Neal Gittleman wrote:
[snip] Me:
Which seems to me to be an argument for keeping your old computer as it
currently is once you get your next computer. Same as keeping a
turntable to play LPs after purchasing a CD player. Knock-wood, I've
never had to replace a Mac because it stopped working.
At 06:11 AM 5/26/06 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
But it won't be long before we're all running WindowsScenicViewOSxi and
we'll all be screwed as we all have to buy computers built on the
resurrected 6502 architecture. :-)
Not *there's* some code I can write! Yeah!
Dennis
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
But in my past experience, I have had CD ROMS fail on me.
And not willing to take *any* chances of losing data again,
when I get my CD ROMs/PDFs from Germany,
The only way to save digital content is continual backups to newer
media. Ultimately I foresee libraries
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Sorry, but this is not a satisfactory explanation. Microsoft managed
to create a DOS virtual machine that can run programs that try to
manipulate memory directly by simply providing virtualizations of the
actual hardware so the DOS program thinks it's
could run many, many applications in
Classic, and ALL the new hardware for years supported classic.
Classic does not work on the new Intel macs
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac?
Does it run on a new G5?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac?
No
Does it run on a new G5?
Yes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On 25.05.2006 Lawrence David Eden wrote:
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac?
No.
Does it run on a new G5?
Yes.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On May 24, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old
files. As a publisher, it is
Something is wrong with this thread.
You buy software, not physically, but the right to use at the moment.
If you can't accept this then you probably shouldn't use computer for
your work. No software is responsible to support future unknown
platform. If you need to run the old software, the
But that kind of logic is why Microsoft is having such problems. There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW
computers, your old software might not run. In fact, it probably won't.
We're sorry. We recommend keeping whatever you have around to use the
older software if
At 5/25/2006 01:06 PM, dc wrote:
Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the
software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me.
Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional
user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility
There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW
computers, your old software might not run.
I suspect someday that day will come for Windows. So far it has not and shows
no signs of it.
This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is whether
Win
So because MakeMusic can't import files from older versions of Finale
into a newer version properly, you have to cripple Windows/Mac OS X with
the necessity of running older versions of the program?
Now, that doesn't make sense at allno wonder Microsoft is in
such dire straits with
I'd say it's obviously that Windows provides better support for OLD
programs. But Apple has and does provide support for older programs, but
at some point Apple does cut the cord to keep on the cutting edge
Robert Patterson wrote:
There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look,
On 25 May 2006 at 14:53, Robert Patterson wrote:
Leave it to David Fenton to argue with me when I'm agreeing with him.
I wasn't arguing. I was correcting what seemed to me to be
misstatements of the history you were outlining.
[]
I believe that current Pentium chips
use a form of
Robert Patterson / 2006/05/25 / 01:32 PM wrote:
This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is
whether Win *does* provide better backwards compatibility, not whether
it *should*. Nothing in this post offers any evidence to counter the
proposition that Windows does in fact
On 25 May 2006 at 10:17, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
dc wrote:
A-NO-NE Music écrit:
No software is responsible to support future unknown
platform.
Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support
the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me.
Andrew's
David Fenton:
That may be, but the comments you made applied only to the Win9x
kernel and not to the NT kernel.
Sez you.
I don't see why that was not possible for Apple to have done
the same thing,
Sometime have a look at Inside Macintosh Vols 1-3, which describe the API up
thru
On 5/25/06, dc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A-NO-NE Music écrit:
Meanwhile, I still believe there is no excuse that Finale never offered
SaveAs older version format, do you not think?
Couldn't agree more. Especially that this seems to be a deliberate choice
on their part...
Probably why they
Andrew:
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old
files. As a publisher, it is crucial that I be able to print out
old files in exactly the form in which they were created, and the
practical
At 08:24 PM 5/25/06 -0400, Neal Gittleman wrote:
it strikes me that an old-machine-for-old-
files solution doesn't seem so out of whack...
I don't think it's a bad concept in theory. But it comes up against the
reality of an ever-increasing load of quickly consciously obsoleted
formats. Why
While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving
all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the
need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print
the file. Editing it would require the original version, of course,
unless you are
Or the other possibility is to start a petition to get MakeMusic to
actually make Finale import old files correctly...yeah, like that
will happen.
Neal Gittleman wrote:
Andrew:
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a
Very wise words.
Robert Patterson wrote:
While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving
all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the
need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print
the file. Editing it would require the
On 24.05.2006 Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
And, I guess, if you wait six more weeks after that, you can replace the
replacement for a fraction of its price ad nauseum. We have been lured
by the siren song of technology, and she is fickle, my friends.
You are obviously not aware of the
Johannes Gebauer said:
You are obviously not aware of the current situation of Mac models. This
is not a normal situation.
It seems all too nauseatingly normal for Mac models. Apple has subjected Mac
users (of which I am one) to three (count em!) major platform shifts in the
last 12-15
While that all may be true -- I guess I should point out that 1995, of
Windows '95 fame was only 11 years ago. (I remember when my notice came that
DOS Magazine would no longer be printed due to the new OS...sad days).
-Scot
On 5/24/06 8:49 AM, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Mac?
Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility is preserved.
AFAIK you can still run the
Dennis wrote:
But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006
Mac? Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility is
preserved.
This is such an important point. The
Glad to hear it.
Dean
On May 23, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 24.05.2006 Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
And, I guess, if you wait six more weeks after that, you can
replace the replacement for a fraction of its price ad
nauseum. We have been lured by the siren song of
On 5/24/06 10:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the move to Intel this will change. The oldest version that can
technically run on current Intel Macs is Fin2k4.
If Win really has such backwards compatibility, and we are saying that these
really old versions will run in XP,
On 24 May 2006 at 9:17, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
On 5/24/06 8:49 AM, Robert Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Johannes Gebauer said:
You are obviously not aware of the current situation of Mac models.
This is not a normal situation.
It seems all too nauseatingly normal for Mac
On 24 May 2006 at 10:50, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
On 5/24/06 10:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
With the move to Intel this will change. The oldest version that can
technically run on current Intel Macs is Fin2k4.
If Win really has such backwards compatibility, and we
David Fenton:
The wisdom or benefit or downside of breaking backward compatibility
aside, there is just no comparison at all between Microsoft and
Apple.
I find myself in complete agreement with David Fenton on this point. I should
add that breaking backwards comptibility is great for
At 5/24/2006 10:39 AM, dc wrote:
Scot Hanna-Weir écrit:
While that all may be true -- I guess I should point out that 1995, of
Windows '95 fame was only 11 years ago. (I remember when my notice came that
DOS Magazine would no longer be printed due to the new OS...sad days).
But how old is the
On May 24, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
AFAIK you can still run the oldest versions of Finale on any pre-Intel
Mac. This may perhaps exclude MIDI, but they should run in Classic.
Just barely. FinMac 2.X will run in Classic, but will not print.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music
At 5/24/2006 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
But how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006 Windows
machine. And how old is the oldest version of Finale you can run on a 2006
Mac? Platform shifts aren't a problem as long as backward compatibility is
At 5/24/2006 11:10 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
If Finale is a yardstick, and I think it is typical, there simply is no
comparison between Win and Mac on backwards compatibility and productive
life. Win is the uncontested winner. I also fully expect Longhorn to
maintain the same or close level of
At 5/24/2006 11:50 AM, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
If Win really has such backwards compatibility, and we are saying that these
really old versions will run in XP, if you are dual-booting the new intels
to windows, wouldn't you theoretically be able to run any version that would
still work on a
At 5/24/2006 12:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Had I the disks, I'm sure I could install and run Finale 2.0.1, the
first version I ever had. It was a Windows 3.0 program, from before
Windows had TrueType fonts (so you could get decent printing only
with a PostScript printer).
Good point.
I
Ok...and your point is what? That's great you still have a
functional SE, but, seriously, my Laser Printer has a more powerful
processor than it. And my PDA. Perhaps my wristwatch as well.
Phil Daley wrote:
At 5/24/2006 11:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 24.05.2006 dc wrote:
But
On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
ignorance of the situation with Windows?
I think complete ignorance might be a little strong. In pointing out
that there was a shift from 3.1 to '95, I was mainly just
I also have an Apple IIe.
Just the other day I set it up and printed out my household expenses from
when I built my house.
If I could buy a Finale that ran on my MAC, I could use it instead of my
Windows computer.
The point is:
A MAC user HAS to upgrade their software every time a new
At 5/24/2006 01:30 PM, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
ignorance of the situation with Windows?
I think complete ignorance might be a little strong. In pointing out
that there
That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade their
software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of programs,
including Microcrap Office, on the new Intel macs. No need to upgrade
there. Some with Adobe's software. Same was true when Apple went with OS
X. You could
On 5/24/06 12:47 PM, Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only problem I am aware of, with respect to programs running too
fast, was games.
There were many free programs available to slow down the computer
intentionally.
Very true...and it's not a current problem for me. I just
5/6 years
So you say you cannot run MAC software from 2000.
I can run MS software from 1980.
I rest my case.
At 5/24/2006 02:03 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade their
software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
5/6 years
So you say you cannot run MAC software from 2000.
I can run MS software from 1980.
I rest my case.
In your previous post you made a very different case.
Which was rejected because it was complete nonsense.
Johannes
--
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
AFAIK you can still run the oldest versions of Finale on any pre-Intel
Mac. This may perhaps exclude MIDI, but they should run in Classic.
I have a MAC SE. I have not been able to run ANYTHING new on it because it
runs OS6.
I have a problem imagining OS7 or
On 24.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
A MAC user HAS to upgrade their software every time a new kind of MAC comes
out, and they buy one.
Windows users can decide to upgrade at their own convenience, even though they
upgrade to the current Windows version.
MAC has NEVER supported this.
I must
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I just don't get the mentality of people who want to run old software on
new hardware. Did bitch and moan when your 8 track tapes couldn't be
played anymore? Or when those LPs couldn't be played in your CD player?
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS 9
programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have had
years to move programs over to OS X. Does anyone really want to run 1984
Mac
At 09:01 PM 5/24/06 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I must say that I cannot follow. When the PPC came out, they insured
backward compatibility with the 68k Emulator. That was almost 100%.
When OS X came out, they included the Classic operating system, which
insured compatibility with probably
On the iMac G5 that I bought just over a year ago, I can run every
version of Finale from 3.7 (the earliest I have) to 2006. I still use
Pagemaker 4.0 (1990) and Jim Leitch's Address Book (1994). I can
still play Fool's Errand (1987), use Word 5.1 (1992) or Word 2001 (no
need to pay
On 24 May 2006, at 21:36, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Are these Classic, Rosetta, etc., components automatically launched
in the
background when the program is run? Or does the user have to leave one
environment and enter another?
They are launched automatically. You can keep different apps
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Because some software only runs in ms-dos. Score for example (vintage
music notation software).
Barbara
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I just don't get the mentality of people who want to run old software on
new hardware. Did bitch and moan when your 8 track tapes couldn't be
played anymore? Or when those LPs couldn't be
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS 9
programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have had
years to move programs over to OS X. Does anyone really want
At 12:31 PM 5/24/06 -0700, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I think that if you buy a program, and use it, and then buy new
hardware, you'd want to update all your programs to take advantage of
the new hardware.
Ah, I see.
At 03:31 PM 5/24/2006, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
I was trying to stay out of this slugfest, but I find myself pulled in. g
Sometimes old software runs just fine, and there's no need to spend
money on an updated UI and
Older versions of softwareare a *very* big deal.
For example, the Library of Congress is so concerned about this issue they commissioned a study of potential issues for digital files of music (either music performed or PDFs or Finale/Sibelius files for example). The issue being, in 200 years,
I'd probably still use it on a piece of hardware that it runs it. So, if
Finale 2008 is the last version, and it runs on Intel Macs, but didn't
run on the Quad Core Intel Macs in 2014, I don't think I'd be fussing.
I'm sure whatever succeeds Finale (assuming it ever dies) would have
some sort
On 24 May 2006 at 12:31, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Because it works?
Because it is no longer made?
Because later versions of the same software introduced design
problems that make it unusable?
Because newer software
On 24 May 2006 at 12:30, Scot Hanna-Weir wrote:
On 5/24/06 11:20 AM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, you're admitting that your comments are made in complete
ignorance of the situation with Windows?
I think complete ignorance might be a little strong. In pointing
On 24 May 2006 at 22:20, dc wrote:
Aaron Sherber écrit:
Again, that's far too general a statement. In what way does Office
2003 make better use of my new computer than Office 2000? In fact,
since Office 2000 was designed for slower hardware, I would argue
that it actually runs *better* on my
I don't understand how can there can be any argument about the level of
backwards compatibility on the 2 platforms. I've used both, and there is no
comparison.
Asking, why would you want to do that? is merely changing the subject. Posts
along those lines, while perhaps interesting, are not on
At 05:15 PM 5/24/06 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 May 2006 at 22:20, dc wrote:
Agreed. As a professional translator, I still use Office 97, some ten
years old.
Likewise here. I don't care for any of the later versions of Office
apps.
Make that at least three of us.
Actually, I wouldn't
On May 24, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Exactly. Apple has an EXCELLENT record of keeping support for old
applications while moving forward with new things. So you can't use OS
9 programs under classic with the new Intel macs. So? Companies have
had years to move programs over to
On 24 May 2006 at 21:23, Robert Patterson wrote:
I don't understand how can there can be any argument about the level
of backwards compatibility on the 2 platforms. I've used both, and
there is no comparison.
Asking, why would you want to do that? is merely changing the
subject. Posts
My trusty Mac clone died a sudden death yesterday so I am in the
market for a new model.
I need some info from my colleagues on this list.
Does Finale run on the new Intel based G5?
Will I be able to use my Kawai K-11 MIDI keyboard if I buy a USB interface?
Can I use my old Apple LaserSelect
On 23.05.2006 Lawrence David Eden wrote:
Does Finale run on the new Intel based G5?
What is an Intel based G5? There is no such thing, it is either Intel or
G5. Do not buy a G5 at this stage. It is obsolete hardware. If I were
you I would get either a Mac Mini Core Duo or a MacBook. If you
Mein Gott, I just purchased my G5 last August, and it's already
obsolete?
I can't stand it.
Dean
On May 23, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
What is an Intel based G5? There is no such thing, it is either
Intel or G5. Do not buy a G5 at this stage. It is obsolete hardware.
Yeah, welcome to the world of Computers. As soon as you buy it,
something better will come out.
Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
Mein Gott, I just purchased my G5 last August, and it's already
obsolete?
I can't stand it.
Dean
On May 23, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
What is an
Actually, the world of Apple, where every new release invalidates all of
the old software.
Windows still runs DOS programs from the 1980's
At 5/23/2006 12:56 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Yeah, welcome to the world of Computers. As soon as you buy it,
something better will come out.
Dean M.
Um, no. Stop spreading FUD.
Yeah, there are SOOO many great DOS programs I'd use with my music
software.
Phil Daley wrote:
Actually, the world of Apple, where every new release invalidates all
of the old software.
Windows still runs DOS programs from the 1980's
On 23.05.2006 Phil Daley wrote:
Actually, the world of Apple, where every new release invalidates all of the
old software.
This has very little to do with existing software, which will still run
on the new machines, with very few hardware dependent exceptions.
The point is that the current
At 6:04 AM -0400 5/23/06, Lawrence David Eden wrote:
My trusty Mac clone died a sudden death yesterday so I am in the
market for a new model.
I didn't think there was such a thing as a Mac clone, certainly not
in the sense that all Windoze machines started out as IBM
Also, G5 prices should lower considerably once the new models come out (if
they haven't already - I haven't checked). The best deals will probably be
on slightly used G5s belonging to owners who feel compelled to upgrade
anyway. I try to buy a machine (and software) that will work well for me
On 23.05.2006 John Howell wrote:
My trusty Mac clone died a sudden death yesterday so I am in the market for a
new model.
I didn't think there was such a thing as a Mac clone, certainly not in the
sense that all Windoze machines started out as IBM clones.
Back in the
And, I guess, if you wait six more weeks after that, you can replace
the replacement for a fraction of its price ad nauseum. We
have been lured by the siren song of technology, and she is fickle,
my friends.
Dean
On May 23, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You
Johannes said:
What is an Intel based G5? There is no such thing, it is either Intel or
G5. Do not buy a G5 at this stage. It is obsolete hardware. If I were
you I would get either a Mac Mini Core Duo or a MacBook. If you depend
on PCI cards, I would try to hire a computer for the next few
81 matches
Mail list logo
