New MS use caution?

• Apr 28, 2016 - 15:46

Now I am wondering whether the new MS 2.0.3 download should be kept separate from the earlier version 2_ I already have ? I have opened most of my MS 1.3 opera files into MS 2_0 or was it MS 2.0.1(?) and there were some bugs. Now, will opening the 2_ files with the 2.0.3 version create more bugs? (I have not downloaded the latest one yet. When it downloads, will it "merge" with the 2.0.1 version automatically? It's huge when you wonder what a large amount of score on one version of MS will be affected by opening in later versions!


Comments

You can install 2.0.3 next to 2.0.1 (but only run one at a time), the default behavoir though is that 2.0.3 replaces 2.0.1.
Just in case I might need any of the older versions, I just keep all the current and older portable apps on a thumb drive. So far I didn't have to use any of thzem, except for debugging or checking whether a certain Problem was present in a certain Version or not.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

OK, Thanks for your reply and info about thumbdrives. I have already found that a 1.3 version of certain of my files are fine, but when opened in 2.0.1, there are bugs, or notices about "File Corrupt", and when I tried to fix them in the 2+ version, it did not always work! I noted this in a Forum Discussion last summer.I have all my Opera files on 1.3 stored in a thumbdrive, but of course they have to be updated on MS, for instance, you can't upload old 1.3s into MS .com.etc.
Question: Perhaps I should just let the 2.0.3 default version replace the 2.0.1 version of my Opera files? Otherwise, I guess I would need to open each 2.0.1 file with the .3 version to update them?

In reply to by delhud2

The warnings about corrupt files are actually telling you about bugs in your score itself - that is, 1.3 had bugs that caused this corruption. You didn't see warnings before because 1.3 lacked the ability to *detect* the corruptions its bugs had introduced. 2.0 (including 2.0.1, 2.0.2, and 2.0.3) now includes the ability to *detect* the corrupts that bugs in 1.3 had introduced into your score. So you will finally be able to find and detect the corruptions introduced by bugs in 1.3 that you may not previously have noticed but were there causing problems nonetheless.

Which isn't to say there aren't bugs in 2.0.3 of course - every version of every piece of software ever released has bugs. Just that the warnings about corruptions are *not* bugs in 2.0.3 - they are actually designed to help you correct the problems that already exist in your score.

Aside from that, in general, 2.0 was a *huge* change over 1.3 that included pretty major improvements in layout, but these changes mean that some complex scores created in 1.3 that made extensive use of manual adjustments might look wrong in 2.0 - the manual adjustments made to overcome bugs or deficiencies in the 1.3 default layout would turn out to be unnecessary and harmful when applied to 2.0's improved default layout. These too are not bugs, but the inevitable result of the improvements. My guess is that you were bitten by some of these improvements - manual adjustments carefully made to overcome problems in 1.3 suddenly looked wrong in 2.0, making it appear 2.,0 had a bug when actually it was for the first time doing things right, and your manual adjustments were now throwing things off.

Again, not to say there were no bugs in 2.0! Just that *msot* of the things that caused a 1.3 score to look different in 20 were not bugs, but improvements that unfortunately invalidated the manual adjustments previously performed to workaround bugs in 1.3.

Ayhow, the "good" news here is that 2.0.3 is not that much improved in layout over 2.0.2, nor was 2.0.2 that much improved over 2.0.1, etc. So there should be fewer visible changes. But there were *some* improvements made, so indeed, some scores may look slightly different.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Thanks for your comment. I Finally had time to carefully study your explanation about the "seeming" bugs in MS 2+ versions, etc. I do understand that the bugs are really in 1.3 now. But, should I make an effort to fix the parts of a score that look "wrong" in 2.0, 2.2, 2.3? . (But I don't want to borrow trouble!) I remember I did try to fix what looked like a bug in 2.0 in a file (The bug did not show in 1.3) but could not get it to correct itself. I guess if I run into that type of thing again, I would need to post an attachment of the specific problem as part of my Forum post. Second question: If I download M@ 2.03 will it automatically "morph" into my 2.02 version and the 2.02 will become a 2.03? You explained that the score will not look much different, so I'm not worried about it.

In reply to by delhud2

If your intention is to continue working on the score in MuseScore 2, then yes, you should spend the time it taskes to clean it up. Some of the differences are due to bugs in 1.3 that are now fixed, some are just differences - neither version is "wrong", just different. Of course no one is claiming there are no bugs in MsueScore 2, either, so it's certainly possible you are seeing one or more of them in addition to the differences due to bugs in 1.3 or differences that are just differences. In which case you should indeed report those bugs here.

On the other hand, if you have a large score you spent a lot of time manually adjusting in 1.3 and it is essentially finished, correcting those adjustments for 2.0 might take more time than it is worth - just keep 1.3 around for use with those older scores.

And yes, 2.0.3 will by default simply replace 2.0.2, since they are intended to be compatible. In general, "minor" release sinmply update, "major" ones will usually give you the option to keep older version around - that's fairly typical.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

My solution is a unique ability of the Mac OS. I simply rename the app , in my case MuseScore1, MuseScore2 and MuseScoreDaily, and they all live quite happily on the Mac. When I ( this is my burden ) want to open a score, rather than double clicking, I right click and select Open With what ever version I need to work with. I just have to keep it straight in my head that score### can only be opened and edited in 1.x because my friend has not yet upgraded, etc.
Al

In reply to by aszy

Until yesterday, in my Applications folder I had "MuseScore 1.app" and "MuseScore 2.app" along with "MuseScoreNightly.app" and "MuseScoreNightly 2.1.app"! The last one was kept for one specific score that used some advanced controls for hidden staves not included in 2.0, but brought into 2.1 development before 2.1 was called off in favor of 3.0. Yesterday I finished redoing that score in 2.0.3, and then deleted the old 2.1 nightly.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

could you help me? I can't seem to add a new subject for my question:

Is there a way I can save MuseScore mixer settings so they can be applied to a different score?
I have a MIDI that I made in Anvil Studio (I need to use the pianoroll editor in that program since I can't read music) I opened it in MuseScore and mixed it- it sounds great. Now I want to make a few changes to the score in Anvil Studio (using pianoroll editor) Can I save the mixer settings I made in MuseScore for the original score so that I can apply those same settings to the slightly changed score? I would be so incredible if I could!!!!
thanks!
Tom Rawlings

In reply to by thomasrawlings

To create a new thread, simply click the "Post new forum topic" link at the top of any forum listing. Or, from within MuseScore, use "Help / Ask for Help", which automatically creates a new post in the Support forum.

Anyhow, I don't know that there is a way to save mixer settings. MuseScore does support template files, so you can create a new score using an existing one as a template, but I don't think mixer settings are among the things that are preserved. I could be wrong on that though.

You could just copy and paste from the modified score to the original. Or make a copy of the original first and copy your changes in there.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.