Musescore 4 Multiple Tabs
When attempting to open multiple scores in MS4, instead of adding another tab to the preexisting window, a new window opens with each additional score opened. When editing or working on multiple scores at once, this becomes messy. Is this intentional, or is this a bug? If it is intentional, how do I revert to a system like MS3 where I can have multiple tabs with different scores open in a single window and easily switch between them?
Comments
In reply to This misrepresents the issue… by user2442
That might be the issue you are concerned with, but others are complaining specifically about the lack of tabs, not the internal details of how the multiple windows are implemented. Coke, Pepsi, RC (is that still a thing?) - we all have our preferences :-)
In reply to That might be the issue you… by Marc Sabatella
A small correction: If you have read my posts carefully (for instance https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1193227), you will have noticed that my main concern is specifically how the multiple windows are implemented, namely, through separate processes. I see nothing wrong with multiple windows per se.
In reply to A small correction: If you… by user2442
The problem of the lack of communication between instances has been logged and is on a ToDo list.
See this related issue on GitHub https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/13837
In reply to A small correction: If you… by user2442
Again, I see that you personally are concerned with that detail, but my point is that others seem more concerned with the loss of the tabs themselves. Different people have different preferences indeed. But again, there is really no point in continuing this thread. The issue is understood by the developers, and this thread is on a site the developers do not generally visit anyhow. There is nothing to be gained by further discussion here.
In reply to Again, I see that you… by Marc Sabatella
If you think that is a detail, then you are missing the point. So be it.
But, I would be interested to know what the developers are planning to do. You say they are aware of it, do you have a pointer for me?
In reply to If you think that is a… by user2442
It is a detail, one that happens to be important to you personally (and probably many Mac users). I understand this perfectly as does the development team. Again, there is literally no point in continuing this discussion here.
In reply to It is a detail, one that… by Marc Sabatella
Can you enlighten me as to what the development team is planning to do? If only with a pointer? Thanks!
In reply to Can you enlighten me as to… by user2442
As I have explained, so far no one has found a solution, but it's on the list of things to continue investigating. I can't tell you where that investigation will lead because no one knows - it's still ongoing.
Personally, I think Mac users should band together to complain to Apple about their poor design choice not to combine the icons or show document names for multiple instances. If Apple were to fix that, then it would become mostly moot as it is on Windows, Linux, and ChromeOS. A little inter-process communication to update preferences between instances and there would be pretty much no user-visible difference.
In reply to As I have explained, so far… by Marc Sabatella
You are mistaken about Apple. Your comment shows that you do not understand the principles underlying macOS. Which many would argue are sounder and more consistent than those of Windows.
But let us leave that discussion for others - only please do not rant about things unless you have put an effort in really understanding why those choices were made.
More to the current point: if Apple would show document names when tabbing or on the dock, that would solve the immediate problem of finding the correct MuseScore instance, but it would not solve the fundamental problems caused by having multiple instances running for multiple scores.
Synchronizing settings is one problem. But not the most serious. Resource consumption is. On my Mac, a single instance of MuseScore consumes between 1 and 2 gigabytes of memory. If I am editing a score and want a brief look at another one, again that amount of memory is consumed. Many users will run out of memory very fast that way. Talk about user-visible difference!
There is really no reason I can see that forces to open a second instance of the app just to work on a second score. To me that is sloppy programming, probably by people not really knowing their way around macOS.
You speak about poor design choices from Apple, but what about this design decision by the MuseScore/MuseHub developers? Look at yourself before blaming others.
PS This is not to be viewed as a criticism of all the MuseScore volunteers who, over the years, have created a wonderful program. We are all in their debt.
In reply to Can you enlighten me as to… by user2442
@user2442 The issue has been discussed here: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/12647 The comments from one of the developers, "cbjeukendrup", are of interest. He is a Mac user.
In reply to @user2442 The issue has been… by RobFog
Thanks RobFog for the link!
In reply to This misrepresents the issue… by user2442
this has always been the issue, and I complained that people weren't listening a year ago (nor were they listening six months ago). It makes features of macOS work very weirdly or breaks them; I do my modern music in Musescore, Gregorian chant in LaTeX with TeXShop. I can have both tabs or separate windows, all in one instance, so only one TeXShop icon is in the dock, but I can cycle through the windows with the keyboard or use Mission Control to view them all. If I want Stage Manager (rare, because I'm constantly going to Finder or Safari, but in theory) it works.
Yes, yes, not every app has tabs, but so what? Taking away tabs and then having this was not the way forward.
In reply to this has always been the… by luntastonemason
It's not a question of people "not listening". As has been explained many times, the issue is that thus far no one has found a technical solution to this particular macOS restriction. Not from lack of trying, but simply due to the complexities of the situation. Yes, of course, other apps that don't have to manage gigabytes worth of sound libraries that need to be associated with each score separately can get away with solutions that aren't viable for MuseScore. But those solutions would lead to problems worse than multiple icons if MuseScore tried them. So, new solutions need to be found, and thus far, nothing the experts have tried has led to a solution. They're still trying, though.
As always, since MuseScore is open source, if any macOS programming experts out there have ideas they'd like to try out, they are most welcome to, and if they find a viable solution, no doubt it would be greatly appreciated by the MuseScore community!
In reply to It's not a question of… by Marc Sabatella
It is, actually, that problem, and the condescension in your comment underscores it. I also would point out the many replies to me and to others where people kept yakking on about Windows or Linux, even after it became apparent that macOS expects something else.
As another user said, "To me these are the three most serious issues [Allow Multiple Tabs to be open in one instance of program, Allow user to Manually update sounds on Musehub (don't have it running in background), a visible save button] because they are not bugs they are by design." There's really no answer to his criticism, except by deflecting onto the technical challenge, and then you have "I don't know which platform the OP is using, but on Mac, opening another document opens another instance of MuseScore. I have not seen anything like that in many, many years of using a Mac…"
No answer!
No answer to the many, many comments saying how terrible it is with the way that the icons then close on a Mac.
"Other things that Word does well despite being multi-window: change your ribbon in any of the Word window (+/- customize your MuseScore palettes), all other Windows immediately have your new ribbon. Or change an option, it is applied to all opened windows at once as well."
No answer! Just that since Word, on Windows (because people keep talking about file explorers and not Finder) does one thing, well, it's OK if Musescore does this screwed-up thing too.
In reply to It is, actually, that… by luntastonemason
I'm sorry you are seeing my honest attempts to be helpful as somehow "condescension". Not sure how that mistake could have happened, but definitely not my intent. Anyhow, as explained, it's a hard problem to solve, so fart experts have failed to solve it, but hopefully someone else will be able to soon!
As for "no answer" given in some specific thread or other, volunteers such as myself do try to respond when we can, but it's tough to keep up with every single post in a forum this big. So, now that you know the relevant information, feel free to join the effort and help out yourself by providing this information when people are curious about why it hasn't been solved yet!
In reply to It's not a question of… by Marc Sabatella
"....other apps that don't have to manage gigabytes worth of sound libraries that need to be associated with each score separately..."
This is my problem. WHY does Musescore 4.x need to manage this?
In reply to "....other apps that don't… by Unknown Prodigy
I'm not understanding the question. You;re asking why MuseScore 4 made enormous playback improvements,. or why those enormous playback improvements take gigabytes of data, or why swapping gigabytes of data in and out on every tab switch is not viable, or, something else?
In reply to It's not a question of… by Marc Sabatella
I want to highlight a point. The opening post in this thread—and most of the subsequent replies—are OS agnostic. But since the release of MuseScore 4.0 it seemes that many users on all platforms complained about the omission of "score tabs" regression. Yet Mark's reply ("... thus far no one has found a technical solution to this particular macOS restriction") implies that the issue is MacOS specific. Or did I read that wrong?
If indeed the tab-less interface is a MacOS-only regression then it never was an issue on Windows and Linux. But if initially it was a Windows/Linux issue too, has that regression been resolved?
In reply to I want to highlight a point… by scorster
The changes affects all platforms. But in Windows and Linux, the new behavior is actually quite standard and used by tons of other applications and is well supported by the OS, actually making the use model simpler in most respects. So it’s just a personal preference some people have for the other behavior.
On macOS, though, the new behavior is not one that the operating system supports well at all - it produces a mess on the desktop as a result. So the result comes off as much worse than it should - nowhere near as good as in Windows or Linux, and indeed, something that could legitimately be called a “bug” and not just a personal preference.
In reply to The changes affects all… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for clarifying, Mark.
scorster
In reply to The changes affects all… by Marc Sabatella
Except that no, on Windows as well the muti-instance is buggy.
Buggy because to change a setting you have to close all instances of MuseScore except one, change it and then only reopen all instances.
If you change a setting with multi -instances opened it only takes effect in the opened one, and you only keep the setting changes done in the last instance that you close.
In reply to Except that no, on Windows… by frfancha
Indeed, there is room for improvement. It's not quite as bad as you say though - most settings (e.g., in the Preferences dialog) do immediately take effect across all instances. But palette customization can be tricky.
In reply to The changes affects all… by Marc Sabatella
@Marc: The real bug is that the developers took a perfectly working program and, to introduce some new feature, warped it into something that is not working properly anymore on one of the platforms it was developed for. (And on another not very well either, see @frfancha).
And that all to protect some proprietary technology. In an open source program. Thank you very much.
In reply to The real bug is that the… by user2442
@user2442 no that wasn't without a good reason. That is well explained in the github issue.
Part of that reason is the limitation imposed by the Qt framework, if MuseScore wasn't depending of Qt it wouldn't be forced to split the windows following the processes.
I'm not saying I like this choice, nor that perhaps it should have been designed better, perhaps extending the process model of Qt or whatever the solution could be. Or at the very minimum a shared process should have been implemented for the palette customisation right away.
I'm just saying, contrary for example to the removal of the save button, there was a reason.
In reply to No that wasn't without a… by frfancha
There are always reasons for every decision leading to change, including not implementing a dedicated save button in the new interface. Assuming and asserting that changes are made for no reason is a great way to start an entirely unproductive discussion. One can quibble about whether one agrees with the reasons, or whether the decision should be reconsidered based on other factors, is fair game, But it has to start form a place of understanding or the discussion cannot possibly go anywhere useful.
In reply to There is always a reason for… by Marc Sabatella
The removal of the save button might have been done for a reason.
Still that wasn't a good reason... esp. as the reasoning was even seen as being offending.
In reply to No that wasn't without a… by frfancha
@frfancha, did you read in my post that I think the change was made for no reason? I don’t think I said so; in any case, that is not what I meant. Of course the change was made for a reason that the developers at the time found compelling.
What I say is that, whatever the reasoning, one should not cripple an existing well-functioning program just to add new functionality.
For my education, could you explain which features of MuseScore 4 are forcing the “multiple tabs” behavior? There are undeniably improvements over MS3 in MS4, but which of these are forcing the issue? What would I have to sacrifice (in principle of course) in MS4 to have my old tab behavior back?
Thanks for your insight!
In reply to @frfancha, did you read in… by user2442
MuseScore 3 forced all open scores to use exactly the same sound libraries - they were loaded globally into the Synthesizer window. Back in the old days when sounbfonts were the only choice, this was kind of sort of barely acceptable, with really awkward workarounds to allow each score to still play with its own sounds. Now that Muse Sounds and VST instruments are in the picture, that model is just not viable anymore.
So bottom line: in order to support Muse Sounds and VST, it just wouldn't be practical or a good user experience to force all open scores to use the same sounds. Allowing each score to have its own instance of the sound engine is by far the most straightforward way to accomplish this, and so far, putting the score itself in a separate instance of MuseScore has been the only technical solution found that accomplishes this using the cross-platform frameworks MuseScore relies on.
Again, it's not like people aren't trying to figure out alternatives. But so far, all the promising-seeming ieas just haven't panned out.
In reply to MuseScore 3 forced all open… by Marc Sabatella
@marc,
@frfancha,
thank you for reacting to my post and for providing explanation.
Can I ask some follow up questions? Not to be argumentative, but to help me understand. I know my way around software development, so don’t hesitate to get technical if the issue asks for it.
My goal with this is to determine if I might be able to help resolve the issue.
@Marc, you say “Now that Muse Sounds and VST instruments are in the picture, that model is just not viable anymore”. Again, not to argue, but what exactly is it that makes the model not viable anymore? An obvious approach would seem to create a separate sound back end for each score that needs one, and switch to it when that score is at the foreground (being worked on). Then no separate instances of the program would be needed, since the one instance has access to all the sound configurations. That scenario is probably too simple, but where does it go wrong?
@frfancha, not sure if we’re talking about the same problem. I have no issue with separate windows - actually, I like it. One window per document, multiple tabs per window for different views on the same score. Great. (Or a single window with multiple tabs for different views on one score at a time, plus a drop down menu to switch between scores if people prefer. Also fine.)
But this topic is called “multiple tabs”, which really is a misnomer. The Mac issue with MS4 is not multiple tabs, nor multiple windows, but that there are multiple instances of the app running, one per document. Whereas the Mac way is to have one instance running, managing multiple documents. MS3 followed that route. (Multiple instances bring all kinds of problems, as mentioned before in this topic.)
If we are agreed about the issue, my question is: why exactly is it that the use of Qt forces separate instances? After all, Qt is about providing the front end, and, with a clear separation between front end and back end, it seems to me that there need not be a problem. I might be mistaken, though, and if so, can you indicate where?
I appreciate any help you both can provide.
In reply to @marc, @frfancha, thank you… by user2442
By "not viable", I mean, it would be completely unacceptable to almost all users if all scores had to use the same sound libraries. There are few users who for whatever reason seem to prefer tabs to multiple windows as a purely personal preference. But virtually everyone would be adversely affected if loading a given sound into one score started affecting all open scores. Again, it was kind of sort of barely tolerable when the only sounds available were soundfonts, and you could use the awkward kludgy workarounds to still have independent sounds if you managed the synthesizer and mixer carefully enough. ut having to do that x100 once Muse Sounds and VST's are available would be absolutely unacceptable to anyone who ever listens to playback. That is why the MU3 approach is not an option.
And yes, for macOS specifically, that operating is extremely limited (by design, apparently) in its support for multiple instances. So this is recognized as a real problem indeed, and again, people have been searching for solutions for this. So far, though, nothing tried has panned out. If you have macOS systems programming expertise you'd like to contribute to the effort, you are very much welcome and encouraged to!
In reply to By "not viable", I mean, it… by Marc Sabatella
Thanks for replying, but that is not what I meant. I understand that every score needs its own sounds. Let me clarify my question.
I meant, for every score/window, to load a new sound back end (for Soundfonts, MuseSounds, whatever) and configure it to produce the sounds the user wants for that particular score - while keeping the other back ends, all configured for their own window/score, available.
With “sound back end” I mean that part of the program that is talking to the sound library.
Then, when the user switches to a particular window, the program will switch to the associated back end, so that the library will be properly instructed and the sounds will come out exactly as desired.
Such a setup would be a pretty standard way to handle the situation. My question was, and is: what in MS4, if anything, is preventing it? There must be a reason, and understanding that might point the way to a solution.
In reply to Thanks for replying, but… by user2442
I’m not a macOS systems programming expert so I can’t really speak to details about exactly what was tried and what got in the way. If you have a systems programming background and would like to be a part of that conversation, see Contribute / Development in the menu above and join the Discord #development channel.
Adding my own input on here for developers. If the playback engine now requires single tabs at a time, it's not worth it for other features that require it to be that way. In my opinion, any sacrifice that needs to be made to bring back multiple tabs is worth it for me.
In reply to Adding my own input on here… by thepulsiphyer
Can you explain more what it is about multiple tabs that is so compelling for you? Implemented well as it is on Windows and macOS, multiple windows should actually be considerably simpler to deal with, since the OS provides such nice facilities for managing them, switching between them, etc. And we're happy to help you learn these techniques if you're new to working with multiple windows despite how prevalent they are in other applications. It's really only on macOS where the specific way that MuseScore accomplishes multiple windows doesn't work well. But clearly, most applications on most platforms use multiple windows successfully - it shouldn't be seen as a deal breaker in itself.
In reply to Can you explain more what it… by Marc Sabatella
I don't like opening multiple windows because it's getting too cold around this time of year. Also, my phone looks happier with tabs somehow.
edit: typo
In reply to Can you explain more what it… by Marc Sabatella
You have been so patient answering hundreds and hundreds of similar questions. It has to be frustrating.
But multiple open tabs on the iMac coupled with all the extra "weight" of Musescore 4.x makes the program no longer friendly for simple composition.
I downloaded 4.x when it first came out, opened up two tabs, saw how bloated the program had become and immediately deleted it.
I will only use 3.6 or (or possibly the 3.7 version that JoJo updated)
I can just use AVID Sibelius if I want to use a large massive sprawling program (and that is the industry standard right now anyway)
I hope eventually maybe you can continue to support a Musescore "Lite" version which is essentially 3.6 without MuseHub and all the improvements.
Have a nice new Year.
In reply to You have been so patient… by Unknown Prodigy
Then you know that Sibelius doesn't support tabs, either. It takes more fire power to run MS4. Not sure that means it is bloated. I've had several scores open at once without issue. Though I don't think simple composition needs them. MS3 doesn't cut it for me, so it isn't even on this computer.
In reply to You have been so patient… by Unknown Prodigy
Not sure what you mean about extra “weight” - if you don’t install MuseSounds, resource usage of MU4 shouldn’t be appreciably more than MU3. I wonder what it was that you saw during those first few minutes that misled you in that respect?
In reply to Not sure what you mean about… by Marc Sabatella
Opening a new audible 4.2 MSBasic instance on my low spec laptop needs 1 minute, much of the time is loading audio samples. Resource usage during playback does not differ much from ms3 tho.
In reply to Opening a new audible 4.2… by msfp
Is that using Muse Sounds? Not really fair comparison if so of course. But definitely, even a low spec device shouldn't take a minute to open a new score normally. If you are seeing that consistently, best to start a new thread and give more details. Could be something else getting in the way.
I've gotten so used to the multiple Windows now this bothers me less. As for technical solutions has it been considered the playback engine be a separate process and use some interprocess communication approach, it would have loaded at any time samples required for all open scores.
In MuseScore 4, opening multiple scores results in separate windows for each score, rather than creating tabs within a single window as in MuseScore 3. This change was intentional, but it has sparked discussions among users. In MuseScore 3, you could have multiple tabs with different scores open in a single window, making it easier to switch between them. Get special savings on Autodesk AEC Collection 2023 https://procadis.com/version/autodesk-architecture-engineering-construc… for professionals. Unfortunately, there is no built-in option to revert to the MS3 behavior in MS4. If you prefer the old system, you might need to continue using MuseScore 3 or explore workarounds like exporting to MusicXML in MS4 and importing in MS3
In reply to In MuseScore 4, opening… by benisfroms
or opening MS4 files directly in MS3.7
In reply to In MuseScore 4, opening… by benisfroms
@benisfroms wrote > Unfortunately, there is no built-in option to revert to the MS3 behavior in MS4. If you prefer the old system, you might need to ... explore workarounds like exporting to MusicXML in MS4 and importing in MS3
Or as yonah_ag said, directly import your MS4 score into MS3.7, which yields much better results than transferring via MusicXML.
scorster
In reply to In MuseScore 4, opening… by benisfroms
If you have all the open windows stacked on the desktop, using Alt-Tab to cycle through them is almost as fast as using tabs in one window.
In reply to If you have all the open… by garytemp
But it is very different. On Mac, there is no indication to which score you are Alt-Tabbing. That gets very annoying very quickly.
Also, every extra score consumes once more the same amount of memory because a whole new application is started. Unless you have memory to spare that becomes a problem very quickly.
In reply to But it is very different. On… by johnweigand
Yes this is my biggest issue. I don’t care so much about tabs but it’s hard to know what score you’re switching too esp on Mac. Word has a window tab that shows all the open documents and can select one to switch to which works fine for me
In reply to Yes this is my biggest issue… by malcolmmccaff
The reliance on multiple instances in MuseScore 4 has likely been the main longstanding complaint about MuseScore 4 and the greatest cause for people staying with MuseScore 3. Here's a summary of some key points in this thread.
If you're seriously interested in development challenges and progress [Follow the link Jetted posted]https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/12647) in this post
As we look deeper the inconveniences mount:
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1160591
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1193165
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1155347
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1157332
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1220743
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1193145
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1167629
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1213166
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1193195
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1161317
Mac Sabatella wrote > "It's the exact same issue in MuseScore 3 which is one reason why many find the separate windows to be superior, and why so many users have request it over the years. It's a minor difference in the grand scheme of things"
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1193227
https://musescore.org/en/node/338084#comment-1220978
Clearly, many people prefer Tabs over multiple app instances.
Alternately, I'd like to see a separate document window for each score, like virtually every other app on MacOS. That would improve the workflow when working on two scores, when using copy/paste between the two scores, and when using one score for guiding editing the note input of the other. Granted MuseScore has a side-by-side option in MS3, but I found it awkward.
how do I see my deleted scores
In reply to how do I see my deleted… by Chopinist -Youtube
Recycle Bin? (But I don't think MS4 Multiple Tabs has anything to do with deleted scores.)