Re: [Finale] GPO
On 09 Mar 2005, at 10:29 PM, John Bell wrote: *Does the standalone GPO work OK? No, my midi keyboard doesn't work with it. John, this is Step 1. You need to get the Personal Orchestra application talking to your MIDI keyboard before you can do anything else. GPO Studio won't respond to your MIDI keyboard input until you launch Finale and set it up there, but the piano keys on the *standalone* Personal Orchestra app should highlight when you press the keys on your MIDI keyboard. (Remember to move the mod wheel up each time you load an instrument, otherwise it will play back at the lowest possible dynamic level, and you might not be able to hear it.) If you can't get at least that to work, contact GPO Tech Support. You won't get anywhere with GPO Studio if you can't get the standalone app to work. Next, please read my last post, and this tutorial by the late Adam Burford: http://www.garritan.com/tutorial/Finale_GPO_tut.html This is for Finale 2004 -- the only difference in Finale 2005 is that you can leave Human Playback on if you select Optimize for Garritan Personal Orchestra. Otherwise, you should turn Human Playback off. I tried re-installing GPO but it said everything was already there. So delete it, and try reinstalling again! Anyway, somehow GPO eventually appeared in Finale's Output Devices so I have them set to GPO Studio 1,2,3,4 (but in italics -- doesn't that mean it's not really true?) Yes -- italics means Device not found. See my last post. You have to re-select the non-italic GPO Studio: 1, etc. in Finale's MIDI Setup every time you launch Finale. The output I actually get is from Finale's SoftSynth. Do I need to somehow turn that off? Yes. Turn off Internal Speaker Playback. In SoftSynth settings there is a button for selecting SoundFont -- is that where I select GPO? No. If GPO Studio is correctly selected as the output device in Finale's MIDI Setup, and you have the GPO instruments correctly loaded and the channels for each staff correctly selected in Finale, and MIDI Thru set to Smart, you should get correct GPO playback. See my last post. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] More Quickeys problems
I loved OneClick. Had it set up beautifully for OS9. As I was about to install OS X I contacted them and was dismayed to learn that OC would not work with OS X. However, as my workload was diminishing anyway I went for OS X. I have no macro program ay present but it doesn't seem to slow me down too much. Stan Lord On 8 Mar 2005, at 17:09, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Nothing I have seen on OS X even comes close to what OneClick could do in OS 9. I don't know OneClick very well but I don't think it had logic and variables. QK3 is very powerful and so there is a bit of a learning curve (just like Finale). As in Finale, QK3 allows you to do the same thing in many different ways. Sometimes it is frustrating learning the best approach but over time you will be as comfortable with QK as you are with Finale. You don't know OneClick very well. OneClick was a complete programming language for macros. Of course it had variables, of course it had logic. It was 1000 times more powerful than Quickeys X. And it was easier to use, as well. And fast, including the editor. I have already pretty much decided against Quickeys. It doesn't offer that much more than iKey to justify more than 3 times the price. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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] Authentication schemes
Noel Stoutenburg wrote: to which I would suggest a better option would be for the group of power users to buy shares, and make a point of this at the shareholder's meeting. ns _ A point made at a shareholder's meeting by minority shareholders is usually ignored. Been there, done that: the response from the majority shareholders is usually, you don't like the corporate policy, then sell your shares, we think the present policy will earn more money and selling your handful of shares will have no impact on share price. A point made by commercial clients to the shareholders concerning a faulty product is much more likely to have an effect on corporate policy as it implies a direct result on the corporate sales results. Daniel Wolf ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Someone wrote: That's an easy one -- Rhapsody in Blue isn't jazz. I recently heard a discussion on this very subject - whether R in B was jazz or not. Several wildly different recordings were called upon as witnesses. The conclusion was that when it was played by Jack Splatt's Jazz Band it was jazz and when it was played by Joe Soap's Symphony Orchestra it wasn't. All the best, Lawrence þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On 09 Mar 2005, at 5:30 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. You know, it strikes me that both Mark's attitude and mine are pretty characteristic. The number of jazz musicians I know who are into opera is vanishingly small, and I've found very few classical singers who enjoy instrumental jazz. The exceptions on the latter score tend to be light-voiced singers who do almost exclusively new music and hate traditional opera even more than I do. This rule even seemed to hold for the other employees of the classical record store where I worked, who were mostly classical instrumentalists -- the ones who liked opera tended to be uninterested in instrumental jazz, and vice versa. I wonder why that is? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton wrote: On 9 Mar 2005 at 22:57, Simon Troup wrote: I'm not certain that releasing unlock codes or whatever is feasible as it would seriously damage the companies ability to be sold on if a catastrophe happened, as the prvious version of the software would be available to use easily in unlocked form. Uh, it wouldn't be released until the corporate entity ceased to exist. If there's something to be sold, then it hasn't ceased. A properly designed corporate will would deal with the issue of transfer of control of the escrowed key to the new entity. I'm wondering, though, if Dennis has any examples of software companies that have established a key escrow program. How do they publicize that fact, and how has it been structured? I also wonder if subsequent purchasers of the company would continue to be bound by any untether escrow that MakeMusic might establish now. Once MakeMusic has turned over control of their software assets to another entity, that entity can simply abolish the escrow, since there is no contractual obligation between MakeMusic and anybody else to force MakeMusic to establish it in the first place. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Simon Troup wrote: [snip] In such a situation some other form of backing up your right to use the program would be better. Emagic used to issue keys on floppy disc (way, way back!) and you could transfer the keys via the floppy. I wonder if there's some more up to date way of effecting the same idea? Perhaps that was what Darcy was talking about ... Darcy James Argue wrote: I seem to recall someone saying something about at least creating some method for a user to transfer their registration from one computer to another without having to contact Coda Solving that is probably one of those conundrums like the public key encryption system. Sibelius uses such a system currently -- you can transfer the printing and saving capabilities between machines using a floppy (or presumably some other medium), so the first machine's copy is crippled and the second machine's copy is enabled. Of course, if some tragedy happens to the transfer medium, both copies of the program remain unusable without contacting the company. One thought occurs, which might actually be a good business venture to begin: Somebody could establish a company whose sole purpose is to issue validation or authentication codes for software, all independent of the original publishers of those applications. Outsourcing authentication to a company who would be likely to remain in business because it would have so many corporate clients that the failure of any one client wouldn't force it out of business. It wouldn't even matter whether all the clients used the same authentication process, such an entity could handle them all, including the ability to release a permanent, machine-independent unlock code for applications published by companies which go out of business. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Daniel Wolf wrote: Noel Stoutenburg wrote: to which I would suggest a better option would be for the group of power users to buy shares, and make a point of this at the shareholder's meeting. ns _ A point made at a shareholder's meeting by minority shareholders is usually ignored. Been there, done that: the response from the majority shareholders is usually, you don't like the corporate policy, then sell your shares, we think the present policy will earn more money and selling your handful of shares will have no impact on share price. A point made by commercial clients to the shareholders concerning a faulty product is much more likely to have an effect on corporate policy as it implies a direct result on the corporate sales results. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the corporate clients, such as Warner Brothers and Hal Leonard don't have to go through the authentication process at all. I bet that corporate versions don't have that process in the code, since the onus for policing licensed installations would fall on the corporation, subject to surprise audits by the publishers. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Darcy James Argue wrote: On 09 Mar 2005, at 5:30 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. You know, it strikes me that both Mark's attitude and mine are pretty characteristic. The number of jazz musicians I know who are into opera is vanishingly small, and I've found very few classical singers who enjoy instrumental jazz. The exceptions on the latter score tend to be light-voiced singers who do almost exclusively new music and hate traditional opera even more than I do. This rule even seemed to hold for the other employees of the classical record store where I worked, who were mostly classical instrumentalists -- the ones who liked opera tended to be uninterested in instrumental jazz, and vice versa. I wonder why that is? They feel threatened by what they don't understand? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
d. collins wrote: Well, this is where I completely disagree with you. If all your worried about is printing your files, why don't you simply back them up as PDFs? I already make pdfs of everything. I also print multiple copies of everything, date them, and put them in archive. Geeze the way things are going in the world I may have to gather wood to burn for cooking and heating, buy a horse to take me around, plant my own garden and keep a root cellar, etc. Not that I think those things are imminent or inevitable, but if the time comes I have to re-enter a score in different software, I can do that. And if I have to recopy music by hand to make changes... well, when I started writing music in my teens, that was my ONLY choice. And when I think of extracting parts by hand (which I did for decades) it makes me very patient with the quirks of part extraction in Finale. I agree with those who are gloomy about the digital possibilities, but I'm prepared. I'm just sayin'... Backup, backup, backup. Redundency is good enough for flight systems, and it's good enough for me. In spite of which, I agree that tethered software is what my son, the computer genius, calls customer abuse. In fact, I believe in open source software, and I hope it is the wave of the future. But that's another book. Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
dhbailey writes: This rule even seemed to hold for the other employees of the classical record store where I worked, who were mostly classical instrumentalists -- the ones who liked opera tended to be uninterested in instrumental jazz, and vice versa. I wonder why that is? They feel threatened by what they don't understand? Nahhh. It's just the anchovies factor. I detest anchovies, but that doesn't mean they aren't good, or that I don't understand them. I've told the story before about one of my sonss who, turning his nose up at my steamed carrots with dill (lovely), said These are yuckky. No, I told him, they are perfectly acceptable carrots. You are allowed to say you don't like them, but it's wrong to say they are yuckky. I've heard a LOT of jazz, and occasionally it speaks to me. But in general, it's mostly anchovies to me. I just don't really like it. But I ain't sayin' it's yuckky. Linda Worsley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Goodness. I came back to 41 more messages on the topic. Dennis Collins said, You aren't victimized by the authentication process in itself. But indeed you are. It encourages a where are your papers mentality. You must always be ready to explain yourself to a private entity. It extends corporate power into one's personal and business life. It encourages support of the company beyond the purchase of the product itself in order to keep the authentications available. It fosters false security, false loyalty, and an atmosphere of fear. How many drops does it take to fill that bucket? How many infringements on your ability to be and work independently do you accept until your are bound in every way to a corporatized world view, where everything (and everybody) is ultimately for sale? So my concerns are both quotidien and philosophical. I agree with Robert Patterson about the nature of the abuse, as well as the difficulty of fighting it. I believe such a fight is important, considering that he points out that the company's management has already changed more than once. Ultimately, it can't be trusted to take our interests seriously. Simon Troup and I share a history of having written and marketed software. I ran a computer business for seven years. In that way, I am sympathetic to Coda/MM. On the other hand, the company (and similar companies) have only done half the job -- they've protected only themselves and their investments. Whatever indirect help that may be to customers should not be borne by those same customers. It is the company's responsibility, and such a burden shift is not only philosophically repugnant, it is ultimately harmful ... as, at this point, everyone has agreed because The Demise will come sooner or later. David Fenton said that I was talking about the fact that everyone who upgrades their data to the authenticated version is flying without a parachute. As long as the airplane stays in the air with the engines running and doesn't catch fire, everything is great. That is an absolutely correct interpretation of my practical objection ... the individual, non-societal impact of Coda/MM behavior. David explains well that implementing an escrow program is a reasonable parachute, especially, as he notes, that Finale/Sibelius could well end up following the Beta/VHS path to oblivion for one of them, with Sibelius's successful marketing making it the winner. Simon Troup asks, My expectation is that there are enough punters in the market place for the two current big players, I'm wondering if Dennis thinks we're all on some kind of precipice. Indeed, I think we are, in two ways. Here is the first: Although the feelings differ here because we are an international group, I am very sensitive to issues of privacy and personal liberty. We are not on a slippery slope, but indeed on a precipice where the U.S. is turning drivers licenses into de facto national identity cards, where people cannot travel domestically without a government-issued ID but are forbidden by law to see the regulations that require it, where corporations are given free rein to include regulation of personal behavior outside the workplace, and where -- as we find ourselves fully inside an information society -- information is increasingly classified as ownership-based intellectual property and the commons is shrunk to meaninglessness. And here is the second: We observe, not only with Coda/MM, but with other software makers (and related cultural institutions) a move 'toward the center' -- meaning the re-positioning of products to attract larger audiences, as opposed to improving their products within the existing audiences. We have seen incremental improvements in Finale's core purpose, but the addition of bells and whistles (such as human playback) that increase its ability without fixing its flaws in design/interface and product output. To me, that's a red-flag signal that they are moving toward making Finale a legacy product -- with the failure of Coda/MM if its market shift fails. (Note how this dovetails with David Fenton's marketing argument and his Beta/VHS analogy.) David Bailey asks, Does anybody know for a fact that they have not set up such an escrow? and David Fenton asks, I'm wondering, though, if Dennis has any examples of software companies that have established a key escrow program. How do they publicize that fact, and how has it been structured? I certainly don't know. The only third-party escrow programs that I'm aware of are source code escrow for corporate-corporate software contracts, and the government's interest in encryption key escrow. The latter is not relevant, and the former shows that, although an escrow process is possible, source code escrow is unhelpful for individual customers of a product like Finale. (I agree with David Fenton's answer to Noel about depositing the escrow with a major institution.) (Thanks to Darcy for the Dr. Strangelove quote.) David Bailey notes, Most corporations don't
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
dhbailey wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the corporate clients, such as Warner Brothers and Hal Leonard don't have to go through the authentication process at all. I bet that corporate versions don't have that process in the code, since the onus for policing licensed installations would fall on the corporation, subject to surprise audits by the publishers. While I can't speak to the situation with respect to WB (now Alfred) or Hal Leonard, I did call MakeMusic! yesterday, and enquire about site licenses. It turns out, that if your firm has a network, there is no authentication required, but there is a small network monitor program that prevents more copies of Finale from being simultaneously active than the number of site licenses permits. A company with a site license, but where Finale is not on a network, must deal with the authentication process for each copy of the software, according to the sales department. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:21 AM, d. collins wrote: Noel Stoutenburg écrit: I've found it necessary, on account of hard drive failure, to reinstall 2k4 three times, and the biggest inconvenience I experienced was having to wait until the Finale office opened later in the morning, to call and request a new authentication code. Considering that reinstalling the software more than one working day, there was really not an inconvenience here, nor was I, IMO, victimized. I agree with you. You aren't victimized by the authentication process in itself. But you will be victimized the day MM no longer supplies the new codes, and you can no longer reinstall your 2K4. And then it will be too late to do anything about it. You're satisfied with the idea of trashing the software you purchased (this could happen in 6 months), of using Notepad to print your files and of waiting for some third party to produce compatible software (this is precisely how you're victimized: not by having to call to get a code, but by not being able to get one). I'm not. Dennis Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call up, edit, and print any of your files. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Darcy Argue: But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Mark Lew: Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. Gentlemen, gentlemen! Please! You are both right. -Randolph Peters ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone wrote: That's an easy one -- Rhapsody in Blue isn't jazz. I recently heard a discussion on this very subject - whether R in B was jazz or not. Several wildly different recordings were called upon as witnesses. The conclusion was that when it was played by Jack Splatt's Jazz Band it was jazz and when it was played by Joe Soap's Symphony Orchestra it wasn't. All the best, Lawrence Very close, but more to the point jazz isn't what you play or who plays it, it's HOW you play it. Every note that came out of Miles Davis' trumpet wasn't necessarily jazz (despite what everyone tries to tell us), but a whole bunch of them were, depending on how he approached it. I think Marcus Robert's version of Rhapsody was jazz, or mostly so. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 10, 2005, at 7:04 AM, dhbailey wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: On 09 Mar 2005, at 5:30 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. You know, it strikes me that both Mark's attitude and mine are pretty characteristic. The number of jazz musicians I know who are into opera is vanishingly small, and I've found very few classical singers who enjoy instrumental jazz. The exceptions on the latter score tend to be light-voiced singers who do almost exclusively new music and hate traditional opera even more than I do. This rule even seemed to hold for the other employees of the classical record store where I worked, who were mostly classical instrumentalists -- the ones who liked opera tended to be uninterested in instrumental jazz, and vice versa. I wonder why that is? They feel threatened by what they don't understand? Huh? You'll have to explain further. It seems to me that not understanding some work would leave you cold, not hating it, and not threaten you at all. I feel much more threatened (as a jazz musician and jazz lover) by so-called smooth jazz which I understand all too well, and have to dance with, around, and to, way too often to suit me. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Just to clarify, I don't hate opera the way I hate, say, Celine Dion or Kenny G or Andrew Lloyd Webber or American Idol. I hope that was clear. It would be more accurate to say that opera leaves me cold -- with a handful of exceptions, I just don't find most operas satisfying either as music or (especially) as drama. But that's just me. I'm not making any sweeping value judgments, just expressing a personal preference. Anyway, back to the 1920's -- any seconders for Wozzeck? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:18 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Mar 10, 2005, at 7:04 AM, dhbailey wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: On 09 Mar 2005, at 5:30 PM, Mark D Lew wrote: But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. You know, it strikes me that both Mark's attitude and mine are pretty characteristic. The number of jazz musicians I know who are into opera is vanishingly small, and I've found very few classical singers who enjoy instrumental jazz. The exceptions on the latter score tend to be light-voiced singers who do almost exclusively new music and hate traditional opera even more than I do. This rule even seemed to hold for the other employees of the classical record store where I worked, who were mostly classical instrumentalists -- the ones who liked opera tended to be uninterested in instrumental jazz, and vice versa. I wonder why that is? They feel threatened by what they don't understand? Huh? You'll have to explain further. It seems to me that not understanding some work would leave you cold, not hating it, and not threaten you at all. I feel much more threatened (as a jazz musician and jazz lover) by so-called smooth jazz which I understand all too well, and have to dance with, around, and to, way too often to suit me. 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] Authentication schemes
I think Chris meant call up in the sense of call up your files (i.e, open your files), not call up Coda. Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up? remains. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:29 AM, d. collins wrote: Christopher Smith écrit: Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call up, edit, and print any of your files. I don't know how closely you've been following this thread, but the discussion is precisely about the day where you can no longer call up because no-one will be answering. Then what do you do? Dennis ___ 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] Authentication schemes
On Mar 10, 2005, at 9:29 AM, d. collins wrote: Christopher Smith écrit: Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call up, edit, and print any of your files. I don't know how closely you've been following this thread, but the discussion is precisely about the day where you can no longer call up because no-one will be answering. Then what do you do? Dennis I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. Probably after Finale goes under you will be creating your new works on some other software, so this should permit you to re-print and edit your old files. I do this from time to time when I have to work on a strange computer. Usually it's only for a couple of days, but the 30-day grace period is very nice, and seems to be aimed precisely at the kind of user I am. Plus, if anyone else happens to see it there, they get to play with it until it lapses, which is pretty good advertising, I should say. I was first attracted to Finale in a similar way when I was working on a large arranging project with a colleague, and I learned how to enter with Speedy, which saved time instead of having him do everything. There was a time lapse, but I eventually bought Finale myself. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 10, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just to clarify, I don't hate opera the way I hate, say, Celine Dion or Kenny G or Andrew Lloyd Webber or American Idol. I hope that was clear. It would be more accurate to say that opera leaves me cold -- with a handful of exceptions, I just don't find most operas satisfying either as music or (especially) as drama. But that's just me. I'm not making any sweeping value judgments, just expressing a personal preference. Anyway, back to the 1920's -- any seconders for Wozzeck? - Darcy Yes, I would second Wozzeck. I saw a chamber orchestration (by John Rea) of it this summer at Orford (staged by Lorraine Pintal), which is rather a small hall, and it was just striking! I was familiar with the large version from recordings, but until you've seen it staged, holy toledo! And I don't even particularly like opera (notice I don't say I hate it!) but this was fantastic. One trombone, and the part was next to unplayable. Fortunately, one of the three trombonists in town who could actually handle it was on the job, and he nailed it, swearing the whole time. (Sorry, off the topic. But yes, the work is a contender for best music of the 20's.) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005, at 10:25 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. I haven't tried that myself, but I'm almost 100% certain it's not that simple. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 3/10/2005 10:36 AM, d. collins wrote: Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up? remains. Indeed. Does uninstall/reinstall work? 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: Best Works of the 1920s
At 10:00 -0500 10/03/2005, Darcy James Argue wrote: Anyway, back to the 1920's -- any seconders for Wozzeck? I'll second that. We're working on this piece at the moment in Mannheim (premiere on April 2nd) and I'm constantly fascinated and overwhelmed by the power of the music. I'd put this piece in for best works of the 20th century. Michael Cook ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Christopher Smith schrieb: I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. I am pretty sure that won't work, you would have to completely wipe your HD (possibly even reformat) to rerun Finale for 30 days. (I am not really taking sides though, personally I was annoyed by the copyprotection, but on the other hand I do find it a little silly to claim that you could loose everything tomorrow. Yes, MM could be out of business tomorrow, but my computer would also have to die before I loose anything. Not impossible, but together a risk I am prepared to take.) Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: Authentication schemes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darcy James Argue writes: While I think Dennis's idea is excellent and I fail to see how Coda would be harmed in any way by either putting a universal unlock code in escrow with a third party, or at the very minimum announcing *some* kind of worst-case scenario plan that doesn't leave its users in the lurch, [...] On the one hand, they don't like to publicise activities that might lead people to think that their survival is in doubt. On the other hand, we might try to push the idea that they don't do anything because they are so confident that their customers could transfer (painlessly?) to Sibelius. Then again, if MM won't consider key escrow, perhaps we should ask the Sibelius people what plans they have for their customers to continue after their demise. -- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
What we are talking about here is emergency migration in the event of MM's demise. In that case, it would be acceptable to have a spare computer that you could reinstall the OS and/or reformat the drive so as to get the additional 30 days. The only viable migration target I can see is PDF, unless Sibelius or MusicXML become a great deal more comprehensive in their conversion coverage. -Original Message- From: Darcy James Argue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 04:00 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes On 10 Mar 2005, at 10:25 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. I haven't tried that myself, but I'm almost 100% certain it's not that simple. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ 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] Authentication schemes
dhbailey / 05.3.10 / 06:59 AM wrote: One thought occurs, which might actually be a good business venture to begin: Somebody could establish a company whose sole purpose is to issue validation or authentication codes for software, all independent of the original publishers of those applications. I was not going to pitch in this thread, but now I have to. There has been such business, a company called PACE. If I am not mistaken, Finale used to use PACE floppy disk auth. PACE http://www.paceap.com/ has been supplying anti piracy engine for many, many DAW applications for decades. Steinburg, Waves, BombFactory to name a few. It is even easier to count who _left_ PACE. MOTU did (but came back with MachFive and MX4). Peak and Logic did, too. Here is the problem with such business. PACE provides API/lib, which hacks deep inside of the host code so altering its code makes app malfunction. The problem is they don't take any responsibility how the host app implement it. And their customer is not the end user but the app vendor. If we are in trouble, they don't care for us. I was there. Here is an example. Take a non PACE DAW app. You use PACE enabled plug-in. If the timing of memory return is a hair off, the app crashes, and is caused by PACE. In such event, this is what happens: - PACE claims the app vendor never asked for help to solve the problem so they can't do anything about it, and also claims PACE provided more than enough API/documentation so the app vendor should be able to handle the problem in many ways. - The app vendor claims they paid big money to PACE so they don't want to worry about anti piracy issue. P.S. When Peak was the only OSX DAW app a few years back, its auth all the sudden died on me _on the stage_ of the Umbria Jazz Festival. Of course I left my auth at hotel! I cursed Peak and I trashed it. Back then, Peak3 sounded terrible anyway. I hear version 4 got better but I aint going there again. -- - 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] Authentication schemes
Fair enough, but wasn't it you who was complaining about EPS not working? There isn't really any point in fixing it, is there,since you won't be buying it? Seriously, it is your choice, but I really don't think you have any hope that MM is going to change it. I must admit that I really don't see much of a risk here. At least not more of a risk than with any other software. Chances are that even if there wasn't an authentication scheme, if MM goes out of business, and you computer fails, a new computer may not be able to run the software anyway. Happened to me with Waveburner (thanks Apple!). The situation was actually pretty similar. Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new machine in x years. For some reason I can actually understand MM. I have recently seen several pirated copies of Finale in use, all of them pre-Authentication. I have not seen a single pirated OS X installation of Finale. Makes me wonder. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of copyprotection in the first place. However, I have to agree with others that the escrow system is something no software company with any sense in their brains will ever agree to. I really think it's a live with it or don't situation. Noone is forcing you to upgrade. But I wouldn't be surprised if you will eventually (when they fix EPS?). The idea of asking other people not to upgrade is ridiculous. It's like not filling petrol to boycott oil companies. You are hurting yourself if anyone. Johannes d. collins schrieb: Johannes Gebauer écrit: (I am not really taking sides though, personally I was annoyed by the copyprotection, but on the other hand I do find it a little silly to claim that you could loose everything tomorrow. Yes, MM could be out of business tomorrow, but my computer would also have to die before I loose anything. Not impossible, but together a risk I am prepared to take.) It's not a question of loosing files, but of no longer being able to edit them. So you're ready to take the risk of not being able to reinstall your copy of Finale and making changes in any of your files. I'm not. Dennis ___ 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] Authentication schemes
From: d. collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So you're ready to take the risk of not being able to reinstall your copy of Finale and making changes in any of your files. I'm not. Ah, but you have no choice. Even without authentication you are very much subject to that risk. This is the onerous catch-22 we live with in the computer world, and it is one of the reasons I long ago gave up on the fight against authentication as jousting at windmills. The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will no longer work. For Mac users this is effectively already the case. For Windows users the day is coming. If it isn't 64-bit Windows, it will be Longhorn. If it isn't Longhorn, it will be some future post-Longhorn version. If it isn't those, it will be some driver change, or some midi or audio interface change. Does the 16-bit WinFin 2.x version still run on Windows XP? Can you even install it on your current computer? (It was distributed on diskettes that must have been sitting on a shelf for at least a decade. Do they still work, even if you have a drive that will read them?) The fact is, the originally planned changes for Longhorn could possibly have caused a substantial percentage of software obsolescence as compared with that MacOS X caused for MacOS Classic users. So which happens first? Does MM vanish or does your next computer no longer run your old version? One or the other (or both) is going to happen. There is no escape, and authentication is merely one additional risk factor. A migration path is essential. And expect not to be able to edit your files after 10-15 years in any case, at least not without signficant rework. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 05:08 PM 3/10/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote: The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will no longer work. Put this comment before archivists who meticulously maintain old equipment and software in order to have access to important material. Perhaps it's because I worked as a documents librarian in my early years that I understand how sickening it is to watch, in the name of misplaced commerce, history slowly but surely being locked away in a software prison. Imagine if Mozart's manuscripts were locked up in Finale 1790, computer intact and functioning, but FabrikMuzik! long gone. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.10 / 10:00 AM wrote: Anyway, back to the 1920's -- any seconders for Wozzeck? I didn't rase my hand since I usually don't do 'me to', but since you asked :-) Wozzeck was the first fascinating theatrical music in my life. It was more fascinating when I bought the score and two different recordings. By the way, why this poll is limited to 1920'? I wasn't there, y'know, and Miles was only a baby. -- - 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: Best Works of the 1920s
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:01:42 -0500, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:46 PM 3/9/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote: FWIW, my recording -- the Pollini on DG -- calls op. 25 a Suite for Piano. As it does in German on my score, UE 7627, Suite für Klavier. (Erratic engraving job, by the way, some nice, some ugly.) Yes... my bad. My score (the Belmont edition) says Suite für Klavier as well; I just didn't have it in front of me at the time, and I usually think of it merely as Opus 25 anyway. FWIW, it's the only solo piano work by Schoenberg *not* to be labeled as Klavierstücke... -- 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] Authentication schemes
On Mar 9, 2005, at 2:51 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Dennis [is] only talking about the fact that everyone who upgrades their data to the authenticated version is flying without a parachute. I fly without a parachute all the time. In fact, I've never flown *with* a parachute, and wouldn't know how to use one were it provided. Long ago, Nora Ephron defined a distinction between Basic Worry and Baroque Worry. Worrying about a disastrous hypothetical combination of corporate, backup, and hard-drive failures is definitely Baroque. 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] Authentication schemes
With this approach I really don't see your problem: If all you want is to be sure that Finale will always run on your existing machinery, then you have that already. When you authorize Finale you get send an authorization code. This code will work should you ever need to reauthorize your copy _on the same computer_. On the Mac it is glued to the Ethernet address. Unless you change your Ethernet card the authorization code will remain the same, even if you change the HD or any other component. I am not sure what it is glued to on the PC side, but you can probably find that out from MM. So even if MM ceases to exist you can reenter your code as long as you are running on the same machine. Johannes Dennis Bathory-Kitsz schrieb: At 05:08 PM 3/10/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote: The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will no longer work. Put this comment before archivists who meticulously maintain old equipment and software in order to have access to important material. Perhaps it's because I worked as a documents librarian in my early years that I understand how sickening it is to watch, in the name of misplaced commerce, history slowly but surely being locked away in a software prison. Imagine if Mozart's manuscripts were locked up in Finale 1790, computer intact and functioning, but FabrikMuzik! long gone. Dennis ___ 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] Authentication schemes
Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new machine in x years. We're also talking about the same machine, after a HD crash, for instance. That is already no problem, at least on the Mac. I know because I had that problem (well not a crash, but I changed my HD, and the same authorization still worked). As for the PC side, I am not sure. It'S not impossible that they are using the HD serial. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 3/10/2005 11:17 AM, Robert Patterson wrote: What we are talking about here is emergency migration in the event of MM's demise. In that case, it would be acceptable to have a spare computer that you could reinstall the OS and/or reformat the drive so as to get the additional 30 days. Oh, perfect reason to buy VMWare. You can create as many additional machines as you want, on your current machine . . . Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 3/10/2005 12:06 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new machine in x years. Absolutely, but Microsoft has been far ahead of Apple in that regards. I still run simple MSDOS3 (I don't remember the date, maybe 1985?) software on my WinXP system. I also run Alpha4 (Win3 version), a fairly good database product, on Win2K. I also run FinaleV3 on both Win2K and WinXP. Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS? Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 3/10/2005 12:08 PM, Robert Patterson wrote: The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will no longer work. For Mac users this is effectively already the case. For Windows users the day is coming. If it isn't 64-bit Windows, it will be Longhorn. If it isn't Longhorn, it will be some future post-Longhorn version. If it isn't those, it will be some driver change, or some midi or audio interface change. Does the 16-bit WinFin 2.x version still run on Windows XP? Can you even install it on your current computer? (It was distributed on diskettes that must have been sitting on a shelf for at least a decade. Do they still work, even if you have a drive that will read them?) Aha. Good idea. I know that V3 works. I have the V2 disks. I will try an install and send a report. The only problem with V3 is the long file name issue. You have to be able to interpret the C:\progra~1\finale~1\ mozart~1.mus filenames. Most importantly: Playback still works. That is a huge hardware compatibility issue that MS dealt with. The fact is, the originally planned changes for Longhorn could possibly have caused a substantial percentage of software obsolescence as compared with that MacOS X caused for MacOS Classic users. I have to agree. But that is from preliminary reports. MS has never done that in the past. So which happens first? Does MM vanish or does your next computer no longer run your old version? One or the other (or both) is going to happen. There is no escape, and authentication is merely one additional risk factor. A migration path is essential. And expect not to be able to edit your files after 10-15 years in any case, at least not without signficant rework. Actually, you just save your old computers. I have an Apple][e in the attic. I pulled it out the other day to print out my house building costs that I had saved in an Apple database. I have a MacSE OS6 stored away. I haven't used it in the last year. I also have an old computer running Win98 just to be able to scan images on. My $98 scanner with some kind of fake parallel SCSI ports doesn't work on Win2K. So I just keep the old computer around to scan paper docs ;-) Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
d. collins wrote: Christopher Smith écrit: Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call up, edit, and print any of your files. I don't know how closely you've been following this thread, but the discussion is precisely about the day where you can no longer call up because no-one will be answering. Then what do you do? When he said call up he really meant open up -- those first 30 days of use didn't require you to call anybody. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Darcy James Argue wrote: I think Chris meant call up in the sense of call up your files (i.e, open your files), not call up Coda. Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up? remains. uninstall it and reinstall it, while looking around for a suitable alternative program to use for computer notation. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 23:10, Robert Patterson wrote: I don't think MM's corporate memory extends back to Fin2.6.3 days, even if one or two old-timers may still be there that were there then. There have been two major transformations in the product as well as at least two major transformations in the company. I think these have had much more impact on their ability to support Fin2.6.3 than any OS changes. Plus, OS changes happen on all platforms. I wonder if the old 16-bit FinWin 2.x version will run on WinXP. I can't answer your question (though I guess I could try installing WinFin 2.01 on Win2K, but don't really have the interest right now), but I will say that MM is not the only company to have this kind of problem. Microsoft now hires an outside individual who does data recovery on Jet database files whenever they need to know the internals of the Jet file format, because the institutional knowledge of how Jet and its files work has evaporated over the years. MS also lost the source code for some early versions of DOS, so even companies that are good at maintaining compatibility (which MS manifestly is, probably moreso than any other major software vendor) can have problems like this. -- 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] Authentication schemes
actually, I think once the 30 days are up uninstalling won't make a difference on the mac side. The trail the first install leaves will still be there. I've been following this thread with interest and it makes me wonder, are any of the participants aware of how trivial it is to subvert the CP for finale? (I guess this would be a good place to point out here that I *am* a registered owner of finale) steve On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:53 PM, dhbailey wrote: Darcy James Argue wrote: I think Chris meant call up in the sense of call up your files (i.e, open your files), not call up Coda. Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up? remains. uninstall it and reinstall it, while looking around for a suitable alternative program to use for computer notation. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 8:28, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Linda Worsley makes my day. Geeze the way things are going in the world I may have to gather wood to burn for cooking and heating, buy a horse to take me around, plant my own garden and keep a root cellar, etc. To which I can only answer, Uh-oh. I cook with wood, have three horses, plant my own garden, and keep a root cellar. On a more serious note, this anecdote: I purchased Finale ten year ago after returning from living in Europe, the first month of which was in Cologne. But I didn't get to see Cologne because I spent the whole month at Clarence Barlow's kitchen table inking parts to a long orchestral score. My wife said, That's it! This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] ridiculous! First thing we do when we get back is put all this ^#$*#^* on I've been thinking about productivity the last week or so, as I make parts for myself to play basso continuo in Couperin and Charpentier Lessons of Tenebre (such glorious music!). I've been using 3 music stands in rehearsals and playing from score, because I desparately need to know what the voices are doing to function. For the Couperin, I just got copies of my viol teacher's own bass parts, which have excellent cues in them, but which lack figures. ARRGGHH!!! Figures tell me so much about the harmony and how to play the line! The Charpentier I'm still doing myself in Finale, but figured bass is a real pain. I may just put in the notes alone and put in the figures by hand. I remember the days when I was involved with a one-week band camp where I'd sit down at the piano with manuscript paper at 10am and sketch out a continuity score, then fill in the harmonies, then cue in the orchestration (bandstration?), then write the parts (in pencil) direct from this short score (usually 3 or 4 systems), then photocopy them to be passed out and read at a 1:30pm rehearsal in preparation for a 7pm performance. I'm not sure if I can still do that, but it's definitely faster than Finale would be. Are the results as good looking? Certainly not. Are they as well proofread? Not at all. Are they as re-usable? Absolutely not. But they got the job done quite admirably -- they were certainly good enough. I have to keep remembering that as I agonize over my Charpentier bass part. -- 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: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 9, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Carl Dershem wrote: Christopher Smith wrote: subsequent ubiquity How many places will you see that used? Six brownie points! 34 places, according to a Google search. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 10:25, Christopher Smith wrote: The software works for 30 days without any contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. Probably after Finale goes under you will be creating your new works on some other software, so this should permit you to re-print and edit your old files. If it allows you to uninstall and re-install and end up with 30 more days, it certainly makes a complete mockery of the idea of copy protection of any kind whatsoever. I have never encountered any software with an expiring trial period that does not write data to the system to prevent more than one trial period. I've seen it even with $20 software, let alone software that retails for hundreds of dollars. Now, on Windows XP, it might be possible to save a restore point, install Finale, and after the 30 days run out, revert to the restore point and re-install. But that's an awful lot of work (and only relevant to one OS version), though it might be worth it to keep editing your files in the dark days after MakeMusic has gone under. -- 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] Authentication schemes
Phil Daley schrieb: Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS? I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP either, does it? The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on Floppies, and no Mac these days has a floppy drive. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of copyprotection in the first place. However, I have to agree with others that the escrow system is something no software company with any sense in their brains will ever agree to. I don't see the logic there. Dennis said in his long message that one of the problems of the authentication scheme is that all the benefit goes to MakeMusic and all of the headaches to the legitimate, licensed users. Why would a well-intentioned company be uninterested in remedying that imbalance? Secondly, this kind of thing is much more important for small, niche software markets where the companies creating the software are already in a precarious position (Coda/MakeMusic has always seemed to me to be on the brink of bankruptcy, based on all the financials I've ever seen) than it is for large companies in mainstream markets. By implementing key escrow, MM would be encouraging long-term commitment to its products, because the viability of the manufacturer becomes less of a worry. It would also be an advantage over Sibelius! [] The idea of asking other people not to upgrade is ridiculous. It's like not filling petrol to boycott oil companies. You are hurting yourself if anyone. Well, I will say this: a boycott is of no value if you don't tell the company you're boycotting. It would do no good for me to tell MM that I'm boycotting them, as I wouldn't have bought either of the last two versions of Finale, anyway (I'm not a knee-jerk upgrader). But sometime in the next 2 or 3 versions we will get to the point where I would normally upgrade (when the accumulated improvements become significant enough to attract my $$$) but will choose not to. At that point, I will inform MM that I'm not upgrading because of the lack of key escrow. But I'm not the kind of Finale user who has any value in a boycott. It's the people who make their living with Finale and who are basically forced to upgrade every year who are the ones who would have value in withholding their upgrade $$$. But it seems to me from what's been said on this list that most of those are sheep who are meekly accept what's shoved down their throats and haven't the backbone to give up short-term satisfaction in order to accomplish crucial long-term goals. -- 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: Best Works of the 1920s
Mark D Lew / 05.3.10 / 03:20 PM wrote: My apologies to all jazz musicians that I've now offended. Ha-ha, You did that alright. Jazz is all about groove, and anything else is secondary. The big difference between jazz and other type of music is that jazz requires everyone to play in different time, i.e., bass and ride on-top, hi-hat behind, Bird in the middle running between on-top and behind, that makes you groove :-) -- - 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] Authentication schemes
At 3/10/2005 03:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Phil Daley schrieb: Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS? I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP either, does it? I am not sure what that means. Is MIDI playback through the sound card? Or input through an external keyboard? The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on Floppies, and no Mac these days has a floppy drive. Of course, they are not needed ;-) Just like BillG 640KB is enough for everybody. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:08, Robert Patterson wrote: [] The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will no longer work. For Mac users this is effectively already the case. For Windows users the day is coming. If it isn't 64-bit Windows, it will be Longhorn. If it isn't Longhorn, it will be some future post-Longhorn version. . . . Well, if history is any guide, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. . . . If it isn't those, it will be some driver change, or some midi or audio interface change. Those may reduce the functionality of Finale as a sequencer but they would not prevent using Finale to edit files. Does the 16-bit WinFin 2.x version still run on Windows XP? Can you even install it on your current c omputer? (It was distributed on diskettes that must have been sitting on a shelf for at least a decade. Do they still work, even if you have a drive that will read them?) Your comments here just motivated me to try, but I just realized that before I moved in 2000, I trashed the old Finale 2.01 disks/manuals. My bet is that it would work. It would have problems, yes, just as it had with Windows 3.1 (it was designed for Win3.0, before the incorporation of TrueType fonts into Windows), but my bet is that it would work just fine insofar as allowing you to open, edit and print files. The fact is, the originally planned changes for Longhorn could possibly have caused a substantial percentage of software obsolescence as compared with that MacOS X caused for MacOS Classic users. I strongly doubt this. Microsoft has *never* introduced a version of Windows that causes large numbers of software applications to fail to work. Yes, it sometimes breaks individual features, but most often those happen because the applications have been improperly programmed, rather than using the documented APIs. WordPerfect 6.0's problems on Win95 were all due to WP's non-standard programming practices. Had they followed best practices, their software would have run without problems (of course, it did run, and in a perfectly usable state -- it just had a number of small inconsistencies, like the weird minimize/maximize button problem). You might be tempted to point to WinXP SP2 as having broken applications, but it only broke them in the sense that the default installation (with no tweaking of the new firewall's default settings) would break the app. I know of no software that could not be made to run under WinXP SP2 by altering the default configuration. This is typical of Microsoft. They really do care about backward compatibility, and engineer it into all of their products. As I said yesterday, I have a client running an dBase II app compiled in 1983 under WinXP. So which happens first? Does MM vanish or does your next computer no longer run your old version? One or the other (or both) is going to happen. There is no escape, and authentication is merely one additional risk factor. A migration path is essential. And expect not to be able to edit your files after 10-15 years in any case, at least not without signficant rework. If history is any guide, Microsoft's OS's will support your app for 15-20 years (maybe longer -- we can't say because we haven't gotten there yet!). And, of course, if a new version of Windows breaks your old software, then you simply maintain a computer with an older version of Windows just for using that old software. The key escrow idea makes that possible in the event of MM's demise. The lack of it means your data files are lost, completely inaccessible to you. -- 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:43, d. collins wrote: The software should continue to run on the OS's it was made for. In other words, if ten years from now I want to reinstall 2004 (and the problems going from one version to another are such that this might be necessary even if I do have further versions), it should work on any computer running one of the present OS's. Well, keep in mind that if you choose WinXP or later, Microsoft may or may not give you an authentication key. Keep those Win2K installation disks! -- 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: Best Works of the 1920s
[ ... ] As for operas, I don't care for Wozzeck. It has been my observation that Wozzeck is most highly praised by people who are very into orchestral music but have little interest in opera. That is, the sort of people who like Wozzeck usually don't much care for Verdi and Puccini, and vice versa. Here's a personal vote for all three: Wozzeck, Verdi, and Puccini are all high on my own list, and I'll throw in Lulu, Mozart, and Wagner on the opera side as well. That being said, I do tend to lean more toward pure orchestral music, but in my book a great opera composer is first of all a great composer. -Lee ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on Floppies, and no Mac these days has a floppy drive. I've got an external floppy drive that plugs into my USB port. I even use it occasionally. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 19:27, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new machine in x years. We're also talking about the same machine, after a HD crash, for instance. That is already no problem, at least on the Mac. I know because I had that problem (well not a crash, but I changed my HD, and the same authorization still worked). As for the PC side, I am not sure. It'S not impossible that they are using the HD serial. I don't know the details of MM's authentication scheme. But Microsoft uses an authentication scheme that is keyed to a combination of certain hardware devices. You can invalidate your authentication key by installing additional hardware on your PC (though for all practical purposes, it's only going to happen if you've cumulatively made more than one hardware change to your configuration -- i.e., a single hardware change may trigger it, but it's only going to happen if you already installed at least one other different hardware device). -- 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 12:05, Brad Beyenhof wrote: The recommendation of VMware was a good one for Windows users. VMware allows you to create an endless supply of throwaway virtual machines on which you can continue to reinstall the OS from scratch every 30 days. Of course, all you'll need to install on the virtual machine will be the OS and Finale, so it won't take near as long as a traditional reformat/reinstall. If you had it on a separate hard drive partition, you could image it and restore the image. This looks pretty viable, actually, but it is dependent on 3rd-party software (VMWare) that is rather pricey ($200), and that is itself somewhat precarious, being a one-product company (though a division of a larger one). Assuming VMWare is still around when MM goes under seems to me to be just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The only way you can really be certain you can keep a working version of Finale in the event of the demise of MM is to have: 1. your last-purchased version of Finale (assuming you only need the one). 2. the OS installation disk for the latest version of the OS on which your #1 version of Finale runs on. 3. a machine on which you are guaranteed to be able to install both the OS and Finale. The easiest way to accomplish this is simply to keep a dedicated PC, fully set up. You could add: 4. a copy of VMWare that runs on the OS in #3. and that would make it possible to circumvent the 30-day expiration, but if you've got a PC that is in running order with an authenticated version of Finale already installed, you don't really need that! So, I don't really see that VMWare adds much value to the equation. -- 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 21:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Phil Daley schrieb: Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS? I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP either, does it? I can't say for certain, but it's actually quite likely to work, because WinFin3.x was a 16-bit program. When the first 32-bit version of WinFin came out (97), MIDI was supported on NT-based Windows (only NT 4 at the time) only in the 16- bit version (at that time, Coda was providing both 32-bit and 16-bit versions of Finale on the same installation disk). The reason 16-bit worked and not 32-bit was because 16-bit applications bypass the hardware abstraction layers underlying the 32- bit Windows API. Getting MIDI to work in NT was a project that Coda had substantial difficulty with because of the translation problems. So, I think your assumptions are actually quite wrong. Microsoft has always provided 16-bit compatibility in all its 32-bit Windows versions (Win9x was actually a hybrid, support the Win32 API, but with significant 16-bit components within the OS itself). I have never run onto a 16-bit Windows program that does not work just fine on NT-based Windows (NT 4, Win2K, WinXP). And that includes MIDI. The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on Floppies, and no Mac these days has a floppy drive. If you can get access to a floppy drive, you could copy them to a CD and surely use that for installation. -- 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] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 03:50 PM wrote: Well, keep in mind that if you choose WinXP or later, Microsoft may or may not give you an authentication key. Keep those Win2K installation disks! I have an OT question. How many machines can one XP installer install? I am still staying with Win2KSP4 on my 3 PCs because I just can't justify the cost of XP. My Win2K copy was legal copy of MSDN as well as Office. XP is not included with MSDN. On top this, unlike OSX and other Unix flavored OSes, Windows is still not true multi lang (MS sells Far East DLL package separately, and no, turning your system locale won't turn into true multi lang), I have to have native Japanese version, while Micro$haft _prohibits_ US retailer to sell non US Windows. They do everything, y'know. If I purchase single WinXP-JP and OfficeXP-JP package here in US, it will cost me $1,400 (MacOSX 5 license is only $180!!). I just found out one of my friend is coming from Japan in a few weeks. He can bring me XP-JP and Office-JP, but it still cost me about $1,000. There is no such thing as OEM version in Japan. If I can install only one of three machines I have, I just can't justify this cost, and will stay with W2K for ever. Any info is appreciated. -- - 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] Authentication schemes
From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I wish I had a nickel for every time this turned out to be wrong in the computer business. Your comments here just motivated me to try, but I just realized that before I moved in 2000, I trashed the old Finale 2.01 disks/manuals. Hence, in fact, you personally *cannot* install it on a new computer, although perhaps you could copy an existing install. If you had WinFin2.01 files you would essentially be SOL, at least without re-editing in a later Finale version. I strongly doubt this. Microsoft has *never* introduced a version of Windows that causes large numbers of software applications to fail to work. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Some day MS will introduce exactly what you described. Or else they will go out of business or morph into something else. Forever is a very long time, and 10-15 years in the computer business is nearly as long as forever. In fact, both the original feature-set of Longhorn and 64-bit Itanium Windows (now both apparently dead or on hiatus) contained the first rumbling threats of large-scale software obsolescence. That is, if you believe the trade rags. WordPerfect 6.0's problems on Win95 were all due to WP's non-standard programming practices. Were Finale's early Windows practices best practices? I have no idea. If they weren't then you would be screwed. There is no going back an fixing a 15-yr-old software version. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 23:16, Johannes Gebauer wrote: David W. Fenton schrieb: On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of copyprotection in the first place. However, I have to agree with others that the escrow system is something no software company with any sense in their brains will ever agree to. I don't see the logic there. Dennis said in his long message that one of the problems of the authentication scheme is that all the benefit goes to MakeMusic and all of the headaches to the legitimate, licensed users. Why would a well-intentioned company be uninterested in remedying that imbalance? Because they don't want the headaches? Seems perfectly sensible from their point of view... *What* headache? Is it a headache for an office building to have a master key? -- 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 16:34, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 03:50 PM wrote: Well, keep in mind that if you choose WinXP or later, Microsoft may or may not give you an authentication key. Keep those Win2K installation disks! I have an OT question. How many machines can one XP installer install? Depends on whether it's a retail disk or an Enterprise disk (what you get with an Open License plan). The latter can install on anything without authentication. The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be authenticated on only one PC. -- 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] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote: The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be authenticated on only one PC. Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean? Would un-authed XP bite me? -- - 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 21:55, Robert Patterson wrote: From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I wish I had a nickel for every time this turned out to be wrong in the computer business. You cut out the first half of my sentence, which read: Well, if history is any guide, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. IF, IF, IF. History may *not* turn out to repeat itself. Microsoft may suddenly stop trying to insure backward compatibility. But there is no basis whatsoever to state, as you did, that: For Windows users the day is coming. Meaning, the day when Finale won't run on the current version of Windows. So far as we know, that day has not yet arrived, and: if history is any guide, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Speculation in the other direction is contrary to all the indications that we have available to us in regard to how Microsoft designs its operating systems. Your comments here just motivated me to try, but I just realized that before I moved in 2000, I trashed the old Finale 2.01 disks/manuals. Hence, in fact, you personally *cannot* install it on a new computer, Well, no, but my lack of installation disks has nothing to do with whether not Finale 2.01 would or would not install on Win2K. although perhaps you could copy an existing install. If you had WinFin2.01 files you would essentially be SOL, at least without re-editing in a later Finale version. I don't have an installation of 2.01, as it would be completely useless to me, as I have converted all my files to each successive version of Finale that I've used (3.52, 97, 2K3). I didn't discard the disks until I no longer had any files in that format (when I did discard them, in 2000, it had been quite a long time since I'd had any 2.01 files, having converted everything first to 3.52, and then to 97). I strongly doubt this. Microsoft has *never* introduced a version of Windows that causes large numbers of software applications to fail to work. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. . . . But it's a strong counter to your assertion of certainty. It's *possible*, but there is absolutely no evidence available to suggest that it is likely, let alone certain, as you assert. . . . Some day MS will introduce exactly what you described. Or else they will go out of business or morph into something else. . .. I did not say that MS will *never* introduce a version of Windows that breaks large numbers of apps, only that they had never done so thus far. That's all the evidence we have to go on. . . . Forever is a very long time, and 10-15 years in the computer business is nearly as long as forever. I wonder which side of this are you arguing, since this is a point that is in *my* favor. Applications compiled in 1983 can still run on versions of Windows released in late 2001. That's *18 years*, which your own formulation would cast as nearly as long as forever. In fact, both the original feature-set of Longhorn and 64-bit Itanium Windows (now both apparently dead or on hiatus) contained the first rumbling threats of large-scale software obsolescence. That is, if you believe the trade rags. We've heard it before. But in most cases, what ended up happening was that some functionality was reduced in any packages that were broken by the new Windows versions, not completely crippled or unable to run. Given that Coda switched to using Microsoft development tools around the time of WinFin97, I'm pretty certain that their apps are pretty conformant to Microsoft standards, which makes it very unlikely that future versions of Windows will break older Win32 versions. WordPerfect 6.0's problems on Win95 were all due to WP's non-standard programming practices. Were Finale's early Windows practices best practices? I have no idea. If they weren't then you would be screwed. There is no going back an fixing a 15-yr-old software version. I don't know. The UI was certainly not best practices but I can't say about their programming practices. And if they weren't, that doesn't necessarily mean that the software would fail, or even have problems that were anything other than annoyances (as was the case with WP6, where the problems outside the printing subsystem were strictly cosmetic). -- 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] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:33, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote: The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be authenticated on only one PC. Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean? Would un-authed XP bite me? Yes, it stops booting after N days. -- 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] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton wrote: On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:33, A-NO-NE Music wrote: David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote: The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be authenticated on only one PC. Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean? Would un-authed XP bite me? Yes, it stops booting after N days. It actually can be re-authenticated on new installations after a few weeks. The whole XP authentication system may seem Orwellian, but actually they don't care about one extra install on a second PC, months after the original. I've used the same product key on replacement computers, and not had any problem with authorisation. What they care about somebody churning out hundreds of pirated installations. And in any case, it's pretty much acknowledged that the XP authentication system is screwed, and everything has been hacked. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It's *possible*, but there is absolutely no evidence available to suggest that it is likely, let alone certain, as you assert. On the contrary, I speak with absolute certainty, because I have forever on my side. It is virtually certain that all currently running software will be unable to run, and all current software companies will be gone within, say, 4 billion years. Personally, I would not be surprised to see at least the former (in large majority) within a couple of decades. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Darcy James Argue wrote: Just to clarify, I don't hate opera the way I hate, say, Celine Dion or Kenny G or Andrew Lloyd Webber or American Idol. I hope that was clear. It would be more accurate to say that opera leaves me cold -- with a handful of exceptions, I just don't find most operas satisfying either as music or (especially) as drama. But that's just me. I'm not making any sweeping value judgments, just expressing a personal preference. That works for me. I detest the ... performers named above, and have actually enjoyed a few operas (though very few - mostl of it is just not my cup of tea), but I make, if not a living, a decent addendum as a jazz musician. I've also played pit in operas and ballets, and like the music - if they'd just get rid of the singers I could enjoy opera. :) cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
