Finale SmartMusic
  Home | Log In | Register | Search | Help
   
MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Thoughts about Finale & OS X  Forum Quick Jump
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PeterKienle
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit PeterKienle's website.Send a Private Message to PeterKienleAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2000
Total Posts : 321
 
   Posted 7/21/2002 8:07 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Just saw that even as somebody who
bought two new Macs in the past few
months and spent money on both OS X
beta and then 10.1 I will have to shell out
another $129.-- for 10.2. This will make
me want to wait a little longer.

I went to my Mac and looked at all the
applications I use which have been
carbonized. Freehand, Frontier, Bryce 5,
Maxon Cinema 4d and some others. To
my dismay I have to say that I prefer to run
all of them in OS 9. It feels more
responsive (and many of the lesser tools
needed are NOT carbonized).

I have no doubt that a carbonized version
of Finale would experience the same (at
least on my machine).

For me that means that I'd rather use a
Cocoa version of Finale. For Coda that
means they will have to rewrite the whole
app from scratch. They will probably
change the name of the program ever so
slightly. They will (hopefully) address
many of the interface and operation
quirks which had to be patched up over
the years. And they will have to charge
more for it than just a regular upgrade
price. And it would be justified (although
as a long time Finale user I'd expect
some sort of discount and the new
version is file compatible; actually some
input from us users would be nice).

I imagine smaller companies like Coda
are a little bit in a bind with this. Simply
because they either 'only' carbonize to
keep up with the new OS but take into
account the shortcomings. Once OS 9
finally fades away they will be stuck with
an old app that doesn't perform quite as it
could but as long as OS 9 & OS 10 run on
user machines they could at least have
feature parity.

Doing a fully OS X native version would
essentially mean they add a new product.
I'd rather have them do that right and be
happy to pay for it.

Good luck to coda

Peter Kienle
Back to Top

musicpubl
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit musicpubl's website.Send a Private Message to musicpublAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2000
Total Posts : 429
 
   Posted 7/23/2002 2:16 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't agree with your reasoning that an OS X version of Finale
will in any way constitute a "new" product.

Consider how much the Mac OS and even Windows has changed
over the years. Other companies have managed to make these
transitions and have not considered them "new" products.

Back to Top

Spankypdx
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to SpankypdxClick to Add ppetersen@mac.com to Your AIM Buddy List.ICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 18
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 12:44 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This is not a flame or anything, but for anyone
who posts any kind of an "I don't see why they're
having so much trouble porting Finale to OSX"
message, I have one question: How much do you
know about OS X? The operating system itself
relies on a completely different way of doing
things than anything Apple (or Microsoft, for that
matter) has done before.

Previous upgrades to the old MacOS (v 6 through
9.x) were basically patches and improvements to
the same old basic Mac OS architecture.
Software developers could patch or update their
software with minor fixes and improvements to
keep up. OS X, on the other hand, uses a variant
of FreeBSD UNIX as its kernel instead of the
kludgy old Mac OS. OS X is a closer cousin to
Linux than anything else. It's more stable, more
secure, and more efficient than anything else that
consumers have to choose from at this point in
time. But, as a result of the new completely-
rewritten operating system, every new application
developed to be OSX-native has to be completely
rewritten from the ground up.

Apple has done a remarkable job in making this
relatively easy for developers by making all of
their developer tools available and by
encouraging the open-source (Linux/UNIX)
community to program for OSX, but it still takes
time to write a program.

Contrast that with applications that have been
"Carbonized" which basically means that it's the
same old application with some minor alterations
to allow it to run in OS X without the need for the
Classic emulation layer. Carbonized programs
typically run ok, but are not in any way, shape or
form the same thing as a program written
specifically for the new operating system, which I
believe is what Coda is shooting for with Finale
2004.

I applaud Coda for their efforts and I'm glad
they're not rushing to market with an inferior
product -- I just wish they'd HURRY UP!!!!!!
Back to Top

musicpubl
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit musicpubl's website.Send a Private Message to musicpublAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2000
Total Posts : 429
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 1:45 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Pete,

Yes, I do understand the difference between carbonizing an app
so that it will run in OS X versus a Cocoa version, which is OS X
native.

However, I'm not a programmer and cannot comment on the
difficulties in writing a cocoa app. I would think that carbonization
is simple for most programmers. In fact I would have been fine with
a carbonized version of 2003 and would have upgraded,
expecting 2004 to be native.

We will now have to wait another year for Finale to run on OS X at
all, and there is of course no guarantee that it will even be native.
I'd love for it to be optimized to use the Altivec engine, maybe parts
extraction, or page redraws would be much quicker.

When a small Swedish company called Propellerheads can port
its very complex soft synth/sequencer/soft sampler (this program,
Reason, has been out for months now), and when Adobe and
Microsoft and game makers have OS X software on the market, I
become frustrated.

Cubase SX is due out very soon, which will be OS X native. Even
Quark, which is slow to change from what I understand will have its
OS X version out soon.

I currently have everything I need in OS X save Finale and Logic.
And you can bet that a cocoa version of Logic is now top priority. I
expect to see that very soon.
Back to Top

somusque
Developer



Click to send somusque email.Click to visit somusque's website.Send a Private Message to somusqueAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Feb 1999
Total Posts : 1169
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 8:16 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi,

AFAIK Cocoa is absolutely out of the question. It will be Carbon. But Carbon is native OS X too. Restricting the word "native" to Cocoa is a bit too strict.

I don't know exactly what kept Finale 2003 from being Carbonized, but if it had been possible to do it with Coda's resources, they would have done it.

You are right that other companies have been quicker, but please also think of the many software products (especially in the pro world) that don't even have an expected release date for a Carbonized version. Concerning Finale, we have one: summer 2003.

Again, in the pro audio / studio business, OS X does not exist. Pros take years before adopting a new system, and thus the more professional a product is, the less quick it needs to adopt new fashions.

Cheers,
Tobias

Back to Top

musicofnote
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit musicofnote's website.Private Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 490
 
   Posted 8/4/2002 7:41 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tobias,

While you do have a point about pros not
using OSX (I guess I'm not a pro any
more, now that I mostly work as a techie),
one thing to consider is what the
educational institutions that train pros are
using.

At the school I work at as techie (College
for Design and Media Art) we are
migrating to OS X. Everything that will be
taught next school year will be OS X
based with the exception of Macromedia
Director, Adobe Acrobat, ProTools and a
Windows CAD program. It's not
reasonable to expect these students to -
learn- on modern equipment/software
so that they can function professionally
with old stuff.

We're setting our boxes up to boot into
OS X and are aiming to not even install
OS9 in the school year 2003/2004 - just
too many possibilities for chaos when
having 2 active OS on one box.

Music notation is not a subject at our
school, but I have been asked for advice
on more than one occasion. my advice
has always been "If you are primarily
working in OS 9, go with a Coda product.
Just be sure you don't need QT 5.x." If you
are primarily working in OSX, go with
Sibelius"

Sad, because I'd love to be able to
equivicably recommend Coda products.

But the point is also, that most Finale
users are not professional copyists. The
800,000+ Macs sold are all being set up
booting into OS X. No more OS 9 (with a
couple of exceptions) is being developed.
Many of those 800,000 boxes are being
set up in schools of different levels and
will be used to introduce kids and young
people of all ages to computer work -
based on OSX. None of these people will
want to buy a program that forces them to
learn yet another OS in order to use it.

THAT is paramount to SCORE staying a
DOS program and forcing users to learn
DOSese in a Windows world in order to
use the program. Is that what coda
expects?

The answer is: This year yes. I'm not only
techie at the school, I also am the
purchasing agent. when the deans and
the profs say they are going to be using
all OSX apps and then ask me, I cannot
justify a purchase of a program that
forces us to deal with either 2 OS per box
and the quadruple risk of chaos that
brings -or- a crippled classic version of
Finale {sorry, despite all attempts to get
Finale Classic to play back using QT 4
and 6 in Classic, it simply doesn't work
on any box I've tried it on.}.

So you have a program that is not even
targeted at professional copyists in
numbers, but rather school users
(teachers, students etc.) and is giving
away 14-18 months of OSX dependant
business. Why? Only coda knows the
real answer and I'm not sure we've heard
the real reason from them. But wether it
was a "wait and see" attitude as to
whether or not OS X would fly or whether
it was an inability to or worse, an
unwillingness to commit to it, that is a
moot point.

From the standpoint of a school
curriculum/purchasing agent type, when
you go with OSX, you go with it or you
leave it - system wide. And those
institutions that are going with OSX will
be looking very hard at Finale and
Sibelius and asking themselves if they
are teaching programs or principles. If
they are teaching principles, they will
switch to Sibelius on the theory that the
principle they are teaching is -that- you
can use a computer to notate music. The
student upon graduation will then be
responsible for making his/her choice as
to which tool to use. If they are teaching
programs, then they committed to Finale
and will stay until something better
comes along, which Sibelius is not. This
is, btw, on of the prime reasons for using
a Mac at all in a computer class. the idea
is not to teach Word, but to teach WP.
after all - teaching Word will not help one
going into a situation where Word Perfect
is required. But it learning the basics of
word processing are the goal, then the
actual program is secondary to the usage
of the different functions of a WP. And
there, the platform is less important than
the upkeep of the system. And -that- is
one reason to teach on Macs - much
less time and bother on the support
side.

Been there, done that!

Leonard Cecil, Systems Engineer
mailto:[email protected]
================================
=============
Fachhochschule Aargau
Departement Gestaltung und Kunst
Bahnhofstrasse 102
CH-5000 Aarau, Switzerland
Fon: +41 (0)62 832 6682
Fax: +41 (0)62 832 6665
Web: http://www.fh-aargau.ch
================================
============
and http://www.music-of-note.com
Back to Top
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Friday, September 25, 2020 7:13 PM (GMT -5)
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