My judgments of the program to date.

• Dec 3, 2019 - 14:54

Most of the links at Microsoft to fix the video issue were taken down by Microsoft, but I did find one with a whole package of Universal C vid dll's and the program booted.

I run this program on an old eMachine which I found in the dump. I have not installed it on my Dell Workstations, I have three of them. I installed it on a machine comparable with low income families. It looked like it was in new condition and sat along with its monitor. I picked them both up and waked them home. The monitor was dead and ended up back in the trash. The Machine was testd with Windows 7, 8.1 and 10, it ran all three. So, In had the setup program wipe it and install the original set up. Then I took that SATA drive out and bagged it and put it in the bottom of the machine.
I installed a RocketRaid and took out all the SATA drives and purt in two IDE drives as I have a surpluse of those and my work will be on Raid drives.
I set this program up and am comparing its ability to render the sound of a midi file against Winamp, VirtualMidiSyth, and Finale 14, all of which sound very much alike using Musng.sf2 and Merlin GM Vienna 2.72.sf2
Still, after years of work, MuseScore still makes mud out of a midi when playing. Up to the sound, this program is tops, but really? Where is the sound? How is it that it uses more cpu and is slower than Finale?
How is it, that people with lower incomes cannot count on a free program to learn music on, from those making that claim?

I too post free educational material. Internet Archive, Phil8659 or johnclark8659, see my work on language and grammar, Universal Language.

It is a very good editor, and a very bad player. There is nothing wrong with programming on Workstations, but you better be beta testing on a home computer.


:( Some would say that the goal is the notation, the playback an added value. But maybe you could try using another soundfont and. of course, wait for a better answer.

Everyone has their own ideas of what constitutes good playback. For example, I'd rather listen to just about anything other than Finale playback.
While there still are XP era machines out there, I wonder how many are in the hands of "low income families". Especially those who can afford the upkeep on them. In my experience, most people know nothing about computers. When it quits, they either toss it, or take it somewhere and find the cost of fixing an old computer exceeds the value of it.
In my view, sound fonts for the new version of MuseScore are far better than before. But it is still notation software, not a DAW.
Please define "home computer".

Feel free to attach the MIDI file you are using for comparison. It's not clear whether you are unhappy with the default soundfont in MsueScore or if something is actually going wrong with the import causing it to sound different from other programs even when using the same soundfont. I can't think of any reason the latter should be true, did you try using those soundfonts with MuseScore?

If something went wrong with the import, we'd need to see the file in order to understand and fix the problem. If it's just a matter of your personal preference on the default soundfont, you are welcome to use any other soundfont you personally find preferable. These things are extremely subjective, but FWIW I find the default soundfont in MsueScore far superior for most purposes to the defaults in Finale (not so when you consider Garritan, but we're talking defaults here).

Not sure what you mean about being slower than Finale, again, we'd need a file to comapre with and a specific series of steps to compare. In general, MuseScore should be just about as fast except for a handful of operations on extremely large scores, and it definitely runs extremely well evebn on very low-powered hardware for me on all the machines I have tested on (which include some real "dogs").

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