Finale SmartMusic
  Home | Log In | Register | Search | Help
   
MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > OS X . . .The buck stops where?  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 ]

ludwigtheman
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to ludwigthemanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2001
Total Posts : 93
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 7:27 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
In the midst of some unusually harsh posts on recent forums, I think it’s important to avoid launching flaming arrows at anything bearing the Coda name. I can’t speak for everyone, but personally I have had good experiences anytime I have called Coda for tech support. The accusations recently made toward them seem to boil down to one common source, the company’s tardiness in releasing an OS X native version of Finale (no great revelation, I know). I think it is important to note that in most companies (software or otherwise) the employees that work in tech support are no more responsible for deciding release dates than those who work in advertising or warehouse shipping. Those kinds of decisions are made by higher-up executives in the company who are responsible for how many programmers are assigned to various work- groups, what projects they work on, and how quickly progress is made on each project. Many have posted messages on the forum blaming Finale’s incompatibility with X on Apple for not settling OS X MIDI issues soon enough, or to the small size of the Coda’s staff. With all due respect, those arguments have begun to wear thin. Other companies have released and continue to release MIDI intensive software for OS X in spite of anything Apple may have done. If Coda’s Mac software team is too small to produce an OS X version of Finale until 2003, then their Mac team is too small! Coda is primarily a software company. It is not unreasonable to expect OS X software almost a year and a half after the system’s release. For whatever reason, in regards to the Mac community, Coda is not accomplishing its job of providing them with current, well designed software. Perhaps a higher-up executive has made a “strategic” business decision to shift Mac programmers to the Window’s end of the company assuming that the smaller percentage of Mac users were not worth the company’s time or would eventually switch to Windows machines. If this kind of thinking does exist at Coda (obviously, it would not be public knowledge if it did), I think it is fundamentally flawed. Faced with a decision between a a great program like Finale on a Windows machine or a lesser piece of software on a Mac, almost any Mac user will choose the latter. From Sibelius’ perspective, Coda’s OS X problems present a golden opportunity for them to gain market share from Coda and from their standpoint, (although I greatly prefer Finale), I think they’re not far off base. It’s not the big that eat the small, it’s the fast that eat the slow. Perhaps a reevaluation of Coda’s policy toward the Mac is in order. Angry forum postings are only symptoms of a problem NOT the problem. After a while, users get tired of complaining and just walk away.
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 8:47 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
> If Coda’s Mac software team is too small
> to produce an OS X version of Finale
> until 2003, then their Mac team is too small!

I would say you're probably right. But only so in this extraordinary situation of having to port the software to a new operating system.

> Perhaps a higher-up executive has made
> a "strategic" business decision to shift
> Mac programmers to the Windows end of
> the company ...

No. They are trying to do the same things on Windows and Mac, but unfortunately the Mac side today requires more effort than the Windows side due to the OS X challenge.

This is an absolutely exceptional situation. They would have had to temporarily double their Mac staff for this. Maybe they could have done that, I don't know. But the opposite, which you suggest, to lessen the Mac effort at a time where it needs to be doubled, nobody would do that and they surely didn't.

Cheers,
Tobias
Back to Top

Éric Dussault
Finale 2011 Mac user



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Éric DussaultAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 778
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/24/2002 12:47:00 PM, Tobias
Giesen wrote:

>This is an absolutely
>exceptional situation. They
>would have had to temporarily
>double their Mac staff for
>this. Maybe they could have
>done that, I don't know. But
>the opposite, which you
>suggest, to lessen the Mac
>effort at a time where it
>needs to be doubled, nobody
>would do that and they surely
>didn't.

Why would anyone think that if an
exceptional situation requests to double
the staff (we're not talking about hundreds
of people) they wouldn't do it? They knew
the challenge and haven't made the good
decisions. The challenger was also
known to be OSX native.They'll pay a price
for it. And so will we...A lot of people
would have understood and been willing
to pay a little more than the normal
upgrade price to help Coda do their job
with more responsibility.

Eric



Back to Top

ludwigtheman
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to ludwigthemanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2001
Total Posts : 93
 
   Posted 7/24/2002 6:00 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I think we all understand that rewriting Finale for
OS X would requires more time than simple
upgrades, but the responsibility for dealing with
such delays within a reasonable time-frame still
rests with Coda.
Perhaps Coda management is hesitant to hire/
train extra programmers to deal with their OS X
crunch because of financial considerations.
Those financial considerations may pale,
however, next to the financial fallout of a mass
migration of Mac users to competing software.
Claims of the company’s impartiality between
users cannot be proved right or wrong, but in light
of this situation would appear highly dubious.
Were Microsoft to pioneer a system overhaul of
Windows on the same scale as OS X, I don’t think
it would take Coda took two and a half years to
release a compatible update.
True, “extraordinary” situations arise with all
companies, but the ones that weather such
situations do so through long-term planning and
wise management decisions.
Delays happen, but a two and a half year wait
evidences what is at the best poor planning, and
at the worst, neglect of the Mac community.
Bashing “everything Coda” is an extreme
reaction. However, I think it is no less extreme to
imply that the company is not in some way
responsible for what has become (if recent forums
are any indication) a customer relations fiasco.
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 8:28 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi,

much of what you say is true, but I have to comment on two aspects:

> Those financial considerations may pale, however,
> next to the financial fallout of a mass migration
> of Mac users to competing software.

I do not see any "masses" of OS X users out there yet. In fact of both the music pros and hobbyists in my country, practically nobody is using OS X.

> Were Microsoft to pioneer a system overhaul of
> Windows on the same scale as OS X, I don’t think
> it would take Coda took two and a half years to
> release a compatible update.

See, Microsoft simply doesn't do things like that. In the >20 years of PC history with MS operating systems, a situation like this has not occured yet. Old text-mode DOS software still runs on the latest Windows, without rebooting, and without relying on a resource-hungry and taking-long-to-start "Classic" OS.

When Microsoft launched a 32-bit operating system, for example, 16-bit applications could continue to look and feel mostly "current" for years, so I doubt that Coda hurried with a 32-bit version back then.

The difference is that PC users didn't complain like this.

Cheers,
Tobias
Back to Top

Jerry Engelbach
Registered Member



Click to send Jerry Engelbach email.Click to visit Jerry Engelbach's website.Send a Private Message to Jerry EngelbachAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 109
 
   Posted 7/25/2002 1:35 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
>Perhaps Coda management is
>hesitant to hire/
>train extra programmers to
>deal with their OS X
>crunch because of financial
>considerations.

>Claims of the company’s
>impartiality between
>users cannot be proved right
>or wrong, but in light
>of this situation would appear
>highly dubious.

I've used Finale since version 1. I appreciate its power, but, despite many improvements, I still find it frustrating and needlessly complicated.

Coda has somewhat compensated with fast and accurate tech support.

Which makes even more inexplicable why we have to keep speculating at what they are doing and why, as in the above quotes. Why not just tell us, for crying out loud, and put all the uncertainty to rest?

We're not going to desert. Almost everyone here who has tried out Sibelius finds Finale superior.

A more open communications policy would do wonders for Coda's image on this forum.

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 7/25/2002 2:18 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hello,

there is no uncertainty.

For one, Coda has been saying for a long time that they are working on a Carbonized OS X version.

Finally, they have announced that it will be released in the year 2003.

Cheers,
Tobias
----------------------
http://www.tgtools.com
No fiddling, just music.
Back to Top

rpickett
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to rpickettAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 64
 
   Posted 7/25/2002 6:29 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/25/2002 12:28:00 AM, Tobias Giesen wrote:
>See, Microsoft simply doesn't
>do things like that. In the
>>>20 years of PC history with
>MS operating systems, a
>situation like this has not
>occured yet.

Tobias is absolutely correct. Apple is partly to blame for this situation. This is one reason PCs have a larger market share. (There are other reasons for sure, such as greater competition between hardware suppliers.)

Large companies cannot take the risk that their installed software will be rendered obsolete by the release of a new operating system.

Those who use Apple computers must take the negatives along with the positives. Apple has been more innovative than Microsoft largely because it hasn't worried about backward compatibility.

That comes with a price. Part of that price is the delay you are experiencing now.

Download some tunes to your iPod and relax. :)

Rod
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 7/25/2002 7:21 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Wait wait wait wait wait!

The next version which we will have had to wait 2 years for is only
going to be a Carbonized version?

What the frig? Carbonization does not require a massive overhaul
that justifies that long a wait. The Carbon Lib already exists in OS
9, and from what I understand, porting to OS X in Carbon form is
not that big a deal.

If I wait that long, I expect a fully Cocoa version. A Carbon version
should be out now. Now.

Now I REALLY don't want to hear any whining about how difficult it
is for Coda to port to OS X because I know that carbonization is
nowhere near what other companies have done, which is a fully
Cocoa OS X piece of software.

This is absurd. We should all be flooding the CEO with mail.
Back to Top

kignature
Registered Member

Click to send kignature email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to kignatureAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 337
 
   Posted 7/25/2002 10:20 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/25/2002 11:21:00 AM, Music Publ wrote:
>Wait wait wait wait wait!
>
>The next version which we will
>have had to wait 2 years for
>is only
>going to be a Carbonized
>version?
>
>What the frig? Carbonization
>does not require a massive
>overhaul
>that justifies that long a
>wait. The Carbon Lib already
>exists in OS
>9, and from what I understand,
>porting to OS X in Carbon form
>is
>not that big a deal.
>
>If I wait that long, I expect
>a fully Cocoa version. A
>Carbon version
>should be out now. Now.
>
>Now I REALLY don't want to
>hear any whining about how
>difficult it
>is for Coda to port to OS X
>because I know that
>carbonization is
>nowhere near what other
>companies have done, which is
>a fully
>Cocoa OS X piece of software.
>
>This is absurd. We should all
>be flooding the CEO with mail.

Hey Music Publ:

Are you a programmer? I've worked on OSX ports. Have you? You are oversimplifying. Trust me.

If you would take time to read Coda's FAQ on the subject, you would have read that their shell code needs to be overhauled. This is a project that is not for the faint of heart and I know all too well that the best laid plans of engineers and project managers oft go awry...

Keith


Post Edited By Moderator (Forum Administrator) : 10/3/2003 10:33:04 PM GMT

Back to Top

timcates
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to timcatesAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 3
 
   Posted 7/25/2002 10:26 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Tobias. If no one is using X yet, whyfore all the traffic and static? It seems to me (someone who uses your product for my job) that Coda/Makemusic is charging Major League prices for bush-league development and THAT is what is upsetting. No excuses .... results are what we need to see (eg. an early OSX release at a reduced price for those who had to buy 2k3 for compatibility).
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 7/25/2002 10:53 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
> (eg. an early OSX release at a reduced
> price for those who had to buy 2k3 for
> compatibility).

Oh yes, that would be so nice, I'd really prefer that too. I am quite looking forward to porting TGTools to OS X even though I anticipate quite a few difficulties. I already know that some things may have to be partially rewritten (such as Smart Explosion and hotkeys). And I doubt that New Spacing will be able to automatically invoke Finale's Music Spacing as it is now.

Still, it will be a delightful challenge, and for a very pretty operating system ... too bad they're charging so much for the Jaguar update ...

Cheers,
Tobias

http://www.tgtools.com
No fiddling, just music.
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 7/25/2002 5:27 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Yes, the upgrade to Jaguar is expensive, but you get far more than
just a new (and quick from what I've heard) OS.

There is a new iTunes, there is iChat, there is some kind of
calendar app, and probably a few other things that aren't coming to
mind.

No, I don't work for Apple, and yes, I wish it were half as expensive,
but I am upgrading and gladly at that.
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 7/25/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
No, I'm not a programmer. But since you are, maybe you can tell
me how long it ought to take to carbonize Finale to OS X? How
many man-hours are involved?

I'd love to know, honestly.

And I'd also like to know what the general difference in time
involved is in porting a carbon version versus a cocoa version. I
imagine the former is far easier; the latter involves totally rewriting
the code from what I understand...
Back to Top

ludwigtheman
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to ludwigthemanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2001
Total Posts : 93
 
   Posted 7/25/2002 6:03 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey, we never heard an answer from the
anonymous programmer who has done OS X
ports. It would be interesting to get at least an
estimate of hours for a carbon port or cocoa part
of a major app and the differences involved . . .
On the side, what's with the anonymous label. Is
this guy on the payroll? I'm half joking, but am
curious about the hours thing. (Of course if he is
on the Coda payroll, we may not get an official
answer until the summer of 2005)
Back to Top

Matthew Hindson
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Matthew HindsonAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jan 1999
Total Posts : 406
 
   Posted 7/26/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/25/2002 11:21:00 AM, Music Publ wrote:
>Wait wait wait wait wait!
>
>The next version which we will
>have had to wait 2 years for
>is only
>going to be a Carbonized
>version?
>
>What the frig? Carbonization
>does not require a massive
>overhaul
>that justifies that long a
>wait. The Carbon Lib already
>exists in OS
>9, and from what I understand,
>porting to OS X in Carbon form
>is
>not that big a deal.

I think that you should remember that, as I understand it, all versions of Mac Finale have been created by a process of accretion. I don't think that there's been any incredibly major overhaul in any version, and so I could imagine that the multitude of 'old' code may cause problems...

In any case, surely it is difficult to make judgements on how hard it is to carbonize a particular application without seeing or having experience of the source code.

(Plus if it's not such a big deal, why did it take a much bigger company like Adobe so long to carbonize comparable applications like Photoshop?)

>If I wait that long, I expect
>a fully Cocoa version.

Well, I suspect that you won't get a Cocoa version. A Cocoa version won't run under OS 9, whereas a Carbon version will. Are you saying Coda should alienate users who will choose to stay with OS 9 (and there will be some)?

Unlikely.

Just my 2c.
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 7/26/2002 6:20 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Why would developing a Cocoa version alienate users of Finale
2003? It already exists.

At some point, OS 9 is going to die. I don't see why Coda should
continue writing code that is OS 9 compliant.
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 7/26/2002 6:53 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/26/2002 10:20:00 AM, Music Publ wrote:
>Why would developing a Cocoa version alienate users of
>Finale 2003? It already exists.

True, but they couldn't make a Carbon version of 2004 in that case. And there's thousands of Finale/Mac users who won't be touching OS X during the next 3 to 5 years.

Also, keep in mind that Finale is a cross-platform product. It is neither a fully dedicated Mac, _nor Windows_ product. Carbon is much better for writing software that shares source code with a Windows application.

If you want to know a Windows-specific feature that Finale is missing: it can't insert objects from other Windows applications. If it were a true dedicated Windows application, it would be able to do that.

So, both sides have to make some concessions in order to coexist. And don't compare this with Microsoft or Symantec products of which millions of copies are sold rather than thousands.

Cheers,
Tobias
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 7/26/2002 8:39 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
>And there's thousands of Finale/Mac users who won't be touching
OS X during the next 3 to 5 years.<

I think you're grossly mistaken here. Thousands? In 3 to 5 years?
There won't be any software development for OS 9 in a year, much
less 3 to 5 years. So you're telling me that Coda will be the only
software company to still be writing code for use in OS 9?

Come on, Tobias, you can do better than that.

Don't developers base some of their upgrade features on new
abilities of the OS? If Apple is not going to be doing anything
further with the Classic OS, how much more time is Coda going to
spend on it?

Of course I understand that Mac market share is tiny compared to
Windows, and this translates into inequality in priority. However,
Coda would have been better served to not spend so much time
on a 2003 version that by all counts is being shunned by users on
both the Mac and Windows platforms, and instead put those
resources into an OS X version which would have brought in better
sales on the Mac side at least.

I would have upgraded to 2003 were it usable on OS X. As it is, I
haven't even upgraded to 2002 because there are no features in
there that I need over 2001d.

Coda needs to be aware that people aren't just going to
needlessly upgrade, and I think they are waking up to that fact with
the chatter on both platforms about the lack of useful changes. So,
maybe now they will listen to user requests a little more closely.

Mine are, and have been for many years:

1) Fix the grace note issue
2) Fix spacing algorithms in general
3) Overhaul the lyric tool

and now, add to that:

4) Port to an OS X version

I'm sure most users would agree with the first three and a
significant amount of Mac users would agree with the fourth.

Back to Top

M Copyist
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to M CopyistAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Sep 2000
Total Posts : 44
 
   Posted 7/26/2002 10:25 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/26/2002 12:39:00 PM, Music Publ wrote:

>>Coda needs to be aware that
>people aren't just going to
>needlessly upgrade, and I
>think they are waking up to
>that fact with
>the chatter on both platforms
>about the lack of useful
>changes. So,
>maybe now they will listen to
>user requests a little more
>closely.
>
>Mine are, and have been for
>many years:
>
>1) Fix the grace note issue
>2) Fix spacing algorithms in
>general
>3) Overhaul the lyric tool
>
>and now, add to that:
>
>4) Port to an OS X version
>
>I'm sure most users would
>agree with the first three and
>a
>significant amount of Mac
>users would agree with the
>fourth.

You're fighting a losing argument
I agree with most of what you've written - here and in
other threads on the subject of OSX...BUT

there are 2 main camps here on the boards
the average user that has to tow the line by using what
is available to them both in software and hardware
(basically outside the loop)

and those that are somewhat responsible for bringing
these products to you (inside the loop)

If you read all the posts you will find a clear division in
attitude and acceptance of the current situation

My thought is that once 10.2 comes out there won't be
too much crying if MIDI works correctly. OF course if it
doesn't it's just another indication of Coda treating its
Mac users as second class citizens.

C4

those that are
Back to Top

kignature
Registered Member

Click to send kignature email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to kignatureAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 337
 
   Posted 7/26/2002 12:10 PM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/25/2002 10:03:00 PM, Nathan Arnold wrote:
>Hey, we never heard an answer
>from the
>anonymous programmer who has
>done OS X
>ports. It would be interesting
>to get at least an
>estimate of hours for a carbon
>port or cocoa part
>of a major app and the
>differences involved . . .
>On the side, what's with the
>anonymous label. Is
>this guy on the payroll? I'm
>half joking, but am
>curious about the hours thing.
>(Of course if he is
>on the Coda payroll, we may
>not get an official
>answer until the summer of
>2005)

Gimmie a chance, will ya? I do have a day job, and I went to a concert last night.

I don't get a paycheck from coda for my time. So we'll put that to rest right away.

I read the FAQ they posted some time ago, and it appears that their shell code needs a major overhaul. It sounded to me like they had written their own shell to communicate between the OS and the Program. Without looking at it, I would venture to guess that it may be a gigantic task, because that would touch absolutely every aspect of the program, making testing an even larger factor than normal for software development.

Remember that both MIDI and Printing aren't quite done yet in OSX, with 10.2 they're adding new graphics rendering and many new MIDI and audio capabilities.

Remember also, Adobe said it would take them a month or two to carbonize PhotoShop. It took them over two years, and they are one of Apple's "buddies". I don't know what Coda's relationship with Apple is, but I bet they aren't in the same class of developer as Adobe.

Apple's also being stingy with sofware seeding of Jaguire right now. The last seed I have is from the WWDC, and it's not even close to what they were demoing at the MWNY keynote. Yet again, I'm not one of Apple's "special friends" either. I'm not a big fan of Cupertino at the moment, I just hope that OSX doesn't go the way of OpenDoc or Darwin.

Anon 802.llb



Back to Top

mknoll
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to mknollAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2000
Total Posts : 207
 
   Posted 7/27/2002 10:18 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/26/2002 4:10:00 PM, Anonymous wrote:

>I'm not a big fan of Cupertino at the
>moment, I just hope that OSX doesn't go
>the way of OpenDoc or Darwin.
>
>Anon 802.llb

Hey Anon 802.11b,

Which way did Darwin go? Last I looked it was still there and still the underlying layer of OS X and still drawing a lot of attention from the UNIX/Open Source crowd.

Do you know something we don't? Is Apple going to switch out Darwin for Linux? ;-)

Cheers,

Mark



Back to Top

mknoll
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to mknollAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2000
Total Posts : 207
 
   Posted 7/27/2002 10:31 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On 7/26/2002 10:53:00 AM, Tobias Giesen wrote:

>Also, keep in mind that Finale is a
>cross-platform product. It is neither a
>fully dedicated Mac, _nor Windows_
>product. Carbon is much better for
>writing software that shares source code
>with a Windows application.

Tobias,

One of the promises of Cocoa is that cross platform issues are supposed to be an order of magnitude simpler than with Carbon. Now this would require Coda to rewrite every line of code, I know, which is I'm sure why they won't be doing it, but I'm sure I read somewhere once that Cocoa is abstracted to a degree that would allow Mac and Windows versions to be compiled from virtually the same code base.

Granted I haven't come across that claim in the recent past, so Apple may be backing off of it a bit, but I would imagine life would still be much easier for Coda in 5 years time if they took the effort to port to Cocoa now. But I'm not holding my breath. Plus the port itself would probably take about 5 years. But imagine all the issues that could be resolved if Finale were really re-written from the ground up!

Cheers,

Mark
Back to Top

whrcomposer
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to whrcomposerAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 45
 
   Posted 7/28/2002 12:34 AM (GMT -5)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'm no programmer, but I was under the impression that you have to write in Objective C for Cocoa apps (a hangover from the NeXT origins of OS X), and this is a very uncommon language on Windows... I dare say it would involve a great deal of rewriting the Windows code too!

Best,

WR
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 6:58 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