John Bell wrote:
When Finale for Mac OS X first came out I was dismayed by its slowness
and found it extremely difficult to work with. I was then using a
relatively slow G4. Since getting a 2.5 GHz G5 the problem has gone
completely. The current version of Finale seems to me by far the best so
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]>
My bet is that you don't remember the failed NIFF project. MusicXML
potentially will realize the promise that NIFF had in it, and since
it's being developed independently of an particular music notation
vendor, it cannot be so easily killed by politics, as NIFF was
> I know that Sibelius has a lot of fans
> but I am not one of them.
>
> Does anyone want to buy it from me?
I sold mine on eBay for Â300. They were happy to transfer the ownership.
Simon Troup
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shs
When Finale for Mac OS X first came out I was dismayed by its slowness
and found it extremely difficult to work with. I was then using a
relatively slow G4. Since getting a 2.5 GHz G5 the problem has gone
completely. The current version of Finale seems to me by far the best
so far.
I bought Si
Thanks for all the interest and comments about MusicXML. I wanted to
reply to some of David and William's points in particular:
> Yes, [MusicXML is] vastly superior to what would be required with a
> mere MIDI import, but it still requires a lot of work to get the
> result into the exact layout
Friends,
While I knew some of what Robert Patterson wrote, about ~.ETF, I was
unaware of some of the details he provides, and factoring those into the
equation, I'll admit that it's something like the "mini-spare tires"
automakers in the U.S. currently provide as standard with most vehicles.
Ho
I share the skepticism towards the value of ETF as an archiving format, as
compared with something like MusicXML.
ETF is nothing more than a text representation of the binary .mus file. The
only sense in which it is "open" is in the fact that it is text. The short
document that Makemusic releas
On 27 Apr 2005 at 9:25, William Roberts wrote:
> Perhaps I'm just a pragmatist at heart and
> not easily swayed by philosophy, but it seems to me that if a
> third-party format is already supported by other applications (like
> MusicXML is), so that no especial effort has to be entered into in
> o
Noel wrote:
and I would say in my defense that since I did not begin with
Finale until 2k, I do not even have a user's manual from which to
provide a first or second page.
Sure you do. Just print out the first two pages of the OLD. Voilà!
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/
> You will find no increase in working speed by using Sibelius over
> Finale in OS X. In reality, it will be slower and far more frustating
> especially if you are an ex
Absolutely! If you don't want to do something they way it wants to do it, then
be prepared to simply compramise your final outp
Noel wrote:
> and I would say in my defense that since I did not begin with
> Finale until 2k, I do not even have a user's manual from which to
> provide a first or second page.
You didn't get a little tutorial book with your copy of Finale? My first
version of Finale was 2002, and that certa
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale
(up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficiently in FinMAC 2002/Mac OS 9.2.2.
Eric,
I still
ER @ HOME wrote:
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale (up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficiently in FinMAC 2002/Mac OS 9.2.2
William Roberts quoted the Sibelius website
"You must provide proof of ownership of Finale, Encore, or Mosaic by mailing the
first and second pages of your table of contents in your user manual or send us your
original program CD."
in response to my comment
It occurs to me, too, that Sibelius, in
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> It occurs to me, too, that Sibelius, in order to obtain the
> competitive upgrade requires you to send them your MakeMusic!
> distribution disk.
That's not how I read it. It says on Sibelius's web site:
"You must provide proof of ownership of Finale, Encore, or Mosai
ER @ HOME wrote:
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale (up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficiently in FinMAC 2002/Mac OS 9.2.2
ER @ HOME wrote:
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale (up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficiently in FinMAC 2002/Mac OS 9.2.2
Speed isn't everything. If you are getting a new system, things will run
fast regardless of a program running on Windows or Mac. I use Finale on
both. I'd say the Mac setup gives me less headaches. And OS X's
interface somehow makes Finale more enjoyable to use.
I guess it comes down to how goo
: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:13 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] The BIG Switch: FinMAC to SIBELIUS 3.1 OS X?
Oh, wait -- I was mistaken. The cross-upgrade for Sibelius 3 is $199,
same as Finale's. I was sure it used to be $99, but I guess I could be
misremembering.
- Darcy
-
[
Oh, wait -- I was mistaken. The cross-upgrade for Sibelius 3 is $199,
same as Finale's. I was sure it used to be $99, but I guess I could be
misremembering.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 26 Apr 2005, at 3:11 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Actually, FWIW, Sibelius has a very com
Actually, FWIW, Sibelius has a very competitive upgrade for Finale
users ($99) that is less than the cost of a Finale version upgrade (at
least, without the "early bird" discount).
Finale's cross-upgrade for Sibelius users is $199. I'm no marketing
genius, but it doesn't seem like a good idea
Eric,
You've been through the worst of Finale, in terms of bugs. You've
mastered a very difficult program, that will do almost anything you
want. Why change now, just for a little speed?
I'm using FinMac 2005 on an ancient G4/400, and it's okay. It works
better than the old versions, and on a
I agree with Robert that you are asking the wrong list, however, why
don't you just see for yourself? Go download the Fin2k5 demo and check
whether it is too slow for your needs.
Once you find problematic areas in 2k5, you may want to ask MakeMusic
whether they can give you any information on w
> With all of the buzz in the Finale Digest and elsewhere about how
> much slower the carbonized OS X incarnations of Finale run than the
> pre-OS X versions, I refuse to lay out major cash for the privilege
> of working SLOWER...not to mention the new slew of post OS X Finale
> bugs I've been hear
On Apr 26, 2005, at 12:39 PM, ER @ HOME wrote:
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale
(up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficien
te quickly.
> -Original Message-
> From: ER @ HOME [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 04:39 PM
> To: finale@shsu.edu
> Subject: [Finale] The BIG Switch: FinMAC to SIBELIUS 3.1 OS X?
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm soliciting advice and input regar
Hello,
I'm soliciting advice and input regarding making the "BIG" Switch from
FinMAC 2002/'03 to Sibelius 3.1 (OS X). I'm an expert user of Finale (up and
running since the infamous US$1000.00 version 1.0) and am able to work
very quickly and efficiently in FinMAC 2002/Mac OS 9.2.2.
I use my syst
27 matches
Mail list logo
