Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools. - Darcy But Finale did beat Band in a Box! -- Rocky Road - in Oz Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Given the Finale for OS X initial fiasco, I am wondering if they send developer(s) to these developer's conference at all. I really hope that there's someone there to get what the mac team needs to avoid extremely frustrating experiences for customers, like the port to Finale 2004 has been. I don't want to hear anymore that MakeMusic is a small company that doesn't have the resources to get the work done. I guess that if there is no MM developer there, that nobody will tell it to us (MM folks on the list) for obvious reasons. On the other hand if they do, it can't hurt to just say it. Let's see. But I want to stay optimistic and hope that everything will just be fine... I think we all need to remember that while this is news to us, it isn't news to Applethis transition has been in the works for several years now... Everything has been designed to run on both chip sets going back several years. Also, XCode has a checkbox that allows the developer to choose between PowerPC, Intel or both. I don't know if Coda has written code that is specifically written to a specific type of processor or not (which wouldn't be a wise thing)...but most developers will simply have to do a recompile to add the Intel chip. Not a big deal. I think issues will be easier than moving from 68K to PowerPC for sure. Regarding this specific Intel chip...word on the street is that there is a specific type of chip called Itanium which, if rumors are true, will be used in Apple hardware. This is an old article but I think this may be the case. And I have heard this rumor from more than one source (though none of them are Mark Felt.) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp I think this is great news for Apple...I think this will result in a big boost in processor speeds...now, regarding Coda...I'm not as optimistic...but willing to give the benefit of a doubt...for now... Hoping for the best because I really love Finale, Karen ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 07 Jun 2005, at 3:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, XCode has a checkbox that allows the developer to choose between PowerPC, Intel or both. Karen, I doubt Coda has even looked at Xcode yet -- I strongly suspect they are still using Metroworks Codewarrior, despite repeated stern warnings from Apple that this is a Very Bad Idea. Finale will have to be first ported to Xcode before anyone can even begin to think about recompiling for Intel. This is, from what I've been able to figure out, not a trivial task by any means. I don't know if Coda has written code that is specifically written to a specific type of processor or not (which wouldn't be a wise thing)...but most developers will simply have to do a recompile to add the Intel chip. Not according to Steve. Even developpers who have been using Xcode instead of Codewarrior have (best-case-scenario) weeks of work ahead of them, _pace_ the Mathematica demo given during the Keynote. Keep in mind, this is aside from any MIDI issues -- Hiro has been saying MIDI backwards compatibility isn't even possible. I really, really, really hope that's not the case. Not a big deal. I think issues will be easier than moving from 68K to PowerPC for sure. That strikes me as optimistic beyond all reason. Regarding this specific Intel chip...word on the street is that there is a specific type of chip called Itanium which, if rumors are true, will be used in Apple hardware. This is an old article but I think this may be the case. I'm afraid not. As it stands, Apple will be using P4's. In fact, the machine Steve used as a demo -- which is also the machine being seeded to developpers -- is a 3.6 GHz P4 (albeit in a G5 case, no doubt with Open Firmware instead of standard P4 bios. Regardless, it doesn't much matter -- it's still a completely alien chip architecture, and it's frankly insane to believe this could possibly be a seamless transition. There's a lot of bitter medicine ahead for Mac users. I think this is great news for Apple...I think this will result in a big boost in processor speeds...now, regarding Coda...I'm not as optimistic...but willing to give the benefit of a doubt...for now... What, because Coda's OS X migration went so smoothly? Hoping for the best because I really love Finale, I love Finale too, but Coda screwed up big time with OS X and right now I have zero confidence they will handle this migration any better. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 3:23 PM -0400 6/6/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Basically, according to the speculation in these articles, it's all about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the movie industry, and repositioning the Mac as the premier platform for delivery of on-demand movies/video. I fear that this really is what it's all about: Jobs wants to create the iMovie Download Store and copy-protection-on-the-chip is the bait to get the big movie houses to agree. That bothers the h377 out of me. Apple has always been pretty laissez-faire about copying for personal-use. If this is a sea-change then it bodes ill for our ability to use owned material for any purpose, so long as we do not redistribute it. The Supreme Court delineated personal-usage rights when they decided that we could make tapes for our cars. Now the big studios want to deprive us of the right to tape shows from HDTV for later viewing. I'm pretty sure that the slimeballs are winning and I don't like it one damn bit. At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Amen to that. If this switch is half as disruptive as it seems from reading the postings on this list, it likely means the end of my association with Apple (including plugins support). Windows' long history of backwards compatibility is beginning to look mighty nice. Hiro: Too bad that AU spec finally got settled with Panther, and we all are in the happy place now, which doesn't seems to last long. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005/06/07 / 03:36 AM wrote: Regarding this specific Intel chip...word on the street is that there is a specific type of chip called Itanium which, if rumors are true, will be used in Apple hardware. This is in fact interesting speculation since we all thought Itanium is long dead because it handled x86 badly. Back to Finale, As Darcy said, we won't be freaked out if FinaleX was done with XCode from the ground up when porting to OSX, but with the size of the application it is not practical. It will cost them a fortune. On the other hand, XCode/Apple Devtool (free! Not like MSDN!!)) is really nice. One of DAW hardware interface vendor I beta test asked me to L10N the strings. I even don't need src files from them. I can open the app directory from Apple DevTool to change strings. On the other hand, another software vendor also asked me to do L10N. They use CW. I open the rc files in CW, but without seeing the GUI and its context, just reading the raw string, how can anyone work if you are not sitting with the lead engineer? I hope CW dies away from Mac :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: We are lucky that hardware improvements make running Fin2005 on a 1.42 GHz G4 *almost* as snappy as running Fin2000 on a 266 MHz G3. (Unless, of course, you need to nudge lyrics, or anything like that. Then it's like using Fin3.0 on a Mac LCIII.) I just finished a large project (three tunes for full orchestra, rhythm section, and choir, 160 to 250 measures each) and was suitably pleased with the speed on FinMac 2005b. With Auto-Update hyphens and word extensions off, things were reasonably zippy even when the score got really big, unlike 2004. And, of course, Staff Lists help reduce redraw speeds, too. I set up a few lists in my template so I could have the same ones for each of the three tunes, and it was nice. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! Weren't Cubase (Steinberg) and Protools pretty late, too? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
In a worst case scenario we may not even have a choice. I rather doubt that MakeMusic would even consider another big change like the one from OS 9 to OS X if it meant as much trouble as the last one. Meaning, they may well drop Apple alltogether. In which case those of us depending on Finale may have no choice in the matter. I am not saying that this is likely to happen. Personally I rather expect that the change will be more like the move from 68k to PPC, and that was actually pretty painless with Finale. As far as I can see it all depends on compilers. I don't share the fear that MIDI won't be backwards compatible. This wasn't the case on PPC either, so why would this be different now? As long as Apple provides the OS links for it, why shouldn't it work? I have no clue about compilers and the like, but what are the chances that Metroworks will also provide a compiler for Intel chips? The way I see it I won't buy another Apple computer until I know a) that the move to Intel chips will be either seamless and backwards compatible, and b) that Finale will have a future on the OS X platform. For the moment it seems impossible to tell. I bought my iBook in January, so the earliest I will think about a new machine will be in 2007. Until then all this should be pretty clear. Johannes Robert Patterson schrieb: Amen to that. If this switch is half as disruptive as it seems from reading the postings on this list, it likely means the end of my association with Apple (including plugins support). Windows' long history of backwards compatibility is beginning to look mighty nice. Hiro: Too bad that AU spec finally got settled with Panther, and we all are in the happy place now, which doesn't seems to last long. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:30 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case, Rosetta. Steve has assured us that it's nothing like Classic and will be completely invisible to the user and fast (enough), but honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta? In the long run, I suspect that this, like the move to OS X, will be good for Apple. In fact, it's probably essential to its viability as a computer maker. In the short run, I think we can only really be certain of one thing: that the transition to Intel Macs won't be anywhere near as seamless as Steve's keynote speech made it look. It better be, though. If Apple turns all my software to virtual doorstops again, I'm jumping to Windows, which whatever its other shortcomings does not do that to its customers. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:20:17 -0400 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. Lay your doubts aside, Hiro. According to Steve Jobs, OSX has been living a secret double life for its entire existence, with Intel builds as far back as OSX 10.0. Jobs even ran his presentations on a Pentium 4 3.6 GHz (running Tiger!) at yesterday's keynote: http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/jun/wwdc2005/m_wwdc_2005_all_ref.mov -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 7 Jun 2005 at 0:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this will result in a big boost in processor speeds Well, there's no doubt that Intel chips have higher clock speed ratings. But that doesn't necessarily translate into actual performance improvements in applications. It all depends on where the performance bottleneck is and whether or not the CPU's optimizations help whatever that problem happens to be. On the PC side, there really hasn't been any remarkable difference in any of the 1GHz+ CPUs from an end user point of view, except, perhaps, in the most computationally intense tasks. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 6/7/2005 11:52 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: On the PC side, there really hasn't been any remarkable difference in any of the 1GHz+ CPUs from an end user point of view, except, perhaps, in the most computationally intense tasks. You are correct. But . . . For me, who uses multiple computationally intensive tasks all the time, that keeps me from getting coffee during major compiles ;-) Also, turning on the hyper-threading on recent Xeons, has made an amazing speed improvement when using VMWare to run multiple OSs at the same time. For light user, hyper-threading is probably not a big deal. But, if you run say, a database intensive task while also doing local email or word processing, hyper-threading really allows the user to not notice the background tasks. To turn on hyper-threading, you need to go to the BIOS settings. It will be in there somewhere ;-) Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! Weren't Cubase (Steinberg) and Protools pretty late, too? Christopher ___ 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] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 12:41 PM 6/7/05 -0400, Phil Daley wrote: For me, who uses multiple computationally intensive tasks all the time, that keeps me from getting coffee during major compiles ;-) Coffee, hell. A night's sleep when trying to render an hour-long video production on this 1.4GHz processor! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
This quote from Jari's interview with Finale developer Chris Cianflone was pointed out on the MakeMusic forums: Which development tools are you using nowadays to create the MacOSX version of Finale? We are using CodeWarrior 9 now, although 2k4 and 2k5 were built with CodeWarrior 8. I have used Xcode for quite some time now (I used it back when it was Project Builder and in fact, I had vaguely remembered Project Builder and Interface Builder from back in my days with the NeXT). Xcode just keeps getting better and better. I really like the distributed build feature. I have never seen Finale (our internal Mach-O build) compile so fast before. I usually have Xcode running for at least the Help system. And you may have noticed at least one .NIB file in 2k5, so yes, we are starting to use Interface Builder more too. We still have Resorcerer 2.4.1 for all other resource editing. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
I will have to say, in defense of the Finale devs, anytime you are releasing after somebody, if they change things at the last moment, you are screwed. At 6/7/2005 12:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! Weren't Cubase (Steinberg) and Protools pretty late, too? Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 6/7/2005 12:58 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 12:41 PM 6/7/05 -0400, Phil Daley wrote: For me, who uses multiple computationally intensive tasks all the time, that keeps me from getting coffee during major compiles ;-) Coffee, hell. A night's sleep when trying to render an hour-long video production on this 1.4GHz processor! I had a 2-processor 2.3 GHz (each) machine, but I think my Hyper-threaded single 3.6 GHz machine is faster. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Oops -- forgot to give the link to the complete interview: http://finaletips.nu/interviews/chrisc.php - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:11 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: This quote from Jari's interview with Finale developer Chris Cianflone was pointed out on the MakeMusic forums: Which development tools are you using nowadays to create the MacOSX version of Finale? We are using CodeWarrior 9 now, although 2k4 and 2k5 were built with CodeWarrior 8. I have used Xcode for quite some time now (I used it back when it was Project Builder and in fact, I had vaguely remembered Project Builder and Interface Builder from back in my days with the NeXT). Xcode just keeps getting better and better. I really like the distributed build feature. I have never seen Finale (our internal Mach-O build) compile so fast before. I usually have Xcode running for at least the Help system. And you may have noticed at least one .NIB file in 2k5, so yes, we are starting to use Interface Builder more too. We still have Resorcerer 2.4.1 for all other resource editing. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. How would last-minute changes to, e.g., Quark have any impact whatsoever on Finale's release date? (It's not like Coda were sitting around and wait for Quark to ship before they began work on Carbonizing Finale. Or maybe they were? It would certainly explain some things... ) The point is that Finale was, as far as I am aware, the last major actively-developed app to ship a native OS X version. Fin2k4 shipped in January 2004 -- two years and ten months after the initial release of OS X. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:12 PM, Phil Daley wrote: I will have to say, in defense of the Finale devs, anytime you are releasing after somebody, if they change things at the last moment, you are screwed. At 6/7/2005 12:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! Weren't Cubase (Steinberg) and Protools pretty late, too? Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ 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] OT - Apple move to Intel
I don't know at what times those products were released. Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months before you are going to release means that you probably cannot implement those changes without pushing your product release date even further out. You apparently do not realize the amount of time it takes to test product changes. A product needs to stabilize at least 3 months before sending it to the shipping guys. And that date is at least a month before the product actually ships. It is not possible to make changes to your product, if a product that you are based on changes later than 4-5 months before your shipping date. It is just not going to happen. At 6/7/2005 01:23 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. How would last-minute changes to, e.g., Quark have any impact whatsoever on Finale's release date? (It's not like Coda were sitting around and wait for Quark to ship before they began work on Carbonizing Finale. Or maybe they were? It would certainly explain some things... ) The point is that Finale was, as far as I am aware, the last major actively-developed app to ship a native OS X version. Fin2k4 shipped in January 2004 -- two years and ten months after the initial release of OS X. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:12 PM, Phil Daley wrote: I will have to say, in defense of the Finale devs, anytime you are releasing after somebody, if they change things at the last moment, you are screwed. At 6/7/2005 12:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:38 PM, Phil Daley wrote: Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months before you are going to release means that you probably cannot implement those changes without pushing your product release date even further out. Phil -- Finale is not based on Quark. Or Cubase. Or Pro Tools. Those are completely independent applications that have nothing to do with Finale and have zero impact on Finale's release date. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Thanks, I was assuming that Finale used these apps. I see now that you mean they are independent apps. At 6/7/2005 01:47 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:38 PM, Phil Daley wrote: Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months before you are going to release means that you probably cannot implement those changes without pushing your product release date even further out. Phil -- Finale is not based on Quark. Or Cubase. Or Pro Tools. Those are completely independent applications that have nothing to do with Finale and have zero impact on Finale's release date. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 07 Jun 2005, at 3:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, XCode has a checkbox that allows the developer to choose between PowerPC, Intel or both. Karen, I doubt Coda has even looked at Xcode yet -- I strongly suspect they are still using Metroworks Codewarrior, despite repeated stern warnings from Apple that this is a Very Bad Idea. Hi Darcy, I am in total agreement with you when it comes to Coda and issues with the new Intel chips...though it does give me some comfort based on your later post that the developer(s) is(are) familiar with XCode. And I continue to try to err on the side of optimism... But those developers who have been keeping up with Apple, and therefore X Code, have been working in a way that, as Brad again pointed out, According to Steve Jobs, OSX has been living a secret double life for its entire existence, with Intel builds as far back as OSX 10.0. This is in fact true. So, from Apple's standpoint, they have been running on both chips for many years. I think that using Motorola chips has held Apple back...and I think that Steve Jobs has been looking to get away from Motorola...hence, making sure everything runs on both chip sets...now he is able to move away from Motorola. Finale will have to be first ported to Xcode before anyone can even begin to think about recompiling for Intel. This is, from what I've been able to figure out, not a trivial task by any means. Yup! I agree...I hope Coda has at least a couple of developers with their arses pl anted in chairs up in San Fran I don't know if Coda has written code that is specifically written to a specific type of processor or not (which wouldn't be a wise thing)...but most developers will simply have to do a recompile to add the Intel chip. Not according to Steve. Even developpers who have been using Xcode instead of Codewarrior have (best-case-scenario) weeks of work ahead of them, _pace_ the Mathematica demo given during the Keynote. Keep in mind, this is aside from any MIDI issues -- Hiro has been saying MIDI backwards compatibility isn't even possible. I really, really, really hope that's not the case. I can't imagine a company, that produces a product such as Logic Audio for instance, that has come up with such a great way to handle midi (Core Audio) would drop the ball in such a huge way!! I know that midi setup etc. is WAY better in OS X than it was in OS 9. Step back for a minute and remember Steve Jobs isn't stupid. I'm not saying that the road won't have it's bumps...but again...this move has been in the works for a long time. Not a big deal. I think issues will be easier than moving from 68K to PowerPC for sure. That strikes me as optimistic beyond all reason. I disagree...I've been in touch with folks that are sitting in classes up in San Francisco as we speak (O.Kthey actually may be sampling really good Tequila at this particular moment...) and they have a different impression. Again, I'm not saying smooth sailing all the way because that would optimistic beyond all reason. But this is a liberating move for Apple in my opinion. Regarding this specific Intel chip...word on the street is that there is a specific type of chip called Itanium which, if rumors are true, will be used in Apple hardware. This is an old article but I think this may be the case. I'm afraid not. As it stands, Apple will be using P4's. In fact, the machine Steve used as a demo -- which is also the machine being seeded to developpers -- is a 3.6 GHz P4 (albeit in a G5 case, no doubt with Open Firmware instead of standard P4 bios. Perhaps for now he is using P4's (which we don't know for sure...and if true would be really impressive...and proof of some serious flexibility and foresight)but, there may be some things he can't or won't for business reasons completely disclose right nowor else he is saying that there may be a future chip called Itanium or something to that effect when in fact it is being put into practice as we speak...I would think that once Intel had the confidence that Apple wouldn't be considering the AMD chips in any way, they would make concessions that will benefit Apple solely. That would be a smart business move and may change the whole market share structure. Speculation on my part but I think entirely possible. Regardless, it doesn't much matter -- it's still a completely alien chip architecture, and it's frankly insane to believe this could possibly be a seamless transition. There's a lot of bitter medicine ahead for Mac users. But this is not an alien chip architecture...to us it is but to Apple it isn't. Not seamless...it is a transition. But they have been working on this for quite awhile. I think this is great news for Apple...I think this will result in a big boost in processor speeds...now, regarding Coda...I'm not as optimistic...but willing to give the benefit of a doubt...for
[Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Simon Troup Digital Media Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 6/6/2005 01:57 PM, Simon Troup wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Apple Expected To Announce Shift To Intel Chips http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,102258,00.html?nlid=AM Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Of course since Steve Jobs ran his whole presentation on an OS X Intel box, and ran iPhoto, Safari, etc, etc, plus Adobe and other apps. They are going to do the Fat binary thing again. I don't think it will be a problem as long as developers have been using the right tools. Hello Codamusic!!! A-NO-NE Music wrote: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs was giving his keynote, publically. Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows... Johannes A-NO-NE Music schrieb: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Simon Troup wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Interesting -- maybe there will be less wintel bashing now that there will be aptel drinking from the same well? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
A-NO-NE Music wrote: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. In the article I read, Jobs was quoted as saying that OS-X won't need much change to run on Pentium4 chips. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Its good. As long as Apple uses its own board designs. That is the good part of Apple, the tight fit of hardware and software. Apple designed boards, and Intel chips. It will be a good thing. Johannes Gebauer wrote: Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs was giving his keynote, publically. Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows... Johannes ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs was giving his keynote, publically. Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows... Johannes Look for Win-OSX coming soon! :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Look for Win-OSX coming soon! :-) I wonder if Apple have looked at their ability to market the iPod and retain market share and believe they now have the name and experience to capitalise on this by going back into the marketplace with Dell and the like. After all they've seemingly weathered the Sony, iRiver (etc) challenges against the iPod. I think they can retain the hardware/software joint development advantage for apple hardware buyers and still make OSX available on the x86 platform generally. I look forward to this, I think it's great news. I'm no great fan of IBM, just as I wasnt a fan of Motorola. I don't really care who the chips are made by, so long as they're reliable - if they're cheaper and more plentiful, that's only good too! Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:36, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs was giving his keynote, publically. Well, it may have been an Intel chip on the motherboard of the machine running demos, but: 1. we don't know if it's a garden-variety Pentium, one of Intel's new dual-core Pentium D chips, which aren't yet available in any commercially available PCs. 2. we don't know what the motherboard was, which is crucial. It was surely not an Intel-based motherboard with legacy BIOS and so forth -- it was almost certainly an Apple motherboard with whatever adaptation is necessary to connect to a different CPU. In short, this does *not* mean that we'll be able to buy OS X and install it on our PCs. All it means is that there will be an Intel-manufactured chip at the heart of the boxes Apple sells, but the boxes themselves will still reflect Apple engineering at all levels, and not be at all interchangeable with, say, a Dell box with the same CPU. That's the only possible way Apple could make this work -- otherwise they'd be in the same boat as Microsoft, having to support so many different configurations of hardware that they could never create a truly reliable system. All that aside, the real issue here may be completely different. Some provocative articles on what this is really about: (from January 2005) http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050120.html http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Basically, according to the speculation in these articles, it's all about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the movie industry, and repositioning the Mac as the premier platform for delivery of on- demand movies/video. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/06/06 / 02:36 PM wrote: Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs was giving his keynote, publically. Darwin runs on x86 from day one. Cocoa apps might be easily recompiled. The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry users PowerPC, and Intel already announced x86 speed bump hit the wall, all that suggest there may be something completely new coming. The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a long walk again, as did on OSX? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a long walk again, as did on OSX? I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid back by closer parallel development in future. Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=28771category=main --- After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. --- Simon Troup Digital Music Art ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:35, Simon Troup wrote: The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a long walk again, as did on OSX? I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid back by closer parallel development in future. There will be no time savings at all, as Finale doesn't run on top of the hardware, but on top of the OS. Since the APIs for OS X and Windows are completely different, there will be absolutely no time savings in parallel development. In fact, for most apps designed for the native OS X APIs, surely there will be very little in the way of changes needed for it to run on whatever Intel chip Apple chooses to put in its new Macs. Classic will be much more complicated, though, according to what I've read. And keep in mind the last line of this article: http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will, he said. We won't do anything to preclude that. However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac, he said. (here's a hint for posting News.com URLs -- cut out the title of the article and keep only the numeric part. The original URL looked like this: http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100- 7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nl ) -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Simon Troup wrote: The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a long walk again, as did on OSX? I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid back by closer parallel development in future. That would assume that the problems MakeMusic had were with dealing with the Mac chips, not the OS programming. Different OS, same chip, different programming hassles. I'm not sure, given today's OS design which supposedly shields the software from the hardware or vice versa, whether two different OSs running on the same chip would make development any more similar or parallel. Another fact that someone else pointed out is that we don't know if it was a stock Pentium chip the demo ran on, or a special one that Intel has developped for Mac use only. Remember the 386 or was it the 486 where the math coprocessor link was cut on the less expensive version, but the chips were in fact identical? But of course the programming couldn't be identical since the math coprocessor couldn't be accessed in the machines with the less expensive chip. I wonder if Apple/Intel have some similar sort of not-quite-the-same-pentium design situation where the chip starts out the same but a simple tweak turns it into something that won't run Windows but which Apple knows how to get around so it will run OSX. Otherwise possibly we can all look forward to running truly dual-boot machines and really having the ability to pick and choose which OS/App combination we want for whatever situation we choose. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote: I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid back by closer parallel development in future. Hmmm, I don't know. Can you name single app that makes user feel parallel dev benefits? NI is obviously favor to Win. I don't know about Finale. I am doing one DAW beta testing that uses 8GB .dat file. The performance hit on Win is bad since it is encoded in Big Endian. I might have been dreaming but I just can't get away from thinking Finale wasn't this buggy before Win version was introduced :-( Ducking... -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
On 6 Jun 2005 at 16:01, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote: I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid back by closer parallel development in future. Hmmm, I don't know. Can you name single app that makes user feel parallel dev benefits? NI is obviously favor to Win. I don't know about Finale. I am doing one DAW beta testing that uses 8GB .dat file. The performance hit on Win is bad since it is encoded in Big Endian. I might have been dreaming but I just can't get away from thinking Finale wasn't this buggy before Win version was introduced :-( Er, what?!??! You'd be going back 15 years, as Finale came out on Windows before version 2.01, which is the first version of Finale I bought. It was *very* difficult to use, as it was clearly a port from the Mac version, and had all sorts of assumptions about UI and behavior that were Mac-centric, and not in line with the expectations of a Windows user. Of course, at that time, Mac OS was a much more mature and well- designed GUI than Windows 3.0 (which is what WinFin 2.01 was designed for -- that was before TrueType was integrated into Windows, and non- PostScript printing wasn't very good on Windows, though still decent in comparison to some of the other notation packages people were using, with the exception of the Cadillac of the time, Score). Finale became a Windows program for me with the switch to Microsoft develompent tools made by Coda as part of their effort to create the 32-bit version of Finale. That happened, so far as I remember, with WinFin97. At that point, the Mac version became the port, if I'm remembering correctly what Randy Stokes told us. But I believe Code did not make the same mistake Microsoft did with Word, and did not make the two programs identical -- they kept the Mac version Mac-like, and the Windows version Windows-like. Coda seems to me to have made the transition from 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows much more successfully than MakeMusic managed the transition from Mac OS to OS X. This may very well have been precisely because of the switch to MS development tools that made the Windows transition so easy (with the exception of MIDI, which was not successfully negotiated intil the second or third release of 32-bit Finale). It may be that a Windows orientation in the code base complicated supporting OS X enormously. Or maybe it was just the requirements of maintaining a single codebase for two very different OS's that was the cause of the difficulties. But it has only been recently that the Windows version of Finale was not a poor stepchild of the Mac version. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Well, hopefully, MakeMusic has learned from their previous blunders, and has written Finale in something that would be easily ported A-NO-NE Music wrote: Darwin runs on x86 from day one. Cocoa apps might be easily recompiled. The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry users PowerPC, and Intel already announced x86 speed bump hit the wall, all that suggest there may be something completely new coming. The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a long walk again, as did on OSX? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Hey all, Wow, that's a shocker. It's been rumored for so long, but I never thought it would actually happen. It's too bad, as I really like the technology behind the G5, but IBM just haven't been able to follow through on what initially seemed like a promising processor design. I don't think Apple had much choice, though -- G5's were supposed to hit 3 GHz a year ago and they are still stalled at 2.7. I just got through watching the WWDC Keynote. According to Steve, the transition to native Intel builds will be trivial for Cocoa apps (a matter of days), somewhat more complicated for Carbon apps made with Xcode (weeks), and flat-out impossible for Carbon apps made with Metroworks -- these apps must be moved to Xcode first. I gather that's not something you do overnight. I strongly suspect Finale OS X is still made with Metroworks, but perhaps someone from Coda would like to chime in? [Given the complete fiasco of Coda's initial move to OS X, a little more transparency and honesty -- not to mention timeliness -- from Coda this time around would be most welcome.] PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case, Rosetta. Steve has assured us that it's nothing like Classic and will be completely invisible to the user and fast (enough), but honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta? In the long run, I suspect that this, like the move to OS X, will be good for Apple. In fact, it's probably essential to its viability as a computer maker. In the short run, I think we can only really be certain of one thing: that the transition to Intel Macs won't be anywhere near as seamless as Steve's keynote speech made it look. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 06 Jun 2005, at 2:28 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: Of course since Steve Jobs ran his whole presentation on an OS X Intel box, and ran iPhoto, Safari, etc, etc, plus Adobe and other apps. They are going to do the Fat binary thing again. I don't think it will be a problem as long as developers have been using the right tools. Hello Codamusic!!! A-NO-NE Music wrote: Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote: Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips. Yup. it's here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite order differences besides RISC/CISC differences. ___ 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] OT - Apple move to Intel
Given the Finale for OS X initial fiasco, I am wondering if they send developer(s) to these developer's conference at all. I really hope that there's someone there to get what the mac team needs to avoid extremely frustrating experiences for customers, like the port to Finale 2004 has been. I don't want to hear anymore that MakeMusic is a small company that doesn't have the resources to get the work done. I guess that if there is no MM developer there, that nobody will tell it to us (MM folks on the list) for obvious reasons. On the other hand if they do, it can't hurt to just say it. Let's see. But I want to stay optimistic and hope that everything will just be fine... Éric Dussault Le 05-06-06 à 21:30, Darcy James Argue a écrit : I strongly suspect Finale OS X is still made with Metroworks, but perhaps someone from Coda would like to chime in? [Given the complete fiasco of Coda's initial move to OS X, a little more transparency and honesty -- not to mention timeliness -- from Coda this time around would be most welcome.] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 09:30 PM wrote: PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case, Rosetta. Steve has assured us that it's nothing like Classic and will be completely invisible to the user and fast (enough), but honestly, who knows whether MIDI will even work under Rosetta? It will not. Rosetta won't run to kext, which MIDI use. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 11:58 PM wrote: However, if you are right -- if, a year from now when the first MacIntels ship, Rosetta still doesn't support MIDI, then that's cause for serious concern. You might want to take a look at this: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/ universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf Appendix A has Rosseta spec. Rosseta is not like Apple is trying to invent something like CoreAudio or CoreMIDI. They are doing this transcoder for easy transition. My point is that it doesn't look Rosseta is something under development. On the other hand, anything when it comes to assembly, it can be really messy. Who knows when Apple finishes MacTel CoreMIDI. Vendors won't be able to do anything until Apple finishes it. Remember AudioUnit? Apple never finished solid spec till Panther. Emagic had to jump on it since they were bought out by Apple, ended up with creating AU standard which didn't meet the Apple's AU spec. A big mess. Not to mention Apple modified AU API two days before Panther release, which was after FC GM build was passed QA. That caused a lot of problems to us, DAW users. I am not complaining. Tiger and my G5 Dual-2.5 can do quite amazing stuff :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
I wrote: Not to mention Apple modified AU API two days before Panther release, Sorry, I meant CA, CoreAudio, that was the trouble maker at Panther release. But the spec mess Apple created was in fact AU, AudioUnit. Too bad that AU spec finally got settled with Panther, and we all are in the happy place now, which doesn't seems to last long. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
