On 17.04.2002 16:59 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote > One element in this thread that puzzles me is the view that plugins are > somehow > "not part of" the program. Plugins are no less a part of Finale than they are > of > Protools or Photoshop. Some of them are incredibly useful. Indeed, it is only > because of plugins that my efficiency has risen so much. And why should Coda > waste resources implementing something that is already well-addressed by a > plugin? Anyone reluctant to use plugins must love drudgery.
And, in the specific case of Beams (ie the functionality of Patterson Beams), I would argue that a plugin beats any other approach, as it allows for by far the most flexibility and variation of individual beam settings without becoming in the way of efficient working (building all these functions into the program as beaming options would almost certainly slow the whole application down so much it would be unusable on anything but the fastest machine). So thank you for that one, Robert, it really makes Finale unbeatable for beams. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
