
> could s
Richard Yates wrote:
(By the way, the closing browser mystery turned out to have an odd solution.
I had set the middle button of my wheel mouse to 'close application'.
Apparently when some sites downloaded this command got cross-wired (even
though the button was not pressed) and closed the browse
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:16:35 -0700, Richard Yates
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And then I discovered tabbed Windows
> and was hooked at once. I had always wished for this feature (without
> knowing exactly what it would be) as I kept trying to use "Open in new
> window" in IE and never finding it
On 23 Aug 2004 at 17:57, Mark D Lew wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
>
> > My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing -
> > nobody can ignore that.
>
> I've been pretty successful at ignoring it. Ever since I got onto OS
> X and Safari last fall,
What browser is better than IE if I am still using OS 9.2?
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:46 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I know many people who said "who cares" for months, even years, and
then actually tried it and then said "Oh! Now I get it!"
So I've heard. Perhaps some day I'll be one of those. But not today.
If you like re-using a single window for every docu
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
I rarely have several windows open at once. We went through this with
the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a
couple of windows open anywhere. It feels like clutter to me. I'd
rather close them and open them again la
At 09:08 AM 8/25/04 -0400, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
>>
>> I rarely have several windows open at once. We went through this with
>> the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a
>> couple of windows open anywhere. It feels
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:39:55 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> now I've got a utility to minimize everything that's typically running into
> the system tray (mail, browser, audio editor, Finale, etc.).
Out of curiosity, what utility is that?
> I've never really found much of a use for multipl
At 08:56 AM 8/25/04 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:39:55 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>
>> now I've got a utility to minimize everything that's typically running into
>> the system tray (mail, browser, audio editor, Finale, etc.).
>
>Out of curiosity, what utility is that
On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:08 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Ha ha! That's strange, because I LIKE having all my drawers and
cupboards open (to the distress of my wife) but I don't like tabbed
browsing! Maybe I should give it another look, since it seems to suit
my personality type so well...
Ha ha. Bu
On 24 Aug 2004 at 21:40, Mark D Lew wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:46 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> > If you like re-using a single window for every document, and the lag
> > time it takes to re-render when you go back, and if you don't mind
> > the proliferation of multiple windows when you want
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:11 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Surely there are valid reasons, such as comparisons between web sites
when you're buying something online (or just shopping online) or when
selecting a batch of items on, say, Amazon, or doing research and
collecting a group of references.
Sure t
37 matches
Mail list logo
