Re: [Finale] Fin 2003 comments (somewhat long)

2002-06-08 Thread Aaron Sherber
At 02:18 AM 06/08/02, Jari Williamsson wrote: Aaron Sherber writes: The new Document Options window is better than the old setup, on the whole, but there are still some problems. First of all, they seemed to have chosen the window size based on the largest of the old options windows

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003 comments (somewhat long)

2002-06-07 Thread Jari Williamsson
Aaron Sherber writes: The new Document Options window is better than the old setup, on the whole, but there are still some problems. First of all, they seemed to have chosen the window size based on the largest of the old options windows and then just plopped all of the windows into this

RE: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-02 Thread Tobias Giesen
Finale runs (slowly) in classic mode already That seems to depend on the power (and RAM?) of your Mac. I don't see any difference in speed on mine. The OS X-related announcement does sound like they fixed some problems with Finale in Classic mode under OS X, although no details are given.

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-02 Thread Robert Patterson
Darcy James Argue wrote: All major Mac applications (with the exception of Quark and a handful of digital audio apps) This handful of digitial audio apps cannot be so lightly dismissed. (Read on.) So what's wrong with Coda? More to the point, what's wrong with OSX? One of those digital

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-02 Thread Darcy James Argue
On Sunday, June 2, 2002, at 08:49 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: All major Mac applications (with the exception of Quark and a handful of digital audio apps) This handful of digitial audio apps cannot be so lightly dismissed. (Read on.) I didn't mean to lightly

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Jari Williamsson
Aaron Sherber writes: Has anyone out there in beta land written a more comprehensive review of what's new and changed? I'll release a in-depth review very soon. As usual, please don't believe the marketing material. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread David H. Bailey
Eventually you need to log-in to get to the purchasing part of the web-site, and they know who you are and what versions you have upgraded from and will indicate what upgrades you qualify for. I ordered it a few minutes ago and will be glad to report on whatever I run into for new things,

RE: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Jim Hale
, June 01, 2002 6:02 AM To: Aaron Sherber Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] Fin 2003 Eventually you need to log-in to get to the purchasing part of the web-site, and they know who you are and what versions you have upgraded from and will indicate what upgrades you qualify for. I ordered

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Craig Parmerlee
At 09:13 AM 6/1/2002 -0400, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 07:01 AM 06/01/02, David H. Bailey wrote: They have supposedly improved the scanning ability (I'll believe that when I see it!) but in reading their impartial comparison, they admit they skewed the results -- they used b/w line art for the

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread David H. Bailey
I read that line, also. I still think it is unfair to compare apples to oranges -- maybe the other software does a much better job using a bw, line-art tiff file. When comparing scanning programs, in my opinion, the SAME image file should be used for all programs being compared. If the

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread David H. Bailey
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] My question, though, is what should someone in my situation do? I am still using WinFin97 (and doing just fine, thanks), and was planning on upgrading this Spring. I never quite got around to it. Should I now wait until the patch, or go ahead and upgrade?

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Craig Parmerlee
At 02:06 PM 6/1/2002 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote: On 1 Jun 2002, at 13:09, David H. Bailey wrote: And I still think it is a skewed comparison. I also don't think 5 errors in a 12-fame, perfect original is anything to be bragging about -- there should be ZERO errors given such a perfect

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Darcy James Argue
On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 05:36 PM, Tobias Giesen wrote: Hi, unfortunately, Coda have announced that FinMac2003 will run in Classic only. You're kidding. When did that happen? Wasn't there enough complaining at the time that *FinMac2002* wasn't Carbonized for X? And didn't Coda

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-06-01 Thread Robert Patterson
While I'm disappointed MacFin03 will not be Carbonized, I can't say I'm completely unhappy either. It means I won't have to convert my plugin development platform to Carbon for another year (which probably means I can hold off until the G5's come out.) It seems to me that Classic compatibility

Re: [Finale] Fin 2003

2002-05-31 Thread Aaron Sherber
At 06:41 PM 05/31/02, Jim Williams wrote: Hey, I haven't got the ad yet! Maybe I'm on the crap list for my criticisms. Anyone want to forward it?? Just go to http://www.codamusic.com/finale/index.asp Aaron ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]