MMD, LTD  A single workaround takes care of all this: competitive crossgrade to Sibelius ASAP. Why is anyone still futzin' around with this crapware?  
(Version 2009b)

PIOTRGM  To call this excellent programme a "crapware" is truly rude and very inconsiderate. How much time have you spent learning it? How comfortable are you using it? What are you using it for? Show me examples of your work so that I can see you're so versatile in using Finale you have a right to make derogatory, nasty comments. I suspect you are not a pro because professionals do not use such language.  
(Version 2010)

MADMEGDIGITALLTD  I used Finale c. 1995-2003…through two composition degrees. I used it because my teachers used it and I didn't know there was something better. I even engraved my doctoral dissertation with it…a 35-minute flute concerto. Preparing parts was an agonizing process. This program's all about clicking submenus and making the mouse travel to the palette. Then somebody suggested I try Sibelius. I've since been kicking myself for using Finale all those years, paying for "upgrade" after "upgrade." Getting useless new features when the fundamental underlying problems of the interface remained and the size of the program became more bloated.

I do make my living from engraving, arranging and original work, which makes that my profession. Nonetheless, I will stick with my original assessment of this "programme" (as you call it) as crapware. I'm not sure what being a professional has to do with it one way or another. I call 'em like I see 'em. I even tried 2009 thinking that after 10 years, surely they would have improved the interface. But no. It's still clunky as ever.  
(Version 2010)

PIOTRGM  Thank you for the explanation. Let us agree to disagree, then. Call those programmes what you will. I am not eager to use harsh words because two of my friends are programmers (one Mac, one Windows) and I simply know how much work goes into those things (regardless of how successful or unsuccessful software might turn out be).

I still think Finale is very good and yes, I have created a number of pretty complex scores using it, including pieces for orchestra such as a series of concerti (all performed) for violin and viola (double concerto), saxophone, and organ.

For a time, I supported myself as a copyist (or engraver, if you will) and used Finale for it. Finale is extremely flexible - and this is what I like. I tried Sibelius and was not too impressed. However, some people tell me it is easier to learn than Finale and hence its popularity with those who are not interested in extended notation.  
(Version 2010)

DGATWOOD  For whatever it's worth, recent Finale versions are a lot better with regards to part extractions, in that they finally caught up with what Igor Engraver did a decade ago, keeping the part formatting as an integral part of the score. I think in terms of functionality, Finale and Sibelius are probably about on par with one another. I think that Sibelius does a better job of automatically getting the formatting right, however, while Finale gives more control for when it gets positioning wrong (which is crucial because it almost inevitably gets it wrong).

Finale seems pretty buggy to me, from a programmer perspective, and has really poor CPU performance, causing it to run down a normally six hour laptop battery in a little over two hours. IMHO, most of Finale's performance problems came when they moved to Mac OS X. It seemed like they did the port and then never bothered to go back and optimize it afterwards. I haven't done the same level of experimentation with Sibelius, but I would expect it to be better in both regards, if only because it is a much more recent code base with less legacy cruft lying around.

Finally, for what it's worth, Apple has a technical note, TN2096, that describes how to track down most case sensitivity issues. If MakeMusic hasn't read it, they should.  
(Version 2010)