I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that
took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale.
It was such a great race to be last...
Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-!
Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and
Given the Finale for OS X initial fiasco, I am wondering if they
send developer(s) to these developer's conference at all. I really
hope that there's someone there to get what the mac team needs to
avoid extremely frustrating experiences for customers, like the port
to Finale 2004 has been.
I
On 07 Jun 2005, at 3:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, XCode has a checkbox that allows the developer to choose between
PowerPC, Intel or both.
Karen,
I doubt Coda has even looked at Xcode yet -- I strongly suspect they
are still using Metroworks Codewarrior, despite repeated stern
At 3:23 PM -0400 6/6/05, David W. Fenton wrote:
Basically, according to the speculation in these articles, it's all
about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the movie industry, and
repositioning the Mac as the premier platform for delivery of
on-demand movies/video.
I fear that this really
Amen to that. If this switch is half as disruptive as it seems from reading the
postings on this list, it likely means the end of my association with Apple
(including plugins support). Windows' long history of backwards compatibility
is beginning to look mighty nice.
Hiro:
Too bad that AU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005/06/07 / 03:36 AM wrote:
Regarding this specific Intel chip...word on the street is that there
is a specific type of chip called Itanium which, if rumors are true,
will be used in Apple hardware.
This is in fact interesting speculation since we all thought Itanium is
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
We are lucky that hardware improvements make running Fin2005 on a 1.42
GHz G4 *almost* as snappy as running Fin2000 on a 266 MHz G3.
(Unless, of course, you need to nudge lyrics, or anything like that.
Then it's like using Fin3.0 on a
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took
longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale.
It was such a great race to be last...
Who _did_ win? Was it
In a worst case scenario we may not even have a choice. I rather doubt
that MakeMusic would even consider another big change like the one from
OS 9 to OS X if it meant as much trouble as the last one. Meaning, they
may well drop Apple alltogether. In which case those of us depending on
Finale
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:30 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an
emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case,
Rosetta. Steve has assured us that it's nothing like Classic and
will be completely invisible to the
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:20:17 -0400 A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Yup. it's here:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
But I
On 7 Jun 2005 at 0:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this will result in a
big boost in processor speeds
Well, there's no doubt that Intel chips have higher clock speed
ratings.
But that doesn't necessarily translate into actual performance
improvements in applications. It all depends
At 6/7/2005 11:52 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On the PC side, there really hasn't been any remarkable difference in
any of the 1GHz+ CPUs from an end user point of view, except,
perhaps, in the most computationally intense tasks.
You are correct.
But . . .
For me, who uses multiple
Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 07 Jun 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I don't know
At 12:41 PM 6/7/05 -0400, Phil Daley wrote:
For me, who uses multiple computationally intensive tasks all the time,
that keeps me from getting coffee during major compiles ;-)
Coffee, hell. A night's sleep when trying to render an hour-long video
production on this 1.4GHz processor!
Dennis
This quote from Jari's interview with Finale developer Chris Cianflone
was pointed out on the MakeMusic forums:
Which development tools are you using nowadays to create the MacOSX
version of Finale?
We are using CodeWarrior 9 now, although 2k4 and 2k5 were built with
CodeWarrior 8. I have
I will have to say, in defense of the Finale devs, anytime you are
releasing after somebody, if they change things at the last moment, you
are screwed.
At 6/7/2005 12:54 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Fin2004 was released after the X versions of Quark, Cubase and Protools.
- Darcy
-
At 6/7/2005 12:58 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 12:41 PM 6/7/05 -0400, Phil Daley wrote:
For me, who uses multiple computationally intensive tasks all the time,
that keeps me from getting coffee during major compiles ;-)
Coffee, hell. A night's sleep when trying to render an hour-long
Oops -- forgot to give the link to the complete interview:
http://finaletips.nu/interviews/chrisc.php
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:11 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
This quote from Jari's interview with Finale developer Chris Cianflone
was pointed out on
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. How would last-minute
changes to, e.g., Quark have any impact whatsoever on Finale's release
date? (It's not like Coda were sitting around and wait for Quark to
ship before they began work on Carbonizing Finale. Or maybe they were?
It would
I don't know at what times those products were released.
Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months before
you are going to release means that you probably cannot implement those
changes without pushing your product release date even further out.
You apparently do not
On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:38 PM, Phil Daley wrote:
Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months
before you are going to release means that you probably cannot
implement those changes without pushing your product release date even
further out.
Phil -- Finale is not based on
Thanks, I was assuming that Finale used these apps.
I see now that you mean they are independent apps.
At 6/7/2005 01:47 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 07 Jun 2005, at 1:38 PM, Phil Daley wrote:
Anytime a product that you are based on changes, in say, 6 months
before you are going to
On 07 Jun 2005, at 3:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, XCode has a checkbox that allows the developer to choose
between PowerPC, Intel or both.
Karen,
I doubt Coda has even looked at Xcode yet -- I strongly suspect they
are still using Metroworks Codewarrior, despite repeated stern
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping
IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Simon Troup
Digital Media Art
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
At 6/6/2005 01:57 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple
are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Apple Expected To Announce Shift To Intel Chips
http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,102258,00.html?nlid=AM
Phil Daley
AutoDesk
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Yup. it's here:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run on x86, not to mention bite
Of course since Steve Jobs ran his whole presentation on an OS X Intel
box, and ran iPhoto, Safari, etc, etc, plus Adobe and other apps.
They are going to do the Fat binary thing again. I don't think it will
be a problem as long as developers have been using the right tools.
Hello
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
was giving his keynote, publically.
Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows...
Johannes
A-NO-NE Music schrieb:
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced
Simon Troup wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are dropping
IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Interesting -- maybe there will be less wintel bashing now that there
will be aptel drinking from the same well?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 01:57 PM wrote:
Hot off the press, Steve Jobs just announced officially that Apple are
dropping IBM in favour of Intel chips.
Yup. it's here:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
But I really doubt Mac OSX is going to run
Its good. As long as Apple uses its own board designs. That is the good
part of Apple, the tight fit of hardware and software.
Apple designed boards, and Intel chips. It will be a good thing.
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
was
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
was giving his keynote, publically.
Not sure what to think of it, though. Good? Bad? Who knows...
Johannes
Look for Win-OSX coming soon! :-)
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Look for Win-OSX coming soon! :-)
I wonder if Apple have looked at their ability to market the iPod and retain
market share and believe they now have the name and experience to capitalise on
this by going back into the marketplace with Dell and the like. After all
they've seemingly weathered
On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:36, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
was giving his keynote, publically.
Well, it may have been an Intel chip on the motherboard of the
machine running demos, but:
1. we don't know if it's a garden-variety
Johannes Gebauer / 2005/06/06 / 02:36 PM wrote:
Doubt it or not, apparently it already is, on a Pentium 4, while Jobs
was giving his keynote, publically.
Darwin runs on x86 from day one. Cocoa apps might be easily
recompiled. The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry
users
The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
long walk again, as did on OSX?
I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid
back by closer parallel development in future.
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=28771category=main
---
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed
the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or
support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn't preclude someone from
On 6 Jun 2005 at 20:35, Simon Troup wrote:
The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take
a long walk again, as did on OSX?
I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would
be paid back by closer parallel development in future.
There will be no
Simon Troup wrote:
The real question to us, Finale user, is that would MakeMusic! take a
long walk again, as did on OSX?
I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would be paid
back by closer parallel development in future.
That would assume that the problems
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote:
I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment would
be paid back by closer parallel development in future.
Hmmm, I don't know. Can you name single app that makes user feel
parallel dev benefits? NI is obviously favor to Win. I
On 6 Jun 2005 at 16:01, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Simon Troup / 2005/06/06 / 03:35 PM wrote:
I would have thought that any loss of time making the adjustment
would be paid back by closer parallel development in future.
Hmmm, I don't know. Can you name single app that makes user feel
parallel
Well, hopefully, MakeMusic has learned from their previous blunders, and
has written Finale in something that would be easily ported
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Darwin runs on x86 from day one. Cocoa apps might be easily
recompiled. The fact even MS game box as well as major game industry
Hey all,
Wow, that's a shocker. It's been rumored for so long, but I never
thought it would actually happen. It's too bad, as I really like the
technology behind the G5, but IBM just haven't been able to follow
through on what initially seemed like a promising processor design. I
don't
Given the Finale for OS X initial fiasco, I am wondering if they send
developer(s) to these developer's conference at all. I really hope
that there's someone there to get what the mac team needs to avoid
extremely frustrating experiences for customers, like the port to
Finale 2004 has
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 09:30 PM wrote:
PowerPC apps that have not been recompiled for Intel will run in an
emulation layer on Mactels [sigh, not AGAIN] -- called, in this case,
Rosetta. Steve has assured us that it's nothing like Classic and
will be completely invisible to the user
Darcy James Argue / 2005/06/06 / 11:58 PM wrote:
However, if you are right -- if, a year from now when the first
MacIntels ship, Rosetta still doesn't support MIDI, then that's cause
for serious concern.
You might want to take a look at this:
I wrote:
Not to mention Apple modified AU API two days before Panther
release,
Sorry, I meant CA, CoreAudio, that was the trouble maker at Panther
release. But the spec mess Apple created was in fact AU, AudioUnit.
Too bad that AU spec finally got settled with Panther, and we all are in
the
48 matches
Mail list logo
