|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > NO OS X TILL FINALE 2004! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Éric Dussault
Finale 2011 Mac user
      
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 778
| Posted 5/30/2002 5:38 AM (GMT -6) |   |
>Coda is a small company.
Is Sibelius that much bigger than Coda?
If so, the battle is lost...
but I don't think so.
| | Back to Top | |
|
rsigler
Registered Member
 
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/30/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | |
So many people are missing the point of
using OSX. This is an incredible
operating system...more than cool icons...
It isn't crash proof (what is?), but it is
MUCH (in all caps) more stable than
OS9. It's web server features are
incredible. I also use my computer for
video production. From now on, Final Cut
Pro will only release updates for the OSX
version of the program. Other apps I use
in OSX, like Photoshop, and DVD Studio
Pro are incredible, taking advantage of
the many things that OSX can do, but OS9
can not. The operating system is more
than just what your desktop looks like.
IMHO, I don't think CODA should worry
about people who are stuck using
System 8 still. If you want to be a power
user, you have to have power equipment,
and the latest OS.
| | Back to Top | |
|
jbmelby
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 39
| Posted 5/30/2002 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
On 5/29/2002 1:03:00 PM, Tobias Giesen
wrote:
>You guys seem to be just nuts.
My, my--such blanket categorization of
those who disagree with you would make
me think, if I did not know better, that you
were an American; I was under the
impression that only *we* were so
convinced that *our* way was the *only*
way!
>You make it sound as though
>the OS is nowadays the only
>criterion for selecting
>notation software. It is NOT.
>Pros select the tool they need
>and then simply use the system
>that the tool runs on. The
>system itself is of
>subordinate importance.
Correct: pros *do* "select the tool they
need and then simply use the system
that the tool runs on". But why insinuate
that someone who chooses to drop
Finale after using it for nearly ten years
may be "nuts" when you don't know what
*other* things those "pros" are doing?
It would be terrific if I could do everything
that I do without continually having to
decide whether to reboot into another OS
to use one (admittedly very important)
application or to run it in a somewhat
"crippled" mode without rebooting.
However, I spend a large part of that
portion of my day not devoted to
composition writing software (most of it
for OS X), working on OS X ports of Unix
applications, and beta-testing for a
number or manufacturers of OS X
software. Furthermore, a physical wrist
and shoulder disability related to large
amounts of time spent typing and
"mousing" has necessitated my doing
much of my work using voice recognition
dictation software--specifically IBM's
ViaVoice. The OS 9 version of ViaVoice
was only barely usable, but the OS X
version, at least for me, has yielded
results far surpassing my wildest
expectations. (I'm dictating this message
using ViaVoice for OS X.)
The point of all this is simply that there *
are* valid reasons (other than being
"nuts") for someone who is a heavy user
of Finale to "jump ship" when Coda says
that an OS X version may be as much as
a year or more away.
>And you're not taking Kami's
>words seriously either, who
>said Coda is developing the
>OSX version "AS QUICKLY AS WE
>CAN".
Sad experience has caused me to take
statements such as this cum grano salis.
I've heard that song before.
>That means that they
>simply have not been able to
>finish it yet. As a software
>developer myself, I have a lot
>of sympathy for that.
So am I, and so do I.
>It's not
>like the Coda development team
>has been lazy in the past few
>years - quite on the contrary,
>they've added important
>features. They must also have
>taken many steps on the road
>to a carbonized Finale, but
>they just haven't arrived at
>that goal yet.
If they "must also have taken many steps
on the road to a carbonized Finale" (I
notice that you say "must also have
taken" rather than simply "have taken"--a
possibly quite important distinction), a
statement now and then to that effect
from them would seem to be in order.
Coda has been so reluctant to inform
users of their programmers' work in this
area that users can hardly be blamed for
being skeptical.
>Sibelius is simply out of the
>question for me, so if I were
>using a Mac for notation I'd
>stick with Finale nonetheless.
Chacun à son goût. I tend to agree that
Finale is more feature-rich than Sibelius--
but in exploring the Sibelius demo, I have
found some interesting features there
that Finale does not have.
Look--ditching a program that I've been
using for nearly a decade is a decision
not taken lightly. I'm going to keep Finale
(versions 98d, 2001d, and 2002b, all of
which will run in Classic) on my machine,
and it could be that I may be sufficiently
uncomfortable with Sibelius to come
back into the Coda fold eventually. But
under the circumstances, I've decided to
give Sibelius a whirl. Lots of others have
migrated to Sibelius from Finale, and they
can't all be (like me) "nuts".
>Anyway, you should blame Apple
>for creating this terrible
>situation. No MS Windows
>version has ever had to start
>a resource-hungry virtual
>machine with an older OS for
>compatibility. They have
>provided backwards
>compatibility in a more
>seamless way, and Apple could
>have done that too.
Maybe MS *has* "provided backwards
compatibility in a more seamless way"
than Apple. But Apple's decision was to
make a radical shift in the focus of its OS
development. I happen to think that
Apple's decision to go with a Unix-based
OS was not only the right one but also the
only sensible way to go. However, the
nature of the change of direction, at least
in my opinion, precludes providing
backward compatibility in the way that
Microsoft did--and as "nuts" as I may be, I
think that Apple's approach to this
problem was a stroke of genius. Of
course, YMMV.
>Check out TGTools, my plug-in
>collection for Finale:
>http://www.tgtools.de
I did. In fact, I purchased TGTools a little
over a month ago! Nutty, huh?
| | Back to Top | |
|
Matthew Hindson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 406
| Posted 5/30/2002 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | |
John, it's interesting that you say that Viavoice is really good under OS X. How does it work? Can you control many things with it, or is it just a speech-text translation application?
Just out of curiosity, and the discussion regarding Finale and OS X notwithstanding, would it be possible to control Finale using Viavoice? I am aware of the inbuilt speech recognition features of MacOS, but if you don't have an American accent, it doesn't work.
| | Back to Top | |
|
jbmelby
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 39
| Posted 5/30/2002 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | |
On 5/30/2002 5:14:00 PM, Matthew
Hindson wrote:
>John, it's interesting that
>you say that Viavoice is
>really good under OS X. How
>does it work? Can you control
>many things with it, or is it
>just a speech-text translation
>application?
No, there are three speech recognition
modes: command mode, dictation mode,
and command-and-dictation modes
combined. You can control many things
in different applications with commands,
provided you can either AppleScript them
or build them of key-strokes; in either
case, you must usually write the routines
yourself--though most of the time, it isn't
too difficult.
Also, MacSpeech is working on a new OS
X speech recognition program. I'm a
beta-tester and am under an NDA, so I
can't say anything about it--except that so
far, I like what I see!
>Just out of curiosity, and the
>discussion regarding Finale
>and OS X notwithstanding,
>would it be possible to
>control Finale using Viavoice?
You could possibly perform some Finale
tasks with ViaVoice commands.
However, since I use it exclusively with
OS X software, I have to say that I really
don't know how well, if at all, it would work
with a Classic application. I do know that
you can dictate into Classic apps, but not
whether you can do anything more than
that.
>I am aware of the inbuilt
>speech recognition features of
>MacOS, but if you don't have
>an American accent, it doesn't
>work.
Since ViaVoice has to be trained to
recognize your voice, a non-American
accent is not always a barrier to its
successful use.
| | Back to Top | |
|
Tim Rowland
...Rowland...Rowland, though the streams are...
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 1250
| Posted 5/30/2002 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hehe what an interesting thread!
Being a non-Mac user at home (and not a Mac fan)...I've had no end of problems with the Mac computers at school...we made the very wise decision 3 years ago to use PCs (which I've used for 22+ years), over the Macs that the previous computer coordinator purchased.
Macs had always been plugged as being the best 'puters for educational use, but mainly because most teachers DON'T know how to use computers (I'm talking primary/elementary here). The Macs which I have to look after have continually crashed/hung with no extra software installed, and what only a reinstall of the OS would fix (and even then, not always). Any PC problems we've had have been easily fixed (especially hardware problems).
Anyhow - much older software in our library for PC back then only ran properly on Windows 98, and even then, not properly-some programs required you to switch the screen mode to 640x480x256 to make to programs work...a common problem with programs released on a multi-platform CD (PC/MAC). Who do I blame for this? The software company for not coding an auto-resolution switch function? Or Microsoft/Apple for not making their OS compatible with the other company's?
Now with XP, the OS can automatically run the programs in the correct compatibility mode, and automatically switches the resolution-but not until 3 years after having to deal with a 'relatively' small problem.
At home, I've got Win98, Win2000, and WinXP all installed. Occasionally I still have to use Win98 (XP will RUN 98 programs, but often you can't install them in the first place!), but I haven't touched Win2000 since XP runs everything perfectly (except Norton 2001, and a dodgy Video driver-but that's fixed!)
When I need to use Win98 for something, I SIMPLY REBOOT THE STUPID COMPUTER AND USE IT! It takes about 10 seconds to load, so it's no big deal. When I'm done, I load up XP again. The only drawback is that I can't access my NTFS partition through Win98 where my data is stored, so I simply save to the Win98 desktop and copy it over from XP. Owww it takes me 5 second to do that so I'm going to complain (not!)
I'd much rather Finale WORK and have to reboot than have to pay $$$ for basically the same thing that might not work as well.
Also...just because Sibelius have an OS X version, do you really think that with the obvious 'brains' belonging to most of their users they they would understand the benefits of a UNIX based OS? Or was it just the resizable-icons-in-real-time that got them in?
Someone also mentioned previously about the number of users of OS X...maybe 10 people have posted in this thread, but that DOESN'T include the 1000's who HAVEN'T posted here that don't want to upgrade their OS. Surely Coda won't put 1000's of users in a bad position to keep 10 users happy who by the looks of it should be using Sibelius if they'd even seriously consider using it in the first place?
Cheers,
Tim
| | Back to Top | |
|
Bart Visser
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 1999
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 5/31/2002 2:11 AM (GMT -6) | |
On 5/30/2002 7:53:00 PM, Tim Rowland
wrote:
>Macs had always been plugged
>as being the best 'puters for
>educational use, but mainly
>because most teachers DON'T
>know how to use computers (I'm
>talking primary/elementary
>here). The Macs which I have
>to look after have continually
>crashed/hung with no extra
>software installed, and what
>only a reinstall of the OS
>would fix (and even then, not
>always). Any PC problems we've
>had have been easily fixed
>(especially hardware
>problems).
This has nothing to do with the whole
thread. I know a few people who use PC's
with Finale and have a lot of crashes and
other problems. That's not the point here.
Coda is misleading her Mac-customers.
They tell that we are _so_ important to
them, but at the end they show no actions
to prove it.
I just can't effort the time learning a new
program like Sibelius (and I guess there
are more people with the same problem).
I don't care that Coda is a small company
or the Finale code is difficult to port. A
professional company like Coda should
have had Finale X a long time ago
instead of the next update (2003) with 1 or
maybe 2 useful new functions but new
bugs two (that's what I've seen with the
last 2 updates).
The problem is that I (or we) can be as
mad as we can be, Coda isn't coming
with an X-version the next 13 to 16
months (and since I'm living in europe, I
have to wait probably another 20 months).
Bart
| | Back to Top | |
|
M Copyist
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2000
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 5/31/2002 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | |
Ok, enough lurking...sort of
If it's not apparent to any of you Mac users, the Mac
version has basically been hobbling along since v.3.x
- I say hobbling because the code has never really
changed - Coda has simply added band-aid type
solutions for the last 8 or so years - if you don't
believe me, grab a copy of resedit and check out
some of the code - actually v.1 stuff still in there -
Now as far a s a rewrite for OSX, I believe Coda when
they say it is being rewritten - but my beef (along with
a lot of other faithful users) is the fact that Apple
seeded the development tools nearly 2 years ago -
surely someone at Coda had some brains to figure
that this day would come sooner than 10.1 - There's
way too much denial and finger pointing at Coda for
me - been like that since PF ran the company
Waiting ever so patiently....as usual..gonna go dig up
my version 1 manuals and line my cat box with them
:)
| | Back to Top | |
|
SydneyR
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 5/31/2002 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | |
I would be happy if some of you who have
managed to use Finale on a new iMacwould tell
me how. I'm willing to forego even Classic and
reboot in OS 9,2,2 but despite roughly 25 emails
to and from Kami and many, many calls to Apple I
still can't get any input. I can output to my
synthesizer but I can't input anything. I can't write
music except with the mouse. I have a Midisport
1x1 that works with OMS, and I borrowed a
FastLane and tried it with FreeMidi and the exact
same thing happened. There are no extension
conflicts and all the hardware is working. All Apple
can suggest now is that I completely erase my
hard drive in both environments and reinstall
everything. But they don't really think it will do any
good -- they say some software that works with 9.0
won't work with 9.2.2. Is Finale one of them?
Sydney Rott
| | Back to Top | |
|
musicofnote
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 490
| Posted 5/31/2002 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Matthew,
<
restart in OS 9 from X as the Startup Disk
control panel hangs the whole computer
every time I open it.>>
If you have OS X and OS 9 on the same
partition, you'll have to restart this once
from a start-up CD. Then tell the Startup
Disk on this CD to start from OS 9. this
will set OS 9 as your start OS. Now,
everytime you want to boot into OS X, hold
down the "x" key (without the " "). If you
have OS9 on one partition and OS X on
another, it's easier. As soon as you start
the computer, hold down the opt key and
then choose your OS. In any case, I would
[if I were you] start once from the OS X
install Cd and instead of installing, let it
check your disk for you.
<
non-resizable panels stinks. >>
It does take some getting used to, but if
you switch to list view, you have the same
functionality as the Windows Explorer. I
do believe these non-resizable panels
are scheduled to be addressed in the
10.2
version, if I'm not mistaken.
<
things like how to install fonts - apparently
there are five different places. Life's too
short.>>
If you are a single user on your computer,
just put them in the Font Folder in your
Library folder in the main directory. If they
are OS X compatible fonts, that is. If not,
and they're for a classic app, make sure
they go in the font folder in the OS you've
designated as your classic environment.
I myself am still not comfortable working
in OS X but realize that there is a
difference between "bad" and "not used
to". It doesn't make it any easier to
transition, but if you continue to want to
work with a Mac, you have the choice of
getting on the band wagon (so-to-speak)
or getting off, as there is no future in OS 9.
Just as there's no future in OS 8, OS 7 or
OS 6 (I myself started with 5.2 -
remember that one? and came directly
from an Atari mega 4!).
Leonard Cecil, Systems Engineer
mailto:l.cecil@fh-aargau.ch
================================
=============
Fachhochschule Aargau
Departement Gestaltung und Kunst
| | Back to Top | |
|
Lew Buckley
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 6/3/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
Two thoughts occur to me:
1) It is difficult, even when trying to be
reasonable about it, to understand why in
fact it's going to take Coda another year to
bring out a Carbon version of FinMac. I
won't go so far as to say the company
seems unconcerned, but I can't help
remembering one of the most appalling
(and quickly reversed!) statements ever
put out by the Finale marketers: "At this
time, we have no plans to program a
version of Finale that will run on the
Power Macintosh platform." That lasted, I
believe, less than a week when the users
went nuts.
2) Having said all that, in reading the
previous posts, I have to agree with those
who urge a little restraint. After all, we
don't NEED an OS X version of FinMac,
we just WANT one. And there is a
difference. Nothing wrong with the
wanting, for sure, and I'd like to see Coda
respond sooner than next summer. But
as both a firm OS X convert and as a
professional composer/arranger/
engraver who uses Finale virtually every
day, I just reboot in OS 9.2.
A little inconvenient, yes, but the bottom line is that it still works great, just as it always has. Besides, for me OneClick is
an indispensable tool (it's a QuickKeys
equivalent, but programmable), and that
doesn't run in the Classic environment
anyway, so I don't mess with it.
A little perspective - all it takes is the minute or two to reboot, and you're back in the best engraving program on the
market.
Switch to Sibelius because of that? Pull-
eeze!
Lew Buckley
| | Back to Top | |
|
Jesper Hendze
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 364
| Posted 6/3/2002 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
If Finale Mac-users were taken seriously we would be updated periodically about the state of affairs.
The Smart Music Viewer was an announced feature of Finale 2001. It wasn't part of the Mac version. When Finale 2002 came out my local dealer expected that Mac users would get a discount because we didn't have that feature for the full life of that version.
We didn't get a discount, and we still haven't got the Smart Music Viewer with Finale 2002 embarking on 2003.
While this doesn't affect my work, and I haven't even looked at OS X (since I'm a conservative guy sticking with a stable system as long as possible (8.6 here at home!) I think it would be a fair 'deal' towards Coda not to update this year.
Jesper
| | Back to Top | |
|
Konstantin Neergaard
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2000
Total Posts : 37
| Posted 6/3/2002 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
I agree, Jesper, completely.
I'm still using Finale 2001 on my OS 9.2,
and will certainly not update before there
is a full functioning OSX version out there.
The question is off course - should it be
Sibelius...?
I feel very tempted. It looks great, and
friends of mine say it works very
straightforward - fast, reliable and rather
sophisticated in several aspects. Works
much better than you would think reading
the "fan pages" in this forum ;-)
But off course: I'm used to Finale, and
spent lots of hours learning it, so...
Guess I'll give Finale a couple of months
more before I make my decision.
JKN
| | Back to Top | |
|
ephraim
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 510
| Posted 6/3/2002 11:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
I was wondering why no one mentions GRAPHIRE
(Music Press). Has it been carbonized or what? I
don't see any mention of it anymore. Has it stalled
in development? I have no plans to switch to either
Sibelius or Graphire, just curious.
ephraim hammett jones
MusicScribe
| | Back to Top | |
|
Matthew Hindson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 406
| Posted 6/4/2002 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
re. Graphire, it says "Mac OS 7-9" on their website.
You're correct that no-one mentions it. The folks I know that use it swear by it, but in my opinion, I'm not going to shell out US$895 for an application without having the opportunity to try it out first (i.e. via a demo). A case of a good product with bad/non-existent marketing?
| | Back to Top | |
|
Oompah
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 231
| Posted 6/4/2002 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | |
Speaking as a developer who has had to deal with carbonization and an OSX port, I can say that I well understand how immense a task this is for an app the size of Finale. You can thank Apple for saying essentially "forget everything we've always told you to do and start over from scratch".
Porting to Win32 was *nothing* like this (and I've done that too).
I heard somewhere that Adobe estimated less than a month to carbonize PhotoShop, and that the actual port took close to two years. Perhaps apocryphal, but it sounds plausible.
| | Back to Top | |
|
noisefloor
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 6/6/2002 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
This does seem ridiculous, I definitely will
NOT upgrade Finale until it's X
compatible and I'll probably start checking
out Sibelius in the meantime.
| | Back to Top | |
|
minstrel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2000
Total Posts : 190
| Posted 6/7/2002 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I've just placed my Sibelius order and will see if it can fill my needs. I have been using Finale for about 10 years and was waiting to see what they did with 2003. I don't need junk like a rhyming dictionary, compositional tools, band in a box features, MicNotator, scanning, etc. Anyway, I work with a lyricist, as do many composers, so what use is a rhyming dictionary to the composer? I do need automatically playable articulations and dynamics, many bug fixes, etc. Maybe when they see how many users bought Sibelius, they will fix old bugs. Probably when Coda was bought, management made the decision to add as much fluff as possibly to pump up sales. Unfortunately it seems that they are disullisioning many of their loyal users. Note that I am not using OS X. Lack of OS X support is not my reason for getting Sibelius.
| | Back to Top | |
|
minstrel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2000
Total Posts : 190
| Posted 6/12/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Just got Sibelius and spent a day playing with it. I am underwhemled. It seems clunky and not as "intuitive" as they keep harping on. Note entry is awkward and the program is prone to crashes (on Mac OS 9.2.2). I'm staying with Finale for now, but I really wish they would do bug fixes and add a mixer and more auto expression playback. From what I can tell, it is mainly the intelligent playback features that Finale lacks as compared with Sibelius.
| | Back to Top | |
|
rsigler
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/13/2002 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | |
I've just spent 2 weeks with Sibelius in
OSX, and I think it is great! I've got a list of
things that Sib does that Fin doesn't.
For me (mostly a marching band/
percussion arranger) Sibelius saves me
a ton of time with it's "Advanced Filter." I
can filter out drum pitches, and
automatically apply articulations.
I've not had a single crash, and the
playback is MUCH better than Finale's.
You can have every staff playing 16th's,
and there isn't the slightest stutter in
playback.
Sibelius has other features such as
"Align in a Colum" or "Align in a Row" that
make dynamics/hairpins much neater.
Speaking of which, you can copy and
paste ANYTHING in Sib in 1 click, including
hairpins (so they are all the same size),
dynamics, etc.
And part extraction is MUCH better in Sib!
(Sorry to ramble on) Hardly any editing is
needed.
And don't get me started talking about
screen redraws...
I plan to post my Sibelius experience
soon, then it's goodbye CODA for me.
Best wishes,
Rob
| | Back to Top | |
|
digitalmusicart
Specialist Guitar Engravers
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 309
| Posted 6/14/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Rob,
well I for one will be sorry to see you go,
I've been reading these boards for years
and while I've not been posting as much
of late I read everything by email, and
have always appreciated your
contributions.
I'd be interested to read a balanced
comparison by a user familiar with both.
I only wish Sibelius had an open forum
like this one. I do admire Coda for
keeping the board open and not
interfering with threads like this :)
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
| | Back to Top | |
|
Jim Coull
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 1999
Total Posts : 2723
| Posted 6/14/2002 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | |
Rob,
Good luck with Sibelius. I do have a couple of questions/comments though. BTW, I am not trying to get you to change your mind or start a war, just asking. ;-)
>> ...Sibelius saves me a ton of time with it's "Advanced Filter." I can filter out drum pitches, and automatically apply articulations.
What do you mean, "filter out drum pitches?" How does Sibelius automatically apply articulations in a better way than Finale?
>> I've not had a single crash, and the playback is MUCH better than Finale's. You can have every staff playing 16th's, and there isn't the slightest stutter in playback.
I can say the same of my experiences with Finale. The only problem I ever had was with QuickTime 5x and since the problem was solved by installing a different version of QuickTime, I suspect that Finale was not totally to blame. BTW, I rarely use QuickTime for playback, so I will freely admit my ignorance on this particular topic.
>> Sibelius has other features such as "Align in a Colum" or "Align in a Row" that make dynamics/hairpins much neater.
Measure attached expressions can be lined up vertically easily with Finale at the time they are entered and TG Tools can handle the horizontal alignment.
>> Speaking of which, you can copy and paste ANYTHING in Sib in 1 click, including hairpins (so they are all the same size), dynamics, etc.
How is this different than Finale? Does Sibelius read your mind as to what you want to copy/paste so you don't have to select it first?.
>> And part extraction is MUCH better in Sib! (Sorry to ramble on) Hardly any editing is needed.
Generally, the only tweaking I have to do with parts involves page turns. Does Sibelius take care of this automatically?
>> And don't get me started talking about screen redraws...
I realize others have had problems with this, but again, I have never experienced slow screen redraws, bad redraws or other screen problems since the very early versions of Finale (v1, 2, etc).
Again, best of luck and sorry to see you go.
Jim Coull
| | Back to Top | |
|
rsigler
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/15/2002 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
>
>What do you mean, "filter out
>drum pitches?" How does
>Sibelius automatically apply
>articulations in a better way
>than Finale?
For example, in a snare drum part, I can
set up a drum map so that corps style rim
shots are the pitch "C", accents are the
note "B", and taps are the note "A." I can
then use the advanced filter to select all
notes that are "C" on the staff...I can then
apply the correct articulation to all of
those notes with 1 keystroke. I can then
use a plug-in to make all pitches appear
on one line.
So in 3 key strokes, I can save hours from
what used to be a "Click on every note I
want an articulation" process.
?
>
>I can say the same of my
>experiences with Finale. The
>only problem I ever had was
>with QuickTime 5x and since
>the problem was solved by
>installing a different version
>of QuickTime, I suspect that
>Finale was not totally to
>blame. BTW, I rarely use
>QuickTime for playback, so I
>will freely admit my ignorance
>on this particular topic.
>
Funny thing is, I'm not talking about
Quicktime playback. I'm using an Alesis
QS8 with Midiman 1X1 for playback. (A
fairly simple set up. On playback of
staves with many fast rhythms (such as
complex percussion writing) it sounds
terrible. Coda nor Midiman had an
explanation.
>Measure attached expressions
>can be lined up vertically
>easily with Finale at the time
>they are entered and TG Tools
>can handle the horizontal
>alignment.
True. In Sib, you can select anything,
then hit 1 keystroke to either align in a
colum or a row. This is much faster that
the Fin process. You can align dynamics
with text blocks, etc....
>
>>> Speaking of which, you can copy and
paste ANYTHING in Sib in 1 click,
including hairpins (so they are all the
same size), dynamics, etc.
>
>How is this different than
>Finale? Does Sibelius read
>your mind as to what you want
>to copy/paste so you don't
>have to select it first?.
>
>Generally, the only tweaking I
>have to do with parts involves
>page turns. Does Sibelius take
>care of this automatically?
Yes...Sibelius' page layout is much faster
and user friendly. If you change the size of
a measure, or space between staves, it
updates on the fly. Some pro users
(those who engrave for publishing
companies) might see this as a
weakness...but for me, I love it.
>I realize others have had
>problems with this, but again,
>I have never experienced slow
>screen redraws, bad redraws or
>other screen problems since
>the very early versions of
>Finale (v1, 2, etc).
Screen redraws are slow in Fin
compared to Sib. I ran Fin on a G4 867,
and in my opinion, screen redraws were
a pain. Often after using the scroll arrows
to move up or down on my score, I had to
also redraw the screen because of a Fin
bug.
>
>Again, best of luck and sorry
>to see you go.
Thanks Jim. I've use Finale for years,
and I've even slammed Sib until now.
After using it for the past 2 weeks, I don't
see myself going back to Finale until they
catch up on a few issues. They are both
great programs, but for me Sibelius is
faster, and easier. When I write for 15+
groups over the summer, saving time is
very important.
Best Wishes,
Rob
| | Back to Top | |
|
jbmelby
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 39
| Posted 6/18/2002 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
On 6/15/2002 12:19:00 PM, Rob Sigler wrote:
>Thanks Jim. I've use Finale
>for years,
>and I've even slammed Sib
>until now.
>After using it for the past 2
>weeks, I don't
>see myself going back to
>Finale until they
>catch up on a few issues.
>They are both
>great programs, but for me
>Sibelius is
>faster, and easier. When I
>write for 15+
>groups over the summer, saving
>time is
>very important.
>
>Best Wishes,
>
>Rob
I've also used Finale for years, and I too recently
switched to Sibelius. Sibelius is *different* than
Finale--not better overall, not worse overall--but
after having spent a week or two becoming
familiar with it, I frankly can't imagine myself ever
going back to Finale. Those of Finale's features
lacking in Sibelius are more than offset, at least in
my case, by the presence of features that make
entering music in Sibelius much more "user-
friendly" than in Finale.
As always, YMMV.
| | Back to Top | |
| 49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023 |
|
|