> On Aug 16, 2016, at 7:53 PM, SN jef chippewa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > time for some corrections. there seems to be lots of smoke and > mirrors in the release notes... > > > at 2:40 in the video on this page, there is the orgasmic claim that > "We [Finale] are the developers of Music XML!": > http://www.finalemusic.com/products/finale/finale-vs-sibelius > > make music acquired recordare in november 2011, who had been > developing xml -- for finale AND sibelius -- since 2004. > > > from http://www.finalemusic.com/products/finale/whats-new > we read: > > 1) "While previous versions of Finale could create tall time > signatures, like those seen at left, it admittedly took a few steps. > Today it's easy." > > awesome. mmmmm, how? >
Yeah, it IS a lot easier to do tall time sigs. No need for stupid staff styles when using linked parts; the option to display in score or parts is right there in the staff options. > 2) "When entering notes into transposing staves, the new Finale plays > the correctly transposed pitch both upon entry and playback." > > this has been the case for some time now, it seems to me? > No. If you were entering a Bb trumpet part in a transposed staff, you entered D and heard D. Now you can enter D and hear C, the concert pitch. Or you can switch it back to the way it was before. Your choice. > 4) "We've also made new looks possible (including contoured dashed > slurs) and eliminated dozens of bugs." > > wow. what are contoured dashed slurs? seems to me i have been using > them for many years in finale. zoomed in at > <http://www.finalemusic.com/products/finale/features/finishing-touches/#Contoured-Dashed-Slurs> > > and i don't see an important change in thickness between the tip and > middle of the slur like i would expect. but in any case this would > not constitute a revolutionary addition (justifying the cost of > upgrading), even if this is the case. > Yeah, you don’t get a LOT of control, but they ARE there now without a lot of hassle. > and really? there were only "dozens of bugs" in F2014? correcting > "dozens of bugs" i would expect to be a given in a new release, not a > main selling point. there were bugs in your last version? i'm happy > to see them fixed (congrats!) but i paid already for an upgrade that > you admit had "dozens" of bugs and now i am paying again to see (some > of) those bugs fixed?!?!?!?! > > this is a business model i cannot take seriously. > Agreed on that. Almost NONE of the bugs that were held over from 2012 are addressed. Almost all of the bug that got fixes were introduced in 2014 or 2014.5. I am doing some testing now. > -- > > i'm hopeful that the sluggishness on mac has been improved (i > understand this seems to be the case). but if i already paid for a > new version (2014) that was significantly slower than the previous > version i worked with (2012), can someone explain to me how it is > justified that i am now being asked to pay for an upgrade that seems > to only offer corrections to the speed that got fucked up in F2014 as > a major selling point? in such a case, i could imagine there would > then be no point for PC users to upgrade… This is a valid point. One of the reviews compares times on operations on large scores and hardly ANY of the times in v 25 beat out Finale 2012, though they are all faster than 2014.5. But on the other hand, this is the version to have if you have Yosemite or later (Mac). If you have an old Mac that runs 2012, I’d say keep that a while longer. Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: [email protected]
