|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > 2004 first impressions/suggestions + Oh Brother Speed, Where art thou? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Martin Östergren
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 2
|  Posted 10/16/2004 4:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | 
Thought for a while I was alone with my snail finale 2004...
I've just switched from using finale 2003 with windows to finale 2004 with Mac Os 10.3.5 on a PowerPC G4, 1.33 GHz with 768 MB DDR SDRAM.
I'm in the middle of writing a musical. It's a big score. It takes like 15 sec just to put in a single note with the speedy entry.
Why oh why did I throw away my old PC and finale...
Does anybody know if finale 2005 is better programmed and faster!?
Martin Östergren
Composer and arranger. | | Back to Top | |
|
BvdPress
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 1006
| Posted 10/16/2004 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | Somewhat faster, but you might want to pull your hair out while you wait for an edit with a mouse click! | | Back to Top | |
|
Jim Coull
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 1999
Total Posts : 2723
| Posted 10/17/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | "...you might want to pull your hair out while you wait for an edit with a mouse click!"
While I agree that MM needs to seriously investigate the speed issue, I have discovered that I only get really slow movement with the mouse if I am working in a reduced view, i.e., 50%. If I use 100% or more, the clicking and dragging seem to be as fast as ever.
Jim Coull
(933 mhz G4 Desktop, Panther, 2005 Finale) | | Back to Top | |
|
BvdPress
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 1006
| Posted 10/17/2004 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | I feel the clicking and dragging is acceptable, but the clicking and then moving with the arrow keys takes forever. I will try it at different %'s and see if I find a difference. | | Back to Top | |
|
Jim Coull
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 1999
Total Posts : 2723
| Posted 10/18/2004 2:08 AM (GMT -6) | | encephalon,
The tone of your post implies that I don't write "long arrangements" and therefore can't possibly understand "Finale's horrible speed issues." In addition, you suggest that because of this, my comments should kept to myself so as not to interfere with the agenda that everyone else has for MM.
With all due respect, you are out of line, half joking or not. In the first place, you have no idea of what length files I work with or, from what I have seen in this thread, if file length is really the cause of the problem. Secondly, if you really want MM to fix the problem, you should encourage everyone to report their speed issues so that the programmers have as much info as possible to track the bugs down.
For the record, I just finished a 200 measure medley for marching (22 stave transposed score) that contained 4 key changes and 3 meter changes in addition to a fairly large number of note and score expressions, articulations on almost every note, chord symbols throughout and I even had the band singing for 8 bars which involved the use of the lyrics tool. Since this is the longest piece I have worked on from beginning to end in 2005, I have no other reference point involving speed issues with long files. However, I did notice the clicking/nudging issue within 5 minutes of starting that project when I had only entered about 10 bars of music on one part. I have also noticed that problem when working with lead sheet projects of only 32 bars, again only when in reduced view. From those two experiences, I would have to say that file length was not as important as was the fact that I was working with a 50% reduction.
Of course, my conclusion could be wrong since I am neither a programmer or a de-bugger, but I suspect that reporting my experience with my setup will help those who are trying to sort things out by giving them specific information about a specific problem.
Jim Coull | | Back to Top | |
|
Erling Kroner
Registered Member
 
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 408
| Posted 10/18/2004 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | The issue as I see it is getting the imperfect tool, Finale 2005, to works as optimally as it can - considering the inherent problems - so any suggestion of improving the workflow should/would be very welcome. WHILE WE WAIT FOR AN ACCEPTABLE VERSION that is at least up to preceeding Finale levels (2002b in 9.2.2).
So don't sit on it. Share. We need all input to get the cumbersome 2005 to do what we bought it for: Making Music. Fast. Reliably. Smooth. Elegant.
A freebie version of a well-functioning 2005(a-b-c-d?) would be very welcome. And the least we should expect from MM after two versions of sub-par Finales, 2004 & 2005.
erling | | Back to Top | |
|
encephalon
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 315
| Posted 10/18/2004 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Tyler said...
No, that won't be taken as the final word. The company is very aware of this issue. And it doesn't make sense for people with decent speed to keep quiet... if the same program is running differently on their machines, then comparisons are valuable. Operating system settings, hardware, software, and Finale settings can all be variables at play here.
Being very aware of an issue and doing something about are two different things. Even your comment about different machines and operating systems is somewhat telling. I wouldn't put it past MM to find all the configurations (based on user input) that don't apparently have speed issues, and change the system requirements to match.
It reminds me of two things: first, a real situation with another real company that made the switch from OS 9 to OS X: MOTU. When they finally posted OS X drivers for their PCI-324 hardware, a strong contingent of users reported serious issues, including regular but unpredictable Kernal Panics. MOTU was up in arms. Despite all the user data we sent them, they claimed they could not reproduce the problem in their labs. Their comment was that the problem must not really exist. To this day, it hasn't been fixed, and most of us have moved on (at our expense) to the newer PCI-424 platform.
The second thing this situation reminds me of is a (possibly mythical) anecdote about the famous NYC mayor LaGuardia. On his way to city hall, his car hit a rather serious pothole. Annoyed, he called the city's road crew and told them that he wanted them to fix the pothole. They asked him where it was, and he replied, "I'm not going to tell you, but I'll let you know when you've fixed it."
That's the way I feel about MM's programmers. They clearly won't respond to specific bug issues in a timely manner, so let's just tell them that the application is slow, and let them figure out why. If they actually go looking for the source of the problem, maybe they'll uncover some shoddy work they didn't think to look at before.
-encephalon | | Back to Top | |
|
encephalon
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 315
| Posted 10/18/2004 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Jim Coull said...
The tone of your post implies that I don't write "long arrangements" and therefore can't possibly understand "Finale's horrible speed issues." In addition, you suggest that because of this, my comments should kept to myself so as not to interfere with the agenda that everyone else has for MM.
With all due respect, you are out of line, half joking or not. In the first place, you have no idea of what length files I work with or, from what I have seen in this thread, if file length is really the cause of the problem. Secondly, if you really want MM to fix the problem, you should encourage everyone to report their speed issues so that the programmers have as much info as possible to track the bugs down.
I forgot how personally people take comments on this forum. Sorry. My comment was not in any real way directed at you, Jim. It was more of an open comment about how MM handles its user complaints.
Jim Coull said...
For the record, I just finished a 200 measure medley for marching (22 stave transposed score) that contained 4 key changes and 3 meter changes in addition to a fairly large number of note and score expressions, articulations on almost every note, chord symbols throughout and I even had the band singing for 8 bars which involved the use of the lyrics tool.
Good for you!
Jim Coull said...
Since this is the longest piece I have worked on from beginning to end in 2005, I have no other reference point involving speed issues with long files. However, I did notice the clicking/nudging issue within 5 minutes of starting that project when I had only entered about 10 bars of music on one part. I have also noticed that problem when working with lead sheet projects of only 32 bars, again only when in reduced view. From those two experiences, I would have to say that file length was not as important as was the fact that I was working with a 50% reduction.
If you don't have a reference, they why comment on the relative speed? I'm not even using 2005 because they reportedly decided not to address the speed issues with this release (will they ever?). I still use 2004, and it's unbearably slow. I don't want to spend $80 to find out that 2005 is not any better. But, wait, how cool! I could assess the performace of my students! Except. . .I don't have any students to assess, I have commissions to finish.
Jim Coull said...
Of course, my conclusion could be wrong since I am neither a programmer or a de-bugger, but I suspect that reporting my experience with my setup will help those who are trying to sort things out by giving them specific information about a specific problem.
In my previous post, I made an argument why specific information is less desirable than a general comment.
encephalon | | Back to Top | |
|
Jim Coull
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 1999
Total Posts : 2723
| Posted 10/18/2004 10:51 PM (GMT -6) | | encephalon,
I will take you at your word that your comments weren't personal and quite frankly, I wasn't terribly offended. But when a post begins with a direct quote from me, then continues with words like "you" and "yourself," I can only assume that the poster - in this instance, you - was directing the comments to me.
I would also suggest that if you are not using 2005, you are in less a position to make comments about relative speed issues with 2005 than I am. To refresh your memory, I was responding to specific request from Martin Östergren and a followup by BVDPRESS about speed issues in 2005 as compared to 2004. My experience, as limited as it may be, is that 2005 is much better in terms of speed than 2004 was with the exception(s) that I noted.
Has MM solved the speed issue yet? IMHO, no. I use reduced views almost exclusively when I'm working on full scores and it's a PITA to have to switch to 100% to nudge an articulation a bit. Is the performance different on the two different machines that I use Finale on? Yes, by quite a bit. My ancient laptop barely moves with Finale and Panther while my desktop seems to work quite well (with the exception of reduced views). This suggests to me that there is a direct correlation between the operating environment and the speed with which Finale moves. And MM has already changed the system requirements for Finale since 2005 will not work in OS9. A number of other applications on my computer specifically state that they will not work on machines with an OS lower than X and/or processors slower than XXmhz. Should we expect MM to be any different?
Is MM moving as fast on this issue as I would wish that they would? Again, the answer is no, but I think that to suggest that they are not doing anything to solve the problem is just flat wrong based on the fact that, at least on my setup, 2005 moves along at a snappier pace than 2004 did. Will you have great results if you upgrade to 2005? Who knows and I certainly would not blame you for being leary about upgrading based on the experiences you have had. Maybe you should give the demo a spin and see if there is any noticeable difference in performance.
As to question of how much information we should or should not pass along to MM, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My experience with the company has been that the more specific the information I provide them, the more likely I am to get a solution that works so I will continue to provide that info when possible.
Jim Coull | | Back to Top | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:56 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 |
|
|