The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=6&m=458107
Posted By : David Ward - 8/8/2015 5:50 PM
Various current threads have made me ask the question. Are we right to complain so often about the things that don’t work for us exactly as we might wish when working with Finale?

I can feel as frustrated as anyone else when I can’t get the software to do as I want immediately. But then, I also used to feel similarly frustrated in the past when my pencil lead (I think in the US it’s called something different) snapped when least expected, or my part copying ink smudged - or for that matter when the D-valve link on my bass trombone became detached in the middle of a concert &c &c &c.

I’m not sure whether it’s age (74) or temperament, but I’m rather inclined to expect things to go wrong and thus to feel pleasure when they go right (which is most of the time).

It seems to me, that whatever problems may have to be overcome, preparing typeset full scores and parts in Finale is quicker, easier and vastly less expensive that it was by the methods of 30 years ago, AND - wonder of wonders - one can make quick subsequent edits with the minimum of fuss. And - this really does seem magical - one can e-mail PDFs for printing for performance almost anywhere in the world without the cost and potential worries associated with international post, import taxes and all the rest.

I’m just sharing a passing thought or two with which others may not agree.


David Ward
www.composers-uk.com/davidward

Finale 2014d with Mac 10.9.5
Finale 2010b with Mac 10.6.8
full TGTools

Since 2001 have used F 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014

“We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” JFK


Posted By : Mike Rosen - 8/8/2015 6:01 PM
You're absolutely right, David. It seems to me the height of ingratitude to constantly complain about the nits, and ignore the value of everything else.

The wonder is not that the bear dances well, but that he dances at all.



Mike Rosen
www.specialmillwork.com

Bass with Choir of the Sound www.choirofthesound.org
Volunteer copyist (The Gang of Twelve) for the Barbershop Harmony Society
FINALE TIPS at www.specialmillwork.com/finale-tips-and-tricks/index.html

Finale 2010, 2011, 2012c, 2014d, on Yosemite 10.10.4
Simple Entry, QWERTY keyboard, numberpad. That's my system, and I'm stickin' to it.

"As a musician, he's a damn fine woodworker."

Post Edited (Mike Rosen) : 8/8/2015 7:29:27 PM (GMT-5)


Posted By : Motet - 8/8/2015 6:03 PM
I'm annoyed at the bugs and disruption every time a new version comes out, but I'm able to get my work done and am reasonably satisfied. My biggest concern is that the company will tank.


Finale 2011b, 2005, TGTools
Finale 2014d demo
Windows 7, MIDI input
Finale Transposition Chart


Posted By : Bill Stevens - 8/8/2015 6:33 PM
Like my colleague, David Ward, I am old enough to remember ending a day of composing covered with ink and blood (blood from the razor blades I used to scrape off mistakes before we got a backspace key) and then when it was all done, sending the music off in the mail to New York City and waiting 3 weeks to get a printed copy back.

Do I have frustrations with Finale? Yes

Have I figured out how to work around every frustration that I have? Yes, thanks in no small part to this board.

Call me a cockeyed optimist but I appreciate Finale every time I open it, and gladly pay for the versions which I don't use in hopes (to quote Mr. Rosen) that the bear will keep dancing, however clumsily.

Bill


Finale 2014d (all versions since 1.0)
Finally made the move from my trusty 2011c
Staff Paper and #1 Blackwing Pencil with eraser
OS 10.9.4 on one, 10.10.3 on another


Posted By : John Ruggero - 8/8/2015 6:47 PM
Ah, voices of Reason emerge from the fray.

If only Mozart had had Finale. We would now have K. 1626 instead of K. 626, and he would have finished it himself.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors
Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2
Adobe InDesign CS4, Acrobat XI Pro, Photoshop Elements 11
SmartScore X Pro
JW Plug-ins
Audacity 2.0.5
www.cantilenapress.com


Posted By : Michael Mortilla - 8/8/2015 8:14 PM
I am eternally grateful for Finale. Many of my career highlights would have been near impossible without it and I would have missed many tight deadlines working alone by hand - not to mention how much worse the scores would have looked. On 90%of my current scores I have zero problems. When I do have an issue I can ALWAYS find my way around it. But it gets very frustrating, especially when the writing is going well but the program hits a wall. Then it interrupts the creativity and I have to turn on my tech brain and that's when my inner child goes into panic and over-blown accusations about how I will start using Sibelius (which I NEVER will) or hope for some other company to make a great notation app.

There is a bottom line here, however. Finale is really a remarkable and excellent program and I have NEVER been let down by the folks at MakeMusic at tech support or sales. Right now things are going extremely well with Finale, but I do look forward to a day when it runs and I don't ever have to think about a workaround. In the mean time, I will ALWAYS be updating on day one to support the company and hopefully help to keep them in business.


Os X 10.10.3
Mac Pro (2013) 32GB RAM;
2008 Mac Pro 8 core; 20GB RAM.
MOTU Track 16

Finale 2014d; Digital Performer 8 [64 bit];

MIDI Life Crisis


Posted By : Zuill - 8/9/2015 12:01 AM
John Ruggero said...
Ah, voices of Reason emerge from the fray.

If only Mozart had had Finale. We would now have K. 1626 instead of K. 626, and he would have finished it himself.
I have a feeling that if Mozart had a computer, he may have played video games more and composed less. Who knows?
 
Zuill


"When all is said and done, more is said than done."
 
Finale 2002b, 2003a, 2004b, 2005b, Win XP SP3, 2011b Win 7 64bit, 2012a Bought and Paid For (Hopefully soon 2012b with some of the MAJOR BUGS fixed--well, now with 2012b and some of the bugs are fixed) 2012c, with some bug fixes. 2014c at present. Now 2014d.
Favorite Forum quote: "Please, everybody, IGNORE THE TROLL!"


Posted By : David Clarence - 8/9/2015 2:42 AM
Nice to read some positive comments for a change :-). As a performer, I wish my brain would perform as well as Finale does (most of the time), and when it doesn't MM support and this excellent forum make up the difference. Like Motet, my main worry is the future of the company itself.


Finale 2014d
OS X 10.10.3
Full TGTools
JW Plug-ins

iMac 21.5" 2.7GHz Intel Core i5 8GB RAM


Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 8/9/2015 3:20 AM
I have often quoted Donald Byrd, "the father of computer notation", who writes in one of his papers that “Fully automatic high-quality music notation is not merely non-trivial, but in general impossible, without human-level intelligence.” Some human intervention in what the computer does will always be required.

There are as many exceptions as there are rules; and people use Finale for music from Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Post-Modern, avante-garde, Jazz/Big Band, each with its own conventions.

However, there are obvious bugs: things that should work, which do not. These can be annoyances; obstacles; things that must be negated by some routine set of steps. They can also be show-stoppers and time-wasters. Computers these days are many times more amazing than those 20 years ago, but Finale still has code from those days.

Ultimately, I believe that if we want to use "the best that Finale can be", then MM needs our support, not our censure. File the bug reports. Make sure you've got the usage stats turned on. Get involved in beta-testing. All of these are more useful than lengthy venting here.

By all accounts, Sibelius does not solve every problem, either. And while the Steinberg new app may have much to commend it, I suspect that it will launch before it represents the culmination of the art.


"This is me helping."

Finale 2014d, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.10.3)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk

Post Edited (Wiggy) : 8/9/2015 6:35:05 AM (GMT-5)


Posted By : OCTO. - 8/9/2015 7:45 AM
Zuill said...
John Ruggero said...

Ah, voices of Reason emerge from the fray.

If only Mozart had had Finale. We would now have K. 1626 instead of K. 626, and he would have finished it himself.I have a feeling that if Mozart had a computer, he may have played video games more and composed less. Who knows?


Zuill


Agree!

Post Edited (OCTO.) : 8/9/2015 7:07:27 AM (GMT-5)


Posted By : BrassOrigins - 8/9/2015 2:40 PM
Wiggy said...
I have often quoted Donald Byrd, "the father of computer notation", who writes in one of his papers that “Fully automatic high-quality music notation is not merely non-trivial, but in general impossible, without human-level intelligence.” Some human intervention in what the computer does will always be required.

There are as many exceptions as there are rules; and people use Finale for music from Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Post-Modern, avante-garde, Jazz/Big Band, each with its own conventions.

However, there are obvious bugs: things that should work, which do not. These can be annoyances; obstacles; things that must be negated by some routine set of steps. They can also be show-stoppers and time-wasters. Computers these days are many times more amazing than those 20 years ago, but Finale still has code from those days.

Ultimately, I believe that if we want to use "the best that Finale can be", then MM needs our support, not our censure. File the bug reports. Make sure you've got the usage stats turned on. Get involved in beta-testing. All of these are more useful than lengthy venting here.

By all accounts, Sibelius does not solve every problem, either. And while the Steinberg new app may have much to commend it, I suspect that it will launch before it represents the culmination of the art.


Thanks for that sentence!
We bought our first Finale/Coda music in 1989 together with our "powerful" MAC SE/30 (couldn't get much better and more expensive in those days;) )....Now, nearly 26 years later, every tiny bit is still a reminder of this very first version.
Quite honestly, IMO Finale hasn't really moved forward to the 21st century. Still caught up in burocracy.
Some of my former students use Finale....those pencil pushers I felt, back then, were utter bores.
The others, the really artistic and interesting ones, have either chosen other programs in the first place or have switch from Finale for exactly my very reasons.

You are right to say that rather than complaining we should get involved...yet, for the high costs of Finale licences I would expect things to work smoothly without my technical knowledge which is virtually non-existing.

Jule


The problem with common sense is, it's not very common.


Posted By : Ronwass - 8/9/2015 3:47 PM
I have now heard mention of this mysterious "Steinberg" software that is coming, and how it is going to be a game changer. It's been well over 12 months, or even 24 or more. Does anyone really think that something brand new, and probably grossly under-resourced, is going to change the game against two legacy programs that have had at least a medium level of institutional and corporate support and have had that for close to 20 years?

And especially, do you think that it will be any less buggy than the two biggies?


Ron Wasserman
F2014c user since F2000
Desktop: 2012 i5 Macmini 4g ram OSX Mavericks 10.9.5 Casio Keyboard midi out to edirol to usb
Laptop: Intel Dual Core, 2g ram, Windows 7
TG Tools full version on both machines

". . . I love music, and anything that interrupts music, I hate."
Astor Piazzolla, Central Park Concert

Post Edited (Ronwass) : 8/9/2015 2:57:02 PM (GMT-5)


Posted By : Dr. Wiggy - 8/9/2015 4:20 PM
Ronwass said...
I have now heard mention of this mysterious "Steinberg" software that is coming, and how it is going to be a game changer. It's been well over 12 months, or even 24 or more. Does anyone really think that something brand new, and probably grossly under-resourced, is going to change the game against two legacy programs that have had at least a medium level of institutional and corporate support and have had that for close to 20 years?
And especially, do you think that it will be any less buggy than the two biggies?


The reason for the excitement is that several members of the team making it used to be the core of development for Sibelius, and Steinberg (the makers of Cubase, owned by Yamaha) does seem to be throwing considerable resources at it.
But why not judge for yourself?
blog.steinberg.net


"This is me helping."

Finale 2014d, 2012 MacMini; 2012 MacBook Pro (10.10.3)
Edirol FA-66; Roland A-49, HP Laserjet 5200 DTN
Ancient Groove Music www.ancientgroove.co.uk


Posted By : Jetcopy - 8/9/2015 4:25 PM
Ronwass said...
I have now heard mention of this mysterious "Steinberg" software that is coming, and how it is going to be a game changer. It's been well over 12 months, or even 24 or more. Does anyone really think that something brand new, and probably grossly under-resourced, is going to change the game against two legacy programs that have had at least a medium level of institutional and corporate support and have had that for close to 20 years?

Yes, it has the potential to be a game changer IMO. The advantage being, it's being developed from the team of programmers that used to work on Sibelius. They've done it once already, they know what they would have done differently with Sibelius and now they are getting the chance to do that with no legacy code involved. We don't know if they're "grossly under-resourced". Daniel blogs frequently about their process and progress they're making. From my perspective, they are aiming the program at professionals.

Ronwass said...
And especially, do you think that it will be any less buggy than the two biggies?
I'm sure it will have it's own set of unique bugs.


Retina Macbook Pro OSX 10.9.5, 2.5GHz Intel Core i7, 16 GB RAM


Posted By : Ronwass - 8/9/2015 4:28 PM
I can't judge much from a blog. But good to know that Yamaha is funding it.


Ron Wasserman
F2014c user since F2000
Desktop: 2012 i5 Macmini 4g ram OSX Mavericks 10.9.5 Casio Keyboard midi out to edirol to usb
Laptop: Intel Dual Core, 2g ram, Windows 7
TG Tools full version on both machines

". . . I love music, and anything that interrupts music, I hate."
Astor Piazzolla, Central Park Concert


Posted By : Writer of Music - 8/9/2015 7:43 PM
More competition can only be beneficial.


Reluctantly accepting Finale 2014, despite all its bugs and flaws. Because I have to, not because I want to.
Mac OS X 10.10.4.


Posted By : Zoots - 8/10/2015 10:40 AM
Wiggy said...
Ronwass said...
I have now heard mention of this mysterious "Steinberg" software that is coming, and how it is going to be a game changer. It's been well over 12 months, or even 24 or more. Does anyone really think that something brand new, and probably grossly under-resourced, is going to change the game against two legacy programs that have had at least a medium level of institutional and corporate support and have had that for close to 20 years?
And especially, do you think that it will be any less buggy than the two biggies?


The reason for the excitement is that several members of the team making it used to be the core of development for Sibelius, and Steinberg (the makers of Cubase, owned by Yamaha) does seem to be throwing considerable resources at it.
But why not judge for yourself?
blog.steinberg.net


From the Spreadbury's blog it is obvious that the team are well aware of the issues concerning computer music notation and they are attacking the various components with attention to detail right at the onset rather than releasing a program that does basic notation and then start fudging it to accommodate spacing, clashes, different features, etc. This fudging is what turns programs into spaghetti kludges.

Of course it will have bugs but hopefully they will get quickly corrected and you won't be reading things like, " this has been a much discussed problem in several versions but it hasn't been fixed".


Finale 2012c
JABB3/Aria

Smartscore Pro X2

Windows 8.1

Intel i7 with more than I need


Posted By : Ralph L. Bowers Jr. - 8/10/2015 12:02 PM
Zoots said...
Wiggy said...
Ronwass said...
I have now heard mention of this mysterious "Steinberg" software that is coming, and how it is going to be a game changer. It's been well over 12 months, or even 24 or more. Does anyone really think that something brand new, and probably grossly under-resourced, is going to change the game against two legacy programs that have had at least a medium level of institutional and corporate support and have had that for close to 20 years?
And especially, do you think that it will be any less buggy than the two biggies?


The reason for the excitement is that several members of the team making it used to be the core of development for Sibelius, and Steinberg (the makers of Cubase, owned by Yamaha) does seem to be throwing considerable resources at it.
But why not judge for yourself?
blog.steinberg.net


From the Spreadbury's blog it is obvious that the team are well aware of the issues concerning computer music notation and they are attacking the various components with attention to detail right at the onset rather than releasing a program that does basic notation and then start fudging it to accommodate spacing, clashes, different features, etc. This fudging is what turns programs into spaghetti kludges.

Of course it will have bugs but hopefully they will get quickly corrected and you won't be reading things like, " this has been a much discussed problem in several versions but it hasn't been fixed".




Also, from Daniel's blog he has said recently that they are at the halfway point in development (2 years +).......so I am expecting good things from this team, Steinberg and Yamaha.


Finale 2010b, 2011b, 2012c, 2014d, TGTools Pro, Patterson plugins, JW plugins (current)
Sibelius 6.2, 7.1.3, 7.5.1, 8.0, Write Score Sound Sets, Bob Zawalich plugins, Dolet 6.4
Print Music 2004, 2010a, 2011a, 2014a
Progression, Progression 2, Progression 3, Notion 4, [Notion 5, (bought but not installed)]
Pro Tools 9.5, Reaper
Kontakt 5
GPO4, World Instruments
SmartScore X Pro, SmartScore X2 Pro, PhotoScore Ultimate 6 & 7 & 8.04 ( 7 has some utility----best of those available, 8 has some issues that need fixing)
M-Audio "Oxygen 25" Midi input keyboard (recent addition 2014)
Systems (4) // Windows XP Pro, [email protected] Windows 7 Pro, 8.1 Pro, 64 bit, 4GB - 16GB RAM
Paper & Pencil

BMus, MM (Musicology)


Posted By : OCTO. - 8/11/2015 6:33 AM
David, your comparison with pencil and ink is not valid. Pencil and ink do the job what they are supposed to do. If YOU spoil the ink, it is YOU not the ink.

I will give you an example.
How many times we had on this forum "how to write in Korean, Russian or Hebrew letters?".
Unicode was invented 1991/2 and Finale AFTER 20 years implemented that. So, it was difficult to use anything except the Latin Western Encoding. That was not the USER but the SOFTWARE that lacked a completeness. It is lack of respect for users that do not use the LWE. And what happened is that many of these users simply switched to Sib.

Another example. Many times we have spoken about collision of accidentals in layers. So, it is not the USER but the SOFTWARE that doesn't respect the music theory and engraving.

I can continue with a long list of "bugs" - which are not bugs but badly implemented engraving logarithms. A bug is when something SHOULD work as it is stated but it doesn't, or breaks in the middle.
The long list is the badly implemented software engraving procedures (falsely so called BUGS), which are not fixed after so many years, scare me definitely. Yes, I did produced fantastic looking scores with Finale. I could do it with much bigger effort in Musescore, or even much bigger effort in MS Paint. But that is not the point. The developer must listen to the users, and respect their needs. If needed they must re-compile the entire software to the more modern and flexible platform. They should open a bug-tracking online as open to public, so that all see what doesn't work. And to see if something is neglected or fixed. I am tired of hearing about "improvements under the hood". It is a nonsense.

Otherwise the value on the stock market will drop down. It is so simple.


Finale 2009c now (works better than 2011c) on OS X 10.6.8 and not thinking to upgrade any more until both computers die completely (iMac 21', MacBook Pro 13').


Posted By : Flint - 8/11/2015 10:44 AM
MakeMusic is a privately owned company, so their value on the stock market is not a factor; they are no longer listed.

MakeMusic does not *have* to do anything to fix "bugs" or add features to the application. It would be smart for them to do both, however.


woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2014d using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 4 Full, Garritan Jazz & Big Band 3, Garritan Concert and Marching Band 2, Windows 8 64-bit, 12GB RAM

If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read


Posted By : Writer of Music - 8/11/2015 4:14 PM
If MakeMusic wants to stay longer in the business of supplying professional notation software, then yes, they do have to fix bugs, just as the others have to as well. It's only a choice when they do not see the need to remain in competition with the others.


Reluctantly accepting Finale 2014, despite all its bugs and flaws. Because I have to, not because I want to.
Mac OS X 10.10.4.


Posted By : David Ward - 8/11/2015 5:59 PM
I suppose I anticipated that my original post would produce these varied reactions and that not everyone would altogether agree.

For myself, I remain in a state of wonder that computer generated music typesetting works at all, let alone for substantial and complex scores; but then, like others, I have begun to rely on it. As a consequence, what disconcerts most is when something has worked so that one has got used to it and has come to expect it - then suddenly, and for no immediately obvious reason, it fails. It's as though one were voyaging in a hitherto well-found boat that has suddenly sprung a leak, or that the swell reveals a dangerous, uncharted rock where least expected on the edge of one's regular channel.

(Apologies for the seagoing metaphors, but I've spent a lot of time on islands off the north and west of Scotland …)


David Ward
www.composers-uk.com/davidward

Finale 2014d with Mac 10.9.5
Finale 2010b with Mac 10.6.8
full TGTools

Since 2001 have used F 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014

“We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” JFK


Posted By : OCTO. - 8/12/2015 2:35 AM
Writer of Music said...
If MakeMusic wants to stay longer in the business of supplying professional notation software, then yes, they do have to fix bugs, just as the others have to as well. It's only a choice when they do not see the need to remain in competition with the others.


Exact so. We need to see ADEQUATE improvements in the future. "Under the hood" - is an empty phrase now favorite by Apple and other. Finale is first after all - a notation program that will generate music for musicians, and also it can be used as a publishing tool for many publishers. Therefore, the printed music is the most important output of the program. Consequently, ignoring badly implemented tools will lead the software to break at one point. Instead of adding some "under the hood"- and "Gamelan harp-flute sounds"-improvements, it is better to fix the badly implemented logarithms and make Finale finally rock solid.


Finale 2009c now (works better than 2011c) on OS X 10.6.8 and not thinking to upgrade any more until both computers die completely (iMac 21', MacBook Pro 13').


Posted By : saxop - 8/12/2015 3:33 AM
OCTO. said...
"Under the hood" - is an empty phrase now favorite by Apple and other.

...Instead of adding some "under the hood"- and "Gamelan harp-flute sounds"-improvements, it is better to fix the badly implemented logarithms and make Finale finally rock solid.


If we want MakeMusic to fix bugs and make the software more reliable for future improvements, then we definitely want them to refactor the code to make it more manageable and efficient. People who are worried about the company backing away from Finale development should feel comforted by this sort of "under the hood" focus, because it implies the company is investing in Finale's future. In other words, they're spending time and money so that they can continue to spend more time and more money later. The time to be alarmed is when a company elects NOT to make under the hood improvements because they aren't convinced of the long term viability of their product.

Fixing poorly designed "algorithms" is often a part of improvements that might be called "under the hood."

OCTO. said...
Therefore, the printed music is the most important output of the program.


I hope the data MakeMusic collects will help it determine how its customers are using it.

Posted By : David Ward - 8/12/2015 6:57 AM
Sorry to be so dense; but can somebody please translate 'Under the hood' for me?

Is it a widely used Americanism (nothing wrong with that), or is it arcane (or even not arcane) computer jargon? It's not an expression that I remember having heard used here in Scotland, but that may just be because I wasn't paying sufficient attention …


David Ward
www.composers-uk.com/davidward

Finale 2014d with Mac 10.9.5
Finale 2010b with Mac 10.6.8
full TGTools

Since 2001 have used F 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014

“We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” JFK


Posted By : David Toft - 8/12/2015 7:25 AM
David, under the hood (American) = under the bonnet (British) of a car. So to fix something under the hood is to fix the engine.


David


Vista 64-bit; Finale 2014


Posted By : ttw - 8/12/2015 8:23 AM
"Under the hood" refers to working on the engine of an automobile. The part that covers the engine is referred to as a "hood" (or "bonnet" in England.) Of course, it's less meaningful for rear or mid engine designs. The phrase refers to fixing things that make something work but are generally unseen.


Finale 2011b & Finale 2012c & 2014</div>
GWI, GPO 4, JABB 3, Steinway Basic, COMB2

Windows 8.1 Dell XPS 8770



Finale 2011b & Finale 2012c & 2014c

GWI, GPO 4, JABB 3, Steinway Basic, COMB2

Windows 8.1 HP Envy Notebook


Posted By : Charles Lawrence - 8/12/2015 9:50 AM

Copied from http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/under-the-hood

under the hood

adjective

  • a metaphorical area that contains the underlying implementation of something - e.g. a piece of hardware, a piece of software, an idea, etc.
    Let's now look under the hood to see how the software goes about transmitting data so quickly.
    To understand how it really works we need to look under the hood.
    Does your excursion call for more power than the 173-horsepower four-cylinder under the hood?

    Last edited on Apr 17 2013. Submitted by WalterGR (via TheJargonFile) on Aug 14 2009.

  • inside the chassis of a piece of equipment, such as a computer.
    Under the hood, this baby has quad-core AMD Phenom!

    Last edited on Nov 11 2011. Submitted by WalterGR (via TheJargonFile) on Aug 14 2009.

origin

  • By reference to looking under the hood (aka "bonnet") of a motor vehicle to inspect its engine, transmission, etc.


"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!"

 

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU with 6 dual core processors @ 3.50 GHz (12 threads)

32 GB RAM

Realtek High Definition on board audio
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 GPU with 4GB ram

512 GB SSD system disk

Four 4TB and one 1TB internal SATA HD's
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Professional with Media Center x64 Edition, (06.03.9600.00)
Finale versions: 2011b.r2, 2012c.r13, 2014d.v5030

GPO4.02

 

Cakewalk SONAR X3

 

"There is a world of difference between a person who has a big problem and a person who makes a problem big." – John Maxwell


Posted By : N. Grossingink - 8/12/2015 10:54 AM
Perhaps some operations that happen "under the hood" in Finale are those initiated by plugins and scripts.

N.


Finale 2011c, 2012c - OSX 10.6.8
Finale 2014d - OSX 10.8.5

TgTools, Patterson Plugins, JW Change and Staff Polyphony, QuicKeys 4
Mac Mini 2.4 Ghz Intel, 8GB RAM
New Belgium Fat Tire Ale

“The old idea of a composer suddenly having a terrific idea and sitting up all night to write it is nonsense. Nighttime is for sleeping.”
–Benjamin Britten


Posted By : saxop - 8/12/2015 12:44 PM
There was talk this year that Apple would be focusing mostly on "under the hood" improvements for iOS 9, meaning that instead of focusing mostly on new features, they'd be cleaning existing things up to make them more reliable, faster, and perhaps cleaner. www.engadget.com/2015/02/09/ios-9-focus-is-under-the-hood/ There were objections to iOS 8, with many people feeling it was overly buggy.

Posted By : David Ward - 8/12/2015 4:39 PM
I confess to having been a tad disingenuous in suggesting that I was unable to guess at the meaning of 'under the hood.' However, the responses have been useful and informative, and have gone way beyond my simple guess.

BTW, in UK motoring a 'hood' is a fold away top for the passenger compartment of a convertible car. 'Under the hood' might provide a rather different metaphor if derived from that usage …


David Ward
www.composers-uk.com/davidward

Finale 2014d with Mac 10.9.5
Finale 2010b with Mac 10.6.8
full TGTools

Since 2001 have used F 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014

“We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” JFK


Posted By : John Ruggero - 8/15/2015 4:40 PM
I was away and unable to respond to the comments about Mozart playing computer games.

1. According to legend, Mozart was not only able to compose while gaming, but actually enjoyed doing so.

So I stick with K 1626.

2. It has been a while since I perused Mozart's letters, but I remember thinking at the time that Mozart was not an obsessive-compulsive gambler or the airhead portrayed in a certain play and movie, but actually the man one would have expected to be the greatest composer of all time, and one who would have used Finale to the fullest to write as much music as he could.

So again I stick with K. 1626.

To Germany's greatest composer! (toast directed at Brahms). Yes, to Mozart! (Brahms' response.) Quoted from somewhere.


Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors
Finale 2014d (Finale 2011 as a backup) with GPO 4
Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2
Adobe InDesign CS4, Acrobat XI Pro, Photoshop Elements 11
SmartScore X Pro
JW Plug-ins
Audacity 2.0.5
www.cantilenapress.com