Re: [Finale] file upgrade experience
Hello Randolph, I'm still interested and curious. What makes going to 2002 better than going directly to 2008? I'm not looking for a huge list just a few things. I'm just wondering if I should fire up those old computers because there is something that I'm not seeing in the upgrade process that 2002 does better than 2008. In my experience, 2008 was the only upgrade that held 3.5.2 music spacing better than any other upgrade thus making the proofing and cleanup time of these old files very short. The difference between 2.63 and 3.52 are huge especially when you talk about slurs. Is this where 2002 shines over 2008? One of the difficult issues in upgrading both 2.63 and 3.52 files are the text blocks. The words do not always show up but the handles are there. The best method is to remove the text from the box (cut) and paste in new. Performing a Command-M on the boxes will bring them back but they don't attach to the handle the same as if you had place a brand new text block so alignment using numbers can be a problem especially if you have a mix of old and new text blocks. Thanks for continuing to comment on this issue. Steve 5/11/09 7:37 PM, Randolph Peters randolphpet...@shaw.ca wrote: Steve has a point. Finale 2008 does some things fairly well when opening an old file. Mid-measure clef changes stay put, for example. But the best method I've tried still involves going through v2002 first. -Randolph Peters Steve Fiskum wrote: I understand the issues with 2009 but what about upgrading directly to 2008? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] file upgrade experience
Hello Randolph, Very interesting. I've upgraded 100s of 2.63 choral files and have good results going directly to 2008. Out of curiosity, what type of music are you upgrading and what types of issues were you having (I agree that 2009 is a disaster to upgrade directly)? Thanks, Steve 5/10/09 10:40 PM, Randolph Peters randolphpet...@shaw.ca wrote: On the advice of the Finale list, I upgraded a version 2.63 file to Finale 2008 by first going through Finale 2002. It took a few weeks to get to it because I had to resurrect an old computer from the crawl space. The old Mac was fine, if not slow, and it still had Finale 2002 on it. (Finale 2002 on a Mac only works with an older processor and OS.) What a huge difference that made! Going directly from 2.63 into Finale 2008 or worse, Finale 2009, is a total disaster. But Finale 2002 keeps most things where they are supposed to be and that makes it easier for Finale 2008 and 2009 to handle. So thanks to Robert Patterson, Christopher Smith and others for their superb help! -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] file upgrade experience
The biggest problem in upgrading old files to Finale 2009 is the scattering of expressions. In the files I was working with, most of my dynamics showed up far to the right of the page. A dynamic attached to beat 2 in the original might show up as belonging to beat 10 in the upgraded file. And this is in a 4/4 measure! The old files used a lot of what used to be called score expressions (as opposed to note expressions) and most of these were made to show up only on one staff. That used to be the best way to incorporate hairpins and dynamics on a held note. These v2.63 files were for large orchestra and used a variety of fonts that are now outdated. (Newport, Petrucci, and so on.) -Randolph Peters Fiskum, Steve wrote: Very interesting. I've upgraded 100s of 2.63 choral files and have good results going directly to 2008. Out of curiosity, what type of music are you upgrading and what types of issues were you having (I agree that 2009 is a disaster to upgrade directly)? Thanks, Steve Randolph Peters wrote: On the advice of the Finale list, I upgraded a version 2.63 file to Finale 2008 by first going through Finale 2002. It took a few weeks to get to it because I had to resurrect an old computer from the crawl space. The old Mac was fine, if not slow, and it still had Finale 2002 on it. (Finale 2002 on a Mac only works with an older processor and OS.) What a huge difference that made! Going directly from 2.63 into Finale 2008 or worse, Finale 2009, is a total disaster. But Finale 2002 keeps most things where they are supposed to be and that makes it easier for Finale 2008 and 2009 to handle. So thanks to Robert Patterson, Christopher Smith and others for their superb help! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] file upgrade experience
I understand the issues with 2009 but what about upgrading directly to 2008? Steve 5/11/09 9:20 AM, Randolph Peters randolphpet...@shaw.ca wrote: The biggest problem in upgrading old files to Finale 2009 is the scattering of expressions. In the files I was working with, most of my dynamics showed up far to the right of the page. A dynamic attached to beat 2 in the original might show up as belonging to beat 10 in the upgraded file. And this is in a 4/4 measure! The old files used a lot of what used to be called score expressions (as opposed to note expressions) and most of these were made to show up only on one staff. That used to be the best way to incorporate hairpins and dynamics on a held note. These v2.63 files were for large orchestra and used a variety of fonts that are now outdated. (Newport, Petrucci, and so on.) -Randolph Peters Fiskum, Steve wrote: Very interesting. I've upgraded 100s of 2.63 choral files and have good results going directly to 2008. Out of curiosity, what type of music are you upgrading and what types of issues were you having (I agree that 2009 is a disaster to upgrade directly)? Thanks, Steve Randolph Peters wrote: On the advice of the Finale list, I upgraded a version 2.63 file to Finale 2008 by first going through Finale 2002. It took a few weeks to get to it because I had to resurrect an old computer from the crawl space. The old Mac was fine, if not slow, and it still had Finale 2002 on it. (Finale 2002 on a Mac only works with an older processor and OS.) What a huge difference that made! Going directly from 2.63 into Finale 2008 or worse, Finale 2009, is a total disaster. But Finale 2002 keeps most things where they are supposed to be and that makes it easier for Finale 2008 and 2009 to handle. So thanks to Robert Patterson, Christopher Smith and others for their superb help! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] file upgrade experience
Steve has a point. Finale 2008 does some things fairly well when opening an old file. Mid-measure clef changes stay put, for example. But the best method I've tried still involves going through v2002 first. -Randolph Peters Steve Fiskum wrote: I understand the issues with 2009 but what about upgrading directly to 2008? Randolph Peters wrote: The biggest problem in upgrading old files to Finale 2009 is the scattering of expressions. In the files I was working with, most of my dynamics showed up far to the right of the page. A dynamic attached to beat 2 in the original might show up as belonging to beat 10 in the upgraded file. And this is in a 4/4 measure! The old files used a lot of what used to be called score expressions (as opposed to note expressions) and most of these were made to show up only on one staff. That used to be the best way to incorporate hairpins and dynamics on a held note. These v2.63 files were for large orchestra and used a variety of fonts that are now outdated. (Newport, Petrucci, and so on.) Fiskum, Steve wrote: Very interesting. I've upgraded 100s of 2.63 choral files and have good results going directly to 2008. Out of curiosity, what type of music are you upgrading and what types of issues were you having (I agree that 2009 is a disaster to upgrade directly)? Thanks, Steve Randolph Peters wrote: On the advice of the Finale list, I upgraded a version 2.63 file to Finale 2008 by first going through Finale 2002. It took a few weeks to get to it because I had to resurrect an old computer from the crawl space. The old Mac was fine, if not slow, and it still had Finale 2002 on it. (Finale 2002 on a Mac only works with an older processor and OS.) What a huge difference that made! Going directly from 2.63 into Finale 2008 or worse, Finale 2009, is a total disaster. But Finale 2002 keeps most things where they are supposed to be and that makes it easier for Finale 2008 and 2009 to handle. So thanks to Robert Patterson, Christopher Smith and others for their superb help! ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] file upgrade experience
On the advice of the Finale list, I upgraded a version 2.63 file to Finale 2008 by first going through Finale 2002. It took a few weeks to get to it because I had to resurrect an old computer from the crawl space. The old Mac was fine, if not slow, and it still had Finale 2002 on it. (Finale 2002 on a Mac only works with an older processor and OS.) What a huge difference that made! Going directly from 2.63 into Finale 2008 or worse, Finale 2009, is a total disaster. But Finale 2002 keeps most things where they are supposed to be and that makes it easier for Finale 2008 and 2009 to handle. So thanks to Robert Patterson, Christopher Smith and others for their superb help! -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
