On 24 Jul 2005 at 16:42, Robert Patterson wrote: > None of this changes my basic contention that 1) dynamic part linking > is an ease-of-use feature and 2) Finale's output is still essentially > equal to if not superior to Sib's. (Specifically, it is superior when > the user wants a notation that Sib doesn't approve of.) > > If you tell me that I can split a part in the score into multiple > staves in the score and still have the linking work, then I'll be > impressed.
It may be that the kind of work you do would make that really valuable, but I've never had a single project where I'd have had any need for that. But linked parts in Finale implemented in a way that is similar to Sibelius 4 would be an absolutely enormous productivity benefit for me, in all the engraving that I do. And my bet is that there are lots more people like me than there are people like you, who depend on something that I would never use at all. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
