Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
I really hoped Finale would get professional again and fix the EPS support after about 10 years...:-( I ordered it believing this would happen, but I guess I will have to switch to Sibelius finally... (They got it to work, so they really must be the better programmers). Sh*t! I NEED EPS SUPPORT Kurt ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Wouldn't you think that fixes would come before features in a development cycle? Existing bugs, new bugs and new features are all addressed concurrently during the development cycle. When they start developing new features in an existing area of the program, they are often pulling open old code and fixing bugs. It makes a lot of sense to fix the bugs related to the area that you are developing in, since you are up to speed with that part of the program. With a program the size of Finale, there's a lot of relearning going on when opening up a part of the program that hasn't been worked with for a while. Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Well, this is all speculation on my part, of course. But, first, I am talking about EPS not PDF. I can make PDFs. Even if a Microsoft competitor to EPS were only as successful as WMA vs. MP3 that would be fine with me. After all, I can make a WMA and send it to just about anyone in the world and they can play it. I cannot even make an EPS. Richard I'm actually kind of skeptical about that. I think that PDF is too well-established as a universal standard at this point. I think MS's attempt to impose their own proprietary alternative to PDF will go about as well as their attempt to impose WMA as an alternative to MP3 (i.e., not a complete failure, but far, far short of MS's goals). I am not as optimistic as you about Longhorn forcing any 'spill over' into EPS. However, if Microsoft decides to produce a competitor format to EPS then it may quickly overtake Adobe, and then the new format will be a common enough standard to _replace_ EPS purposes for us FinWin users. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Richard Yates wrote: Well, this is all speculation on my part, of course. But, first, I am talking about EPS not PDF. I can make PDFs. Even if a Microsoft competitor to EPS were only as successful as WMA vs. MP3 that would be fine with me. After all, I can make a WMA and send it to just about anyone in the world and they can play it. I cannot even make an EPS. An interesting irony is in the listing of features found in Finale 2006, as posted at their web-site: Export as EPS they claim IS supported, but only in Windows98 and WindowsME. Garritan Personal Orchestra is supported, but only in WindowsXP (plus Mac, of course). So we have our choices, have dual boot drives where we can boot into Win98 or WinME and get the graphics we need, then do a system reboot into WinXP and get the sounds we need. What a way to run a program! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
At 10:58 AM 06/25/2005, dhbailey wrote: Garritan Personal Orchestra is supported, but only in WindowsXP (plus Mac, of course). I'd love to know why this supported in XP but not 2000. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Richard Yates wrote: We do not have the list of fixed issues yet, as the program is not yet finished. That list will not be available until the program is shipping. Wouldn't you think that fixes would come before features in a development cycle? Not necessarily. Program code isn't a huge bunch of discreet routines that never impact each other. The modules are called over and over again by different routines, and this process introduces some new bugs when the various modules are used in never-before-used combinations and sequences. Sometimes previously squashed bugs reappear from such things. The new features are often new modules which are easier to write than the bugs are to fix. And then there are the long-standing issues such as EPS export on the Windows side of things. If the developers haven't been able to fix it in the previous how many versions, what makes you think they've learned how for this version? No, we who use Finale intensively are not the ones that MakeMusic cares about -- it's the new user, the casual user, the one who will buy it and then maybe use it or not but at least it's another full-price new-user sale, that MakeMusic cares about. If they can satisfy us in the process, terrific. But the squashing of bugs, especially long-standing bugs, is a lot harder than introducing new features. And with enough new features, some users will never get into the program deeply enough to find the bugs. Of course, if they want to penetrate the educational market all they have to do is to give the program free to the teachers, give those teachers free training seminars, get them to understand the program and buy site-licenses for their schools, then give the school students deep discounts to capture them as Finale users. But I guess the powers that be at MakeMusic feel it's more financially safe to simply keep on turning Finale into Sibelius and hope somebody in the educational world notices. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
At 6/23/2005 08:33 PM, Richard Yates wrote: We do not have the list of fixed issues yet, as the program is not yet finished. That list will not be available until the program is shipping. Wouldn't you think that fixes would come before features in a development cycle? No, because adding new features might break existing stuff. Then you would be making fixes twice. Phil Daley AutoDesk http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 14:23, d. collins wrote: dhbailey écrit: And then there are the long-standing issues such as EPS export on the Windows side of things. If the developers haven't been able to fix it in the previous how many versions, what makes you think they've learned how for this version? I don't think it's a question of being able to fix it or not, but a question of priorities. MM probably figures that textured paper will bring them more new clients than they will lose with their broken EPS. But textured paper is incredibly easy to implement (you just change the background of your main editing windows to use an image instead of a color), while EPS export is dependent on factors outside Finale. If Sibelius, and many other Windows programs, manage to export EPS, certainly this can't be out of reach of MM's developers if they had any intention of doing so in the past five or six years. As Robert and others pointed out, we're unfortunately not their main concern. I don't mean to defend the decision to leave EPS broken -- it baffles me, too. But comparing it to a throwaway feature like textured paper, which I would actually use (because I'm currently experiencing eye-strain and having a non-white background would be helpful for that) is not really fair. In programming there are some things that are basically cosmetic features and that makes them easy to implement. But cosmetics do have a role to play in both usability and in setting the impression that users take away from the program. How many times have I noticed the difference in commitment of clients to my projects for them when I've done two different things: 1. for the first demo, used the program as is, in its half-completed state, OR 2. taken #1 and added on a few cosmetics, like an attractive graphical splash screen, and put up something of a Potemkin village UI in front of the components that have already been created. In the case of #1, they often doubt whether they're getting what they paid for, whereas with #2, they are often enthusiastic. Of course, the downside of #2 is that they sometimes think that the job is done at that point and can't understand why it's taking me so long to get the thing finished. Nonetheless, appearance is very important, even if it doesn't really matter to those of us concentrating on functionality. -- 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] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
Regarding EPS, my hope is that when they're tearing things apart to get ready for Longhorn that this will be something that needs to get addressed. It's probably going to be a nightmarish year for them with two large platform changes arriving (Longhorn and Mac Intel), and there might be some deep level stuff being redone. Regards, Tyler __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 11:31, Tyler Turner wrote: Regarding EPS, my hope is that when they're tearing things apart to get ready for Longhorn that this will be something that needs to get addressed. It's probably going to be a nightmarish year for them with two large platform changes arriving (Longhorn and Mac Intel), and there might be some deep level stuff being redone. Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). -- 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] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
--- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Tyler __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
On 24 Jun 2005 at 13:10, Tyler Turner wrote: --- David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Longhorn is *not* going to make their lives simpler, because MS is implementing a competitor to PDF in Longhorn, and perhaps this new standard will go beyond that towards doing what EPS does. MM is going to have to decide if they will support that in Longhorn, as well as deciding if they're going to fix EPS, which probably won't be made any easier in Longhorn (it may very well be no harder, either). My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Well, as a programmer, I'd be surprised if supporting the new proprietary MS technology did not make supporting PostScript and EPS more difficult. There certainly is unlikely to be any overlap in the codebase for handling the two. The whole reason WinFin does poorly with EPS is because Windows just doesn't provide any help for PostScript at all -- it's not a basic part of the OS as it is on the Mac. MS's new proprietary competitor for PDF/PostScript will not bring Windows any closer to the Mac in its support for PostScript formats. -- 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] RE: Finale 2006 - MakeMusic's response
I'm actually kind of skeptical about that. I think that PDF is too well-established as a universal standard at this point. I think MS's attempt to impose their own proprietary alternative to PDF will go about as well as their attempt to impose WMA as an alternative to MP3 (i.e., not a complete failure, but far, far short of MS's goals). - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 24 Jun 2005, at 7:42 PM, Richard Yates wrote: My point wasn't that it would make their lives simpler but that it could be the type of change that forces them to work with that area of the program. I didn't mention it, but I also was thinking about the special PDF competitor that Microsoft is including. If MakeMusic chooses to support that, the work they do there might very well spill over into EPS. Who knows how related the technologies will be. I would actually be somewhat surprised if working on one didn't help with the other. Tyler I am not as optimistic as you about Longhorn forcing any 'spill over' into EPS. However, if Microsoft decides to produce a competitor format to EPS then it may quickly overtake Adobe, and then the new format will be a common enough standard to _replace_ EPS purposes for us FinWin users. Richard Yates ___ 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
