On 10 Aug 2011 at 21:01, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote:
Lately, upon closing any Finale file, I get the following pop-up:
SmartHeap Library
MEM_BAD_POINTER
Beats the hell outta me. Ideas?
Googling on SmartHeap Library MEM_BAD_POINTER returns a whole host
of results. Have
On Thu, August 11, 2011 2:13 pm, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote:
As I only have this pop-up occur when closing Finale files, I had wondered
if/how others had dealt with the problemif in fact anyone else has.
I haven't, but when/how did it start? There's a fix for another program that
://tinyurl.com/ygpj7og
Mariposa Symphony Orchestra: http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.html
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz bath...@maltedmedia.com
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale 2009/Win XP
On Thu, August 11, 2011 2
On 11 Aug 2011 at 11:13, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote:
I had googled for solutions specific to my edition (XP, SP3) before
writing the list, but the most-prevalent 'solution' was to apply a
Microsoft hotfix which - upon unzipping, was a fix that pre-dated my
most current (XP) update.
Instead of setting them up again, they are stored in
username/Library/Audo/MIDI Configurations. You could make a simple
Applescript to copy files to that destination. Though you'd have to
have someway to redo the permissions on the file first. Though if all
the computers are THE SAME in the lab,
You can apply the Red and Write permissions to the entire folder and all
that is contained inside. It's only two actual files I believe that cause
the problem, though I do not remember which. Just do a Get Info on the
folder, change the permission and Apply to Enclosed. This does need to be
redone
Hi!
Am 15.01.2010 um 15:57 schrieb Ken Parsons:
I contacted Finale tech. support, who said that Read and Write
permissions on Finale needed to be enabled for all users.
Then Finale is broken.
User Software has to be able to run in user accounts.
We've already lost three class periods to
You do mean 1/4 and not 1/1, yes?
It should be 1/4 if it isn't.
Jim
From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of noel jones
[gede...@usit.net]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:39 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: [Finale] FINALE
Ah yes,!
Thanks.
On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Williams, Jim wrote:
You do mean 1/4 and not 1/1, yes?
It should be 1/4 if it isn't.
Jim
From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of
noel jones [gede...@usit.net]
Sent: Monday,
Click on the staff (inside the music). MM capriciously changed this
behavior on purpose in Fin09.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Bonnie Janofsky
brjanof...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I started working in Finale 2009 since the apparent conflicts between earlier
versions and my new Intel laptop - 2.5
To be more specific, you have to click to the RIGHT of the time
signature, on the staff for staff reduction and between the staves
for system reduction. Complain about this, as the documentation
doesn't even mention it, either.
BTW, even if you didn't know this, you could still change
Hmm, I haven't received anything from them. The deal breaker though is
that TG Tools isn't working fully with 2009. When it does, I might
upgrade from 2007 to 2009
Michael Greensill wrote:
This is the first time I haven't automatically bought the up-grade.
And I guess I'm not the only one
On Aug 3, 2008, at 6:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I have once encountered a need to go above 4 layers. I don't
remember the context. I eventually worked around it, but everytime I
subsequently wanted to make changes to this, it was a pain. I never
thought much about it, as it was
Andrew Stiller wrote:
See Bach, WTC fugue XXII, for example.
Once i had to engrave a piece for organ. It had longs chords of 4, 5,
sometimes 6 notes, gradually shifting to other chords, one note at a
time. I wished we could have 6 layers!
Robert Patterson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Jari Williamsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you added a woodwind part and needed the same elsewhere, you could copy
the expressions from an existing woodwind staff.
Now you are just rationalizing. Clearly for this case a staff set
I agree that staff lists are probably not the best solution for
dynamics. (I never used them for dynamics myself.) Where I see the
need for removing the limit is for special group-level performance
instructions or group-level tempo marks if a sub-group is moving at a
different tempo.
The problem
Barbara Touburg wrote:
I can't think of a recent example, but I can imagine changes in
instrumentation in an orchestral piece, where I would have a staff list
all woodwinds, I could quickly add an instrument if needed, by simply
changing the assignment definition. With drag-assigning I would
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Jari Williamsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you added a woodwind part and needed the same elsewhere, you could copy
the expressions from an existing woodwind staff.
Now you are just rationalizing. Clearly for this case a staff set
would be the better solution.
FWIW, I have once encountered a need to go above 4 layers. I don't remember the
context. I eventually worked around it, but everytime I subsequently wanted to
make changes to this, it was a pain. I never thought much about it, as it was
quite rare for me, but it always struck me as odd. IIRC, I
Matthew Hindson fastmail acct wrote:
I downloaded the demo and checked it out. But it raised a few
questions/issues which maybe arose during Finale 2008, I'm not sure.
- Does everyone else have the Garamond font for the items in the Setup
Wizard? (Yuk! Great printing font, horrible screen
Jari Williamsson wrote:
Agreed, although I don't understand why everyone seems to focus on staff
lists.
I have actually vowed to stop talking about staff lists. I unsubscribed
from the relevant thread over on the forum.
But the why is this. I cannot remember any feature in the prior 20
Robert Patterson wrote:
Finally, it almost surely *is* an artificial limit. I am virtually
certainly I could write a plugin that allowed you to maintain,
associate, and name as many staff lists as you like. (I never would
write this plugin because those files would not be supported by MM or
Barbara Touburg wrote:
Then I respectfully and urgently ask you do so, Robert! I can't imagine
working WITTHOUT the staff lists! They are like style sheets to me!
Ha, ha.
This is one of those cases of be careful what you ask for, because I
am half tempted to try. Even though it would
Robert Patterson wrote:
Ha, ha.
This is one of those cases of be careful what you ask for, because I
am half tempted to try. Even though it would probably work, any file you
saved could not be supported by me and would not be supported by MM. And
because Finale's UI is expecting to find
Barbara Touburg wrote:
Why couldn't you support those files?
Because I could not guarantee that MM would upgrade them correctly in
Fin10 (assuming there will be one), or that MM would not deliberately
prevent a plugin from doing what I have in mind. They could do either.
Nor could I
Robert Patterson wrote:
Barbara Touburg wrote:
Why couldn't you support those files?
Because I could not guarantee that MM would upgrade them correctly in
Fin10 (assuming there will be one), or that MM would not deliberately
prevent a plugin from doing what I have in mind. They could do
I would urge you to put together an even more specific set of
requirements for how you use staff lists and post it to the Finale
support forum. They need to hear from impacted users.
I find particularly compelling your continuo example with the hidden
playback staves. Drag-apply simply does
At 8:26 AM -0500 8/2/08, Robert Patterson wrote:
Jari Williamsson wrote:
Agreed, although I don't understand why everyone seems to focus on
staff lists.
I have actually vowed to stop talking about staff lists. I
unsubscribed from the relevant thread over on the forum.
But the why is
Robert Patterson wrote:
Jari Williamsson wrote:
Agreed, although I don't understand why everyone seems to focus on
staff lists.
I have actually vowed to stop talking about staff lists. I unsubscribed
from the relevant thread over on the forum.
But the why is this. I cannot remember any
Er um, my noisy posts both on this list and on the public forums
included direct quotes of MM folks that I believed said it (by
circumlocution of course). I'll let you check your own deleted folder.
I'm too tired of the subject to check mine. ;-)
RP
John Howell wrote:
Has MakeMusic actually
On Aug 1, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Matthew Hindson fastmail acct wrote:
I downloaded the demo and checked it out. But it raised a few
questions/issues which maybe arose during Finale 2008, I'm not sure.
- Does everyone else have the Garamond font for the items in the
Setup Wizard? (Yuk! Great
Bob, this isn't directly an answer to your question but my work-around
in 2008 was to leave my Metric Halo FireWire audio interface set in
Audio MIDI Setup as the default input and output device. Then I ran a
cable from the built-in Line Out of my Mac Pro into the interface. I
still have to select
On Jul 10, 2008, at 3:26 PM, J D Thomas wrote:
I feel the need to amend my last statement. I got an email from MM
announcing Finale 2009, and registered 2007 users can use a special
upgrade code, F2K9U7, and get the 2009 upgrade for $100 plus s/h.
Alas, I'll still wait for the first
2008/7/16 Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 01:39 PM 7/16/2008, Chuck Israels wrote:
I am another committed Speedy Entry user who has attempted using
Simple Entry a few times and quickly abandoned it. Tom Johnson told me
a couple of years ago that the long term plan was to make Simple have
gt;A long-time lurker here - I also have tried Simple Entry, only to get
gt;completely bamboozled and lose my temper and immediately revert to Speedy.
I tried Speedy once, never made it through 10 bars.
Simple Entry is sublime in it's simplicity.
/ Chris B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gt;A long-time lurker here - I also have tried Simple Entry, only to get
gt;completely bamboozled and lose my temper and immediately revert to Speedy.
I tried Speedy once, never made it through 10 bars.
Simple Entry is sublime in it's simplicity.
/ Chris B
Ray Horton wrote:
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Eric--
I'd really like to know who told you that we were dropping Speedy.
This FUD has been spread on the public forum as well.
I think it's been added to the Barack Obama is a Muslim email.
RBH
P. S. For anyone else, like myself, who hadn't
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Eric--
I'd really like to know who told you that we were dropping Speedy. This FUD has
been spread on the public forum as well.
I can guess how the rumor got started -- in the promo material for
Fin2009 on the web-site, on the page dealing with Note Entry, there is a
On 15.07.2008 Robert Patterson wrote:
I am concerned specifically that a reinvented and streamlined
expression tool will not be capable of upgrading an existing file
without requiring the file to be re-proofed for errors in placement of
expressions.
I must say that doesn't bother me any more.
I disagree that it has been like this with every update. Reproofing was
a significant headache with all updates from v1.0 to roughly Fin97. I'm
not talking about subtleties. Spacing would be screwed up, or
accidentals and expressions jumped around. I actually had to write a
custom plugin to
Excellent point. How many people actually find that MicNotator thing useful?
I've tried it once or twice and it was terrible..
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:22 AM, dhbailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Eric--
I'd really like to know who told you that we were dropping
On 16.07.2008 dhbailey wrote:
I can guess how the rumor got started -- in the promo material for Fin2009 on
the web-site, on the page dealing with Note Entry, there is a tab for Simple
Entry, for Hyperscribe, for MicNotator and for Scanning. No mention of Speedy
Entry at all. And since
My experience is that FIN2008b is the best at upgrading files from 3.5.2 on
up. I've spent most of this year upgrading large numbers of old 3.5.2 choral
files directly into 2008b with great success. No other version could retain
most of the look on the page. Yes, there are a few issues (text
On Jul 16, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Furthermore, I remember that we were at least half-officially told
that Speedy entry will not be further developed in any future
versions of Finale, as it had been decided to go Simple, and to
convert people over to Simple. This was
At 01:39 PM 7/16/2008, Chuck Israels wrote:
I am another committed Speedy Entry user who has attempted using
Simple Entry a few times and quickly abandoned it. Tom Johnson told me
a couple of years ago that the long term plan was to make Simple have
an option that would allow pitch first, then
LOL!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Horton
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:41 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale 2009
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Eric--
I'd really like to know who told you that we were dropping Speedy
Chuck Israels wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Furthermore, I remember that we were at least half-officially told
that Speedy entry will not be further developed in any future versions
of Finale, as it had been decided to go Simple, and to convert people
over
Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 01:39 PM 7/16/2008, Chuck Israels wrote:
I am another committed Speedy Entry user who has attempted using
Simple Entry a few times and quickly abandoned it. Tom Johnson told me
a couple of years ago that the long term plan was to make Simple have
an option that would
On Wed, July 16, 2008 2:16 pm, dhbailey wrote:
So whatever happens, I hope that the functionality of Speedy Entry
remains (and can be improved upon) even if they wrap it into Simple
Entry.
I agree. I don't need the little window-frame (which is actually a
window-pain), just the keystroke
Chuck wrote:
I am another committed Speedy Entry user who has attempted using
Simple Entry a few times and quickly abandoned it.
I'm just me tooing .
Cecil Rigby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 16 Jul 2008 at 14:16, dhbailey wrote:
can't get anywhere near the speed with Simple as I can get with Speedy.
For all my major entry projects, I use a MIDI keyboard in Speedy. The
only time I've ever used Speedy with the computer keyboard alone for
any major work was way back before I had
I am also a Speedy user, but I must say I've seen the Tom Carrathers
demo, and he makes a strong case for Simple. These days it is far
from simple, and it is very powerful. But I remain a creature of
habit.
Chuck wrote:
I am another committed Speedy Entry user who has attempted using
Simple
A long-time lurker here - I also have tried Simple Entry, only to get
completely bamboozled and lose my temper and immediately revert to Speedy.
Probably if I spent some time and looked at the manual I might get my head
around it, but why change the habits of years?
Frank
2008/7/17 Robert
Plus I see a huge downside risk of poor compatibility with existing files.
Such as?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale 2009
I think 2008 still has Speedy Note.
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
Didn't Allen Fisher or someone pretty much say they would not?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM, mystrom1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who is still using
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Dannewitz
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:19 AM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Finale 2009
I think 2008 still has Speedy Note.
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
Didn't Allen Fisher or someone pretty much say
Such as if you have a mf you technically put on beat 4, but you dragged
it to the first beat in Finale 2007. If you open it in 2009, what will
it do?
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Plus I see a huge downside risk of poor compatibility with existing files.
Such as?
It may do exactly the same thing. All I am saying is, until we have
Fin09 in our hands to see what it will do, I am concerned that hidden
within the hype may be some backwards steps.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Eric Dannewitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such as if you have a mf you technically
Fisher, Allen wrote:
Eric--
I'd really like to know who told you that we were dropping Speedy. This FUD has
been spread on the public forum as well.
I think it's been added to the Barack Obama is a Muslim email.
RBH
P. S. For anyone else, like myself, who hadn't yet come across FUD
The transition to 2008 almost fouled me up. I had not upgraded when
I was asked to give a Finale course/clinic, and when I finally did
open 2008 I was dumbfounded by the amount of changes that were
introduced. I couldn't find anything in their usual places.
Well, preparing for the course
As someone who is still using Finale for Mac 2003a, will I still be
able to use Speedy Note entry if I switch over to 2008?
Martin
On 7/14/08, Bernard Savoie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The transition to 2008 almost fouled me up. I had not upgraded when I was
asked to give a Finale
I think 2008 still has Speedy Note.
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
Didn't Allen Fisher or someone pretty much say they would not?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM, mystrom1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who is still using Finale for Mac 2003a, will I
At 12:18 PM 7/14/2008, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I think 2008 still has Speedy Note.
It does.
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
They have not. It works exactly the same as in 2008.
Aaron.
___
Finale mailing list
WHEW...Good.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Aaron Sherber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:18 PM 7/14/2008, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I think 2008 still has Speedy Note.
It does.
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
They have not. It works exactly the
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'm surprised they seemed to have dropped Speedy Note Entry from 2009.
Did they really? Then I might not migrate to 2009.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Aaron Sherber wrote:
They have not. It works exactly the same as in 2008.
Pfff, that's a relief!
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Johannes Gebauer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, the new expressions tool seems so much better, it may
well pay for itself.
I see where the new expression tool may make learning Finale easier
for a newbie, but for an old hand like Johannes, who
On 11.07.2008 David W. Fenton wrote:
But 10.3 is quite dated now.
I just don't understand this mentality. According to Wikipedia,
Panther was released Oct. 24, 2003, which means it's less than 5
years old. I'm running WinXP on my laptop and Win2K on my desktop,
which means that both of my
- The Mass Edit Tool can no longer be accessed by using the
traditional tool palettes.
This is a FIX??
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Fin08 eliminated the Mass Edit tool entirely. Its functions are now
available much of the time in other tools. If you want a baseline
equivalent, it might be the Selection Tool. Everything Mass Edit could
do is available in the Selection Tool, along with much more. I have
quickly come to prefer
On 11.07.2008 Andrew Stiller wrote:
I have Mac OS 10.3, wh. apparently FinMac 09 won't support. Since long, bitter
experience has taught me *never* to upgrade an OS, but rather to buy a new
computer with the upgraded version already on it, Finale 09, promising though
it seems, is definitely
10.3 to 10.4 is painless, unless you need to do file sharing over
Ethertalk (highly unlikely).
Upgrading to 10.5 is a much bigger step, and I disrecommend it. I use
10.5 exclusively now, but I had to upgrade much of my software to get
there. I did upgrade one computer from 10.4, and I found it to
Andrew Stiller wrote:
- The Mass Edit Tool can no longer be accessed by using the
traditional tool palettes.
This is a FIX??
Yeah, the way a dog which has its gonads removed is fixed.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
I did upgrade one computer from 10.4, and I found it to be the
most annoying and troublesome upgrade ever foisted on me by Apple. (It
was still far easier than major Windows upgrades, though.)
My system is not very complex, but I found
Well, actually not like that in any way. The Mass Mover functions have
been integrated into the baseline function of the program. It's
actually a big improvement.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM, dhbailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, the way a dog which has its gonads removed is fixed.
Wow Robert, I had no file sharing trouble in my venture from 10.3 to
10.4. In fact, file sharing is one area that has been trouble-free
for me all the way thru OS X. But the upgrade the 10.5 was quite
problematic, as yours. I'm convinced mine was due to the gawd-awful
Migration
Good one David.
***
J D Thomas
ThomaStudios
West Linn OR
www.thomastudios.com
On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:51 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
- The Mass Edit Tool can no longer be accessed by using the
traditional tool palettes.
This is a FIX??
Yeah, the
On 11 Jul 2008 at 19:14, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
But 10.3 is quite dated now.
I just don't understand this mentality. According to Wikipedia,
Panther was released Oct. 24, 2003, which means it's less than 5
years old. I'm running WinXP on my laptop and Win2K on my desktop,
which means that
dhbailey wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
- The Mass Edit Tool can no longer be accessed by using the
traditional tool palettes.
This is a FIX??
Yeah, the way a dog which has its gonads removed is fixed.
Always nice to see brilliant minds at work. What specific activity would
a Mass Edit
This has always been the tradeoff between Apple and Microsoft.
Microsoft tends to value backwards compatibility, but moves very
slowly to evolve their OS and software into superior products, since
they are stuck in a quagmire of backwards compatibility. Even the
ages old 8086 processor
Robert Patterson wrote:
Well, actually not like that in any way. The Mass Mover functions have
been integrated into the baseline function of the program. It's
actually a big improvement.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM, dhbailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, the way a dog which has its
At 7/11/2008 01:30 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
(It was still far easier than major Windows upgrades, though.)
Interesting observation.
WinNt4 to Win2000 was mindless, no changes needed.
Win2000 to WinXP was mindless, no changes needed.
WinXP to Vista is annoying. But Finale 3.7 runs fine on
Jari Williamsson wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
- The Mass Edit Tool can no longer be accessed by using the
traditional tool palettes.
This is a FIX??
Yeah, the way a dog which has its gonads removed is fixed.
Always nice to see brilliant minds at work. What specific
Hence the mess you have they call vista.
On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:34 AM, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 11 Jul 2008 at 19:14, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
But 10.3 is quite dated now.
I just don't understand this mentality. According to Wikipedia,
Panther was released Oct. 24,
I simply like the fact that they incorporated several useful commands
into the contextual menu (right click/option click on mac) for certain
features that most people find useful without having to change tools
to get to those commands i.e. multimeasure rests transposition.
On Fri, July 11, 2008 5:21 pm, Scott Jones wrote:
I simply like the fact that they incorporated several useful commands
into the contextual menu (right click/option click on mac) for certain
features that most people find useful without having to change tools
to get to those commands i.e.
Richard Yates wrote:
Looks like Engraver Slurs are finally fixed:
Sure if that's what they mean by fine-tuned and improved :-)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Haven't they said that about
Richard Yates wrote:
Looks like Engraver Slurs are finally fixed:
Sure if that's what they mean by fine-tuned and improved :-)
Well, it specifically says edits made at high view
percentages always produce the same results when viewed at
100% and when printed, which sure sounds like that
How many haven't left 2006 yet?!!
I might be convinced to upgrade if the Engraver slurs really *do* work now...
-Cecil Rigby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Sheehan asked:
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09? How many of you will stay
with '08?
Well, I'm still using '06, so it's probably time for
me to upgrade.
--- Patrick Sheehan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09?
How many of you will stay with '08? Let the
discussion begin!
Patrick J. M. Sheehan
Woodlawn Arts Academy, Instructor,
Make sure you tell customer support that.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Yates [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 02:34 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: RE: [Finale] Finale 2009
I looked further for my own
Patrick Sheehan wrote:
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09?
Yes.
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--- Cecil Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many haven't left 2006 yet?!!
I might be convinced to upgrade if the Engraver
slurs really *do* work now...
That's why I'm thinking of ugrading.
-Cecil Rigby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Sheehan asked:
Anyone see any features worth
On Thu, July 10, 2008 11:05 am, Lora Crighton wrote:
--- Cecil Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be convinced to upgrade if the Engraver
slurs really *do* work now...
That's why I'm thinking of ugrading.
If other vector features worked, then I'd really pay attention! I'm
talking Shape
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09? How many of you
will stay with '08? Let the discussion begin!
I'll upgrade, but keep 2008 working in parallel until I'm comfortable
with 09.
I use 2008 on a daily basis, both in teaching as well as my personal
Patrick Sheehan queried:
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09?
Even though I see important functions that don't seem to be addressed
(fixing and improving linked parts, for example), this upgrade
doesn't seem to have too much added fluff. The improvements in the
way we can
I saw Tom Carruth demo '09 on Tuesday. He said there were things they
still needed to fix with linked parts. Duh. I told him that linked
parts weren't useful for most composers and he countered with how
useful they were for those using Smart Music. Clearly, that's where
the main thrust of
Staying with 2007 thanks
Patrick Sheehan wrote:
Anyone see any features worth working with in '09? How many of you will stay
with '08? Let the discussion begin!
Patrick J. M. Sheehan
Woodlawn Arts Academy, Instructor, Music Director
Centennial Auditorium, Music Director Conductor
Damn, looks like I'm still going to be sticking with 2007
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all those who have been waiting and wondering, the details are posted
for
Finale 2009. Here's the link:
http://www.finalemusic.com/Finale/New.aspx
Vince
I don't see anything compelling to make me want to upgrade -- this'll be
the first upgrade since I started using Finale (version 3.5) that I
won't be buying, unless someone can make strong arguments about what has
really been improved over 2008 other than the Garritan playback.
David H.
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
