MS Downloading Latest Version
Dear Forum, I keep getting reminders that the latest version of MS is available to be downloaded. I am using MS 2.1 at present for a score I am just finishing up. I would like better sound and stability, but I am wondering: If I download the update (2.3 something) will that update my present version, or will it download as a totally separate new version of MS on my PC? If it's separate, can I open my score done in 2.1 in 2.3 and it will be updated? Whatever I do, I don't want the many problems I had when I updated my MS 1.3 scores into MS 2!
Comments
Scores created (or last saved ) with 2.1 should looks exactly the same in 2.3.2. There may be the odd exception here or there though, due to bugs having been fixed that affect layout. With more complicated repeats, esp. Voltas, playback may be different, and workarounds used and needed in 2.1 or earlier are no longer and can cause yet another playback issue, but reverting those workarounds should fix this.
Check the release notes , esp. https://musescore.org/en/handbook/developers-handbook/release-notes/rel…
Hi Del,
Here's my opinion that some will disagree with.
First, updating from 1.x to 2.x caused a lot of problems because the program went through radical changes and the format of the score changed. This was mostly due to a large number of improvements from one version to the next. These radical changes do not happen until the first number changes. Upgrading from 2.1 to 2.3.2 will not lead to this problem. Moreover, you could have continued using 1.x for scores you created with 1.x while using 2.x for new scores. The only problem would have been the 1.x scores would have be displayed differently on MuseScore.com, which is apparently important to you. The upgrade from 1.x to 2.x was necessary for you, just as the upgrade from 2.x to 3.x will be necessary when the time comes.
Now for the big question, should you update to 2.3.2? I would say it's not for you. Yes, several bugs were fixed, but a new set of bugs have been introduced, several of which lead to sudden unexplained crashes. These are nuisances unless they cause you to lose work. The features that have been added are few and I don't see them being things a composer such as yourself would be eager to add. The two main items that have been added are the ability to play repeats inside of a D.S./D.C. section and the MuseScore Drum Line, which requires a lot of memory to keep from slowing down the program.
In reply to Hi Del,… by mike320
There certainly far more crashes and bugs have been fixed than introduced new ones, and indeed MDL might be nothing for you, but you're not forced to install a that.
In reply to There certainly far more… by Jojo-Schmitz
Wanting MDL would be motivation to upgrade. I think 2.1 had fewer random crashes than 2.3.x.
In reply to Wanting MDL would be… by mike320
You may think so, but I'm pretty sure this not the case
In reply to Wanting MDL would be… by mike320
"There certainly far more crashes and bugs have been fixed than introduced new ones, and indeed MDL might be nothing for you, but you're not forced to install a that."
+1, of course. This is the most stable version of all.
"I think 2.1 had fewer random crashes than 2.3.x."
I do not see why you say that.
In reply to "There certainly far more… by cadiz1
Why do I say that? Because I almost never had a random crash in 2.1 and I experience them from time to time in 2.3.1 and see a lot more posts of random crashes now then there were back in the days of 2.1. To say there were never crashes in 2.1 would of course be wrong. But I mostly use it day to day in a manner similar to del and was happier with 2.1.
In reply to Why do I say that? Because I… by mike320
" I experience them from time to time in 2.3.1"
Random crash time to time in 2.3.1? Please develop.
"a lot more posts of random crashes now then there were back in the days of 2.1"
A lot, really. Very surprised of that. And here too, need to be precise.
For the record eg: https://musescore.org/en/handbook/developers-handbook/release-notes/rel…, and in particular: https://musescore.org/en/handbook/developers-handbook/release-notes/rel…
And 2.3: https://musescore.org/en/handbook/developers-handbook/release-notes/rel…
In reply to Hi Del,… by mike320
I would say crashes are seldom "random"; they are triggered by specific events. Each version of any program will have different events that can triggered crashes.
The list of events that can cause crashes is absolutely and without question objectively speaking much shorter for 2.3.2 than is for 2.1, That is, there are fewer specific events that can cause crashes. So for most people, that will mean they in fact experience fewer crashes with 2..2 than the did with 2.1, Plus of course they will get the other many advantages of 2.3.2 - new features, bug fixes not having anything to do with crashes, etc.
However, while 2.3.2 has objectively fewer specific events that can lead to crashes, it could easily be the case that any one specific user might happen to be doing something in his workflow that keeps hitting one particular event that leads to a crash often. So, like, let's say MuseScore 2.1 had 100 things that could lead to crashes, 2.3.2 had aonly one, but that one thing was "attempting to transpose by a interval of exactly a minor ninth". The vast majority of people will never see that crash. But the one person who happens to transpose by a minor ninth a lot for whatever reason will see more crashes.
Thus for this person, it will be true that 2.3.2 crashes more often for him even though it is equally true that for most people, 2.3.2 will crash much less often.
All available evidence says that this is what is going on here. The objective evidence makes it clear there are fewer crashes overall in 2.3.2, but no doubt some crashes remain, and some minority of users will just so happen to hit those fewer crashes more often - it would be almost statistically impossible for it to be otherwise.
Bottom line - I don't doubt for one minute Mike's experience of more crashes with 2.3.2, but this one data point in no way disproves the known fact that that 2.3.2 is more stable overall.
No more than that one guy I know who lived to age 95 despite smoking his entire life disproves the links between smoking and lung disease, cancer, etc.
In reply to Hi Del,… by mike320
Hi Mike and everyone,
I am just now having time to go through all this about 2.3.2 etc. I will have to study all the comments and decide what I want to do. Thanks for th3 Replies.
In reply to Hi Del,… by mike320
Hi Mike and everyone,
I am just now having time to go through all this about 2.3.2 etc. I will have to study all the comments and decide what I want to do. Thanks for the Replies.
In reply to Hi Del,… by mike320
Hi Mike,
I guess i have been lucky in that I haven't had any crashes with MS so far. My concerns are only with a major upgrade when the first number changes, like to 3 in the future. And yes, MS.com is important, I think. Unless you are doing scores as a pastime or for your own private amusement, I think it's great to be able to share them on MS.com. You can bypass the entire elite Classical system and the hard-to-crack music industry and at least some people will get to see/hear your music. Only thing is, it seems MS holds you in hostage so to speak--not allowing you to upload to MS.com from older versions of MS--so you have to upgrade to 3 or something or else! My only other thing I noticed on 2.1 is the playback sometimes, on certain held , sustained notes, there is a sort of throbbing or peculiar pulsating, so if playback sound is better on 2.3+ I will be tempted to use it.