...That simply is not true. A Mac user does not have to upgrade
their software EVERY time a new Mac comes out. You can run a ton of
programs, including Microcrap Office, on the new Intel macs. No need
to upgrade there. Some with Adobe's software. Same was true when
Apple went with OS X. You
Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Because it took me a long time to write it (about 12 years ago), and I
don't want to rewrite it.
--
Ken Moore
Musician and engineer
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac?
No
Does it run on a new G5?
Yes
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I'm told OpenOffice and StarOffice are compatible, but it's risky
to beta-test your editing work on live clients. :)
I regularly use OpenOffice to read Word documents and have returned .xls
files to their originators after having modified them in
On 25.05.2006 Lawrence David Eden wrote:
Does Finale 2K3 run on the new Intel Mac?
No.
Does it run on a new G5?
Yes.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On May 24, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
computer??
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old
files. As a publisher, it is
Eric Dannewitz / 2006/05/24 / 12:28 AM wrote:
Nor does anything do it really well. You might want to check out
Melodyne.
Depending on material, Digital Performer does fair job. Not as good as
Melodyne, tho.
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com
Something is wrong with this thread.
You buy software, not physically, but the right to use at the moment.
If you can't accept this then you probably shouldn't use computer for
your work. No software is responsible to support future unknown
platform. If you need to run the old software, the
But that kind of logic is why Microsoft is having such problems. There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW
computers, your old software might not run. In fact, it probably won't.
We're sorry. We recommend keeping whatever you have around to use the
older software if
On May 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Dragoş Oltean wrote:
I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II, III,
IV
You have to enter each Roman numeral as a separate text-block on each
page. TTBOMK there is no program that will provide Roman numeration
automatically, though
At 5/25/2006 01:06 PM, dc wrote:
Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support the
software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me.
Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any professional
user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility
There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look, on these NEW
computers, your old software might not run.
I suspect someday that day will come for Windows. So far it has not and shows
no signs of it.
This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is whether
Win
So because MakeMusic can't import files from older versions of Finale
into a newer version properly, you have to cripple Windows/Mac OS X with
the necessity of running older versions of the program?
Now, that doesn't make sense at allno wonder Microsoft is in
such dire straits with
I'd say it's obviously that Windows provides better support for OLD
programs. But Apple has and does provide support for older programs, but
at some point Apple does cut the cord to keep on the cutting edge
Robert Patterson wrote:
There
has to be a point where you tell the users Look,
On May 25, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On May 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Dragoş Oltean wrote:
I want to write in automat text page number romanic style: I, II,
III, IV
You have to enter each Roman numeral as a separate text-block on each
page. TTBOMK there is no program
On 25 May 2006 at 14:53, Robert Patterson wrote:
Leave it to David Fenton to argue with me when I'm agreeing with him.
I wasn't arguing. I was correcting what seemed to me to be
misstatements of the history you were outlining.
[]
I believe that current Pentium chips
use a form of
Robert Patterson / 2006/05/25 / 01:32 PM wrote:
This argument begs the question, though. The issue under discussion is
whether Win *does* provide better backwards compatibility, not whether
it *should*. Nothing in this post offers any evidence to counter the
proposition that Windows does in fact
On 25 May 2006 at 13:22, Andrew Stiller wrote:
TTBOMK there is no program that will provide Roman numeration
automatically, though certainly it would be easy enough to do.
Microsoft Word provides it as one of the default numbering styles and
has done so as long as I've used MS Word (which
On 25 May 2006 at 10:17, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
dc wrote:
A-NO-NE Music écrit:
No software is responsible to support future unknown
platform.
Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support
the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me.
Andrew's
Dear list:
I'm a mac user, and haven't had to do this on a windows machine in a long
time so am unable to remember the procedure. If you want more than one word
to set under a single note as a lyric, on a mac, you can type option-space
to insert the null space character. What, pray tell, is
At 01:33 PM 5/25/2006, Barbara Touburg wrote:
Adobe InDesign does.
So does MS Publisher.
Aaron.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
David Fenton:
That may be, but the comments you made applied only to the Win9x
kernel and not to the NT kernel.
Sez you.
I don't see why that was not possible for Apple to have done
the same thing,
Sometime have a look at Inside Macintosh Vols 1-3, which describe the API up
thru
On 5/25/06, dc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A-NO-NE Music écrit:
Meanwhile, I still believe there is no excuse that Finale never offered
SaveAs older version format, do you not think?
Couldn't agree more. Especially that this seems to be a deliberate choice
on their part...
Probably why they
Andrew:
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a transparent update for old
files. As a publisher, it is crucial that I be able to print out
old files in exactly the form in which they were created, and the
practical
At 08:24 PM 5/25/06 -0400, Neal Gittleman wrote:
it strikes me that an old-machine-for-old-
files solution doesn't seem so out of whack...
I don't think it's a bad concept in theory. But it comes up against the
reality of an ever-increasing load of quickly consciously obsoleted
formats. Why
While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving
all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the
need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print
the file. Editing it would require the original version, of course,
unless you are
Or the other possibility is to start a petition to get MakeMusic to
actually make Finale import old files correctly...yeah, like that
will happen.
Neal Gittleman wrote:
Andrew:
Let's talk about Finale here. New versions of the program,
historically, have not usually provided a
Very wise words.
Robert Patterson wrote:
While this is little help for Fin2.x, since ca. Fin2k I've been saving
all my files as PDF for printing purposes. This greatly alleviates the
need to keep old Finale versions around, because you can always print
the file. Editing it would require the
28 matches
Mail list logo
