Apple's Windows iTunes SDK

[MacRumors]

Arstechnica reports (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1084819754.html) on a new Software Development Kit released by Apple (http://developer.apple.com/sdk/itunescomsdk.html) for iTunes Windows.

The development kit allows for tighter integration between 3rd party Windows applications and iTunes. Mac OS X applications have always been able to play protected iTunes AACs through Quicktime.

Windows developers are just getting this capability, opening the possibility for playing AAC files through applications such as WinAMP or Windows Media Player.

[entropy1980]

OOO a shiny 10 bucks to the person who can get me to be able to play my iTunes AAC's through WinAmp!! :) I sure do miss WinAmp!

[PlaceofDis]

hopefully this will further the use of AAC as a format instead of WMA

[the_mole1314]

If this can get bundled into a new version of WinAMP, I think AAC will kill WMA.

[nsb3000]

OOO a shiny 10 bucks to the person who can get me to be able to play my iTunes AAC's through WinAmp!! :) I sure do miss WinAmp!

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

[HenMaster6000]

Do you have to have iTunes installed to use these features?

[soosy]

Wow. this seems HUGE. Makes iTMS AAC a much less "closed" format.

[Frisco]

This is good news!

I am actually surprised Apple is doing this, because they have been so stubborn in the past with their technologies. Maybe Apple has learned a lesson?

Next I would like to see them license FairPlay.

[jared_kipe]

This can only be a good thing for the use of iTunes in windows platform. Maybe one day they could have the same integration we have with our iPhoto and the like.

[crees!]

Do you have to have iTunes installed to use these features?

It said you need iTunes 4.5 or higher.

[crees!]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

Well when I was on a PC Winamp was it... I wasn't going to touch WIMP and none of my friends did either..

[nsb3000]

Wow. this seems HUGE. Makes iTMS AAC a much less "closed" format.

Not really. Apple really needs to allow other music stores to use the ACC format, and get the ipod and the iTunes to be able to play WMA files. They should push their standard on it merits, rather than forcing everyone to use it.

[Tulse]

They should push their standard on it merits, rather than forcing everyone to use it.

I bet Apple shareholders think that they should do whatever is in the best interests of the company.

[nsb3000]

I bet Apple shareholders think that they should do whatever is in the best interests of the company.

Are you an Apple Shareholder?

It was one thing back in the late 90s when all of us were rooting for Apple not to bite the dust, for us all to support what ever was in the best interests of the company.

But now that Apple is doing well, the allegiance I see to apple as a company, rather than just there products, is kind of disturbing.

I want apple to do what ever is best for me, as a consumer. So, I want them to open up the iPod, and iTunes. I don't care what Apple's shareholders think

[johnnyjibbs]

Good news. Apple has therefore made a choice. AAC or iTunes. They have chosen AAC, which should help to stop the spread of WMA. With iTunes 4.5 for Windows giving the opportunity to convert WMA to AAC, I think Apple has made it quite clear what their policy on supporting WMA is concerning iPod/iTunes. Apple and RealOne (to a lesser extent) are the only people who aren't kissing Microsoft's ass in the WMA arena, so this is a good thing.

[SiliconAddict]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel


Because typically WinAmp has a really small memory footprint compared to many other music players.

[spankalee]

I'm a little bit confused by this since I thought that 3rd party Windows apps could already play protected AAC files through QuickTime. Isn't this how RealPlayer could play iTMS songs? Maybe that was just on the Mac.

I sounds like this SDK just brings to the Windows world the capabilities you get from iTunes + AppleScript.

What I would really love to see is iTunes broken down into a framework where a developer can come along and write a completely new client that still has access to the library, playlists, and the store. I would love an interface optimized for TV and remote control, or an iMedia app that handles songs, photos, movies, or an interface for a custom in-dash Mac.

[JGowan]

Because typically WinAmp has a really small memory footprint compared to many other music players.32MB of memory? Yeah... that's a lot bigger than WinAmp, but in this day-and-age of ridiculous memory of 1GB or more, you pointing out the 32MB usage seems a bit trite.

It falls into the "who cares" category.

[Tulse]

I want apple to do what ever is best for me, as a consumer. So, I want them to open up the iPod, and iTunes. I don't care what Apple's shareholders think

That's fine, but Apple is legally bound to listen to its shareholders. There are plenty of actions that would be good for consumers, but lousy for the companies involved. Heck, if Ford only charged $100 for Mustangs, that would be good for consumers, but wouldn't be very sustainable.

I'm not trying to cheerlead here -- far from it. Apple isn't a warm, fuzzy charity, it is a business out to make a profit. That being the case, sometimes its best interests won't be in the best interests of its customers. That's unfortunate, but that's also capitalism.

[Snowy_River]

Do you have to have iTunes installed to use these features?

I would think that this is a no-brainer. After all, you need to have bought a pAAC song from iTMS, and you have to have it on an authorized computer. So, it seems to me, it should be completely necessary to have iTunes installed.

[aftk2]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

I think it comes down to habit. I have PC-using friends who, prior to iTunes for Windows, would scoff at me using iTunes and its built-in mp3 database (and playlists, etc...). They would, by contrast, use Winamp to play mp3s, and the Windows filesystem to organize them. So when they were ready to listen to music, they would navigate to the music in the filesystem, and right click on it, and select "Add to Winamp" (or some such thing.)

Ugh. To each his or her own, I guess. Their jaws do drop when I type an artist, album or song title in the "search" field and instantly navigate to that entry, however...maybe we'll get some converts yet.

[Snowy_River]

Not really. Apple really needs to allow other music stores to use the ACC format, and get the ipod and the iTunes to be able to play WMA files. They should push their standard on it merits, rather than forcing everyone to use it.

As they have now implemented a WMA to AAC converter, that seems a non-issue. Further, Apple has nothing to do with preventing other music stores from using AAC or FairPlay DRM. While the implementation of FairPlay may be proprietary, other music stores are free to license the technology and create their own implementation (which iTunes would then be unable to play, unless Apple paid for rights to access them).

[Memnoch]

I use WinAMP 5 for PC (Full Version) to play my *.m4a files right now. I know that only iTunes can play *.m4p files, but thats cool. So I don't understand all the interest. I use iTunes to rip my music to AAC, and I play those same files with WinAMP.

[hvfsl]

OOO a shiny 10 bucks to the person who can get me to be able to play my iTunes AAC's through WinAmp!! :) I sure do miss WinAmp!

Just install 3ivx from http://www.3ivx.com/download/ . Once you have installed it, you can play (non copy-protected) AAC files in other Windows apps. I used to use it to play AAC files on my PC before iTunes for Windows came along.

[bathysphere]

Not really. Apple really needs to allow other music stores to use the ACC format, and get the ipod and the iTunes to be able to play WMA files. They should push their standard on it merits, rather than forcing everyone to use it.

i think apple considers the success of the itunes music store the merit by which they push their standard. it makes sense, though it's rather limiting. i don't feel that they should offer wma, but i do think that they should license out their drm, it's foolish not too. and jgowan, 32mb of memory is a big deal. not the biggest by any means, but still notable, if you have less than a gig of ram in your machine (which most people don't have, i expect).

[kidA]

i've never understood the winamp craze either. it's a decent program and is good for some things like streaming, but it is by no means a full featured media player. it can't even keep a library of your files. you have to load a playlist every time or navigate to the song you want in win explorer. it would be nice to see AAC playable in other media players.

[SiliconAddict]

i've never understood the winamp craze either. it's a decent program and is good for some things like streaming, but it is by no means a full featured media player. it can't even keep a library of your files. you have to load a playlist every time or navigate to the song you want in win explorer. it would be nice to see AAC playable in other media players.


WinAmp V5 has all these features. You may be thinking of WA2

[Frobozz]

I think this is a good move. It will open up the file format on the PC and help adoption. If you ask me, it's a viral way of getting AAC to propegate faster than WMA.

I'd bet that even if people had the option of playing AAC through WinAMP that they'd stick with iTunes. A lot of people who use iTunes on the Windows love it for the "Mac-ness" of it.

[ingenious]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

i agree. i found the interface horrid.

[Porchland]

hopefully this will further the use of AAC as a format instead of WMA

I can't come up with another sensible reason to do it. There's always the risk of weakening the core brand -- iTunes -- but this could be a smart move.

[billyboy]

If this SDK is going to help Windows software writers integrate iTunes into their photo apps etc, then as a shareholder I am not happy!!!!!! Apple should be inducing people to use Apple software on shiny new Apple Macs, not give the world yet another taste of the Mac experience on a PC.

Maybe Apple really are pushing iPods more than they let on. I just priced up a dual G5 2.0GHz and a 23" screen, on offer - yikes, Apple wont be getting me to switch from my Powerbook for a few years yet.

[ryanw]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

There is one thing I like about Winamp vs iTunes. I am a sound engineer and I listen to lots of different mixes of songs and other band songs and things that I will listen to ONCE or a few times and then delete the files. When I use iTunes it puts the songs into my Library by default. I don't have iTunes COPY THE FILE into the library, but it still leaves an entry in the library for the song I listened to a few times, then deleted it. As far as AAC/PROTECTED FILES, I don't ever listen to those once and delete them, so that's a different issue, but still having the option to using a different player is nice.

[Foocha]

Does anyone know what Web rendering engine iTMS uses on Windows - is it IE, or has Apple used WebCore?

[Daringescape]

I came across a link earlier showing a guy installing OSX on a windows machine - has anyone else seen this??? is it a joke?

[dopefiend]

I came across a link earlier showing a guy installing OSX on a windows machine - has anyone else seen this??? is it a joke?

Nope, no joke.

Its the beginning of a great emulator :D

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net

[micvog]

I am actually surprised Apple is doing this, because they have been so stubborn in the past with their technologies. Maybe Apple has learned a lesson?

My guess is this was part of the deal with HP. HP needs some way to tie the iPod/iTMS into the "Home Media" PC variant of WinXP and this will allow that.

[Azmordean]

32MB of memory? Yeah... that's a lot bigger than WinAmp, but in this day-and-age of ridiculous memory of 1GB or more, you pointing out the 32MB usage seems a bit trite.

It falls into the "who cares" category.

Not really, not on a PC. Macs are memory hogs, so it is standard to have a mac with 1GB + of memory. This is not the case on the PC however. I happen to have 1GB in my PC (I use both PC and Mac), but I am the only person who does. Most of my friends, even the high tech CS guys, tend to have 512MB in their home machines. 512 is more than enough for most tasks on a PC. When you use 512, the diff between 32mb and 5mb, while not huge, can be worth caring about. Also, iTunes is fine on Windows for things like playing music while working - but if you want to play music while gaming or something like that you are going to want a lighter player, like WinAMP.

[Azmordean]

If this SDK is going to help Windows software writers integrate iTunes into their photo apps etc, then as a shareholder I am not happy!!!!!! Apple should be inducing people to use Apple software on shiny new Apple Macs, not give the world yet another taste of the Mac experience on a PC.

Maybe Apple really are pushing iPods more than they let on. I just priced up a dual G5 2.0GHz and a 23" screen, on offer - yikes, Apple wont be getting me to switch from my Powerbook for a few years yet.

You, as a shareholder, should be happy. Personally, I think the future of Apple may be as a software company, ala Microsoft. Do you know how many people out there would use and pay for products like OS X if they ran on PC hardware? The potential market is enormous. Mac hardware, however, will always be a niche market. It is too pricey, you cant build it yourself, and it is not customizable enough. I think slowly, Apple will begin to market more and more of the "Mac experience" for PCs. Then when the time is right, Apple could conceivably strike, and take a large share of the OS market. This might be risky for Apple - but if the company is to grow and not stay RIGHT WHERE IT IS, eventually this need to happen.

Note, I am not saying Mac hardware needs to go away, but I think the software by itself is good enough that in the future Apple will be primarily a software producer, and make Mac hardware on the side for those people who want a particularly nice machine.

[Azmordean]

I think it comes down to habit. I have PC-using friends who, prior to iTunes for Windows, would scoff at me using iTunes and its built-in mp3 database (and playlists, etc...). They would, by contrast, use Winamp to play mp3s, and the Windows filesystem to organize them. So when they were ready to listen to music, they would navigate to the music in the filesystem, and right click on it, and select "Add to Winamp" (or some such thing.)

Ugh. To each his or her own, I guess. Their jaws do drop when I type an artist, album or song title in the "search" field and instantly navigate to that entry, however...maybe we'll get some converts yet.

Well, I love iTunes too, but it does have some features I dont like.

1) I HATE how it organizes stuff on its own. Thus, I turn off the auto organization, and keep my own organization system (using the file system to organize as I see fit) and then just add the songs to the library.

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?

3) You can't play anything without adding it to the library. When I download some cheesy joke mp3 file, that isnt music, I dont want it in my library. I want to play it once, and thats it. WinAMP does this. iTunes on the other hand INSISTS on adding EVERYTHING you ever play to your library, including IP addresses for streaming. The default action should be to just play something - adding to the library should be done more deliberately.

4) iTunes tuner service sucks, it doesn't come up with hardly any of the available internet radio stations out there. WinAMP does a much better job here.

[7on]

Well, I love iTunes too, but it does have some features I dont like.

1) I HATE how it organizes stuff on its own. Thus, I turn off the auto organization, and keep my own organization system (using the file system to organize as I see fit) and then just add the songs to the library.

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?

3) You can't play anything without adding it to the library. When I download some cheesy joke mp3 file, that isnt music, I dont want it in my library. I want to play it once, and thats it. WinAMP does this. iTunes on the other hand INSISTS on adding EVERYTHING you ever play to your library, including IP addresses for streaming. The default action should be to just play something - adding to the library should be done more deliberately.

4) iTunes tuner service sucks, it doesn't come up with hardly any of the available internet radio stations out there. WinAMP does a much better job here.

Quicktime is the player and iTunes is the organizer. And to solve your problems with #1 and #2, just ignore the file directory. Whether it be Explore or Finder I've never went into m iTunes/iTunes Music folder ever. So the file naming is of no importance to me. When I want to use a file in an app other than itunes, I drag the song out of itunes and onto the desktop, rather than searching for it in the FInder.

[denm316]

Well, I love iTunes too, but it does have some features I dont like.

1) I HATE how it organizes stuff on its own. Thus, I turn off the auto organization, and keep my own organization system (using the file system to organize as I see fit) and then just add the songs to the library.

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?

3) You can't play anything without adding it to the library. When I download some cheesy joke mp3 file, that isnt music, I dont want it in my library. I want to play it once, and thats it. WinAMP does this. iTunes on the other hand INSISTS on adding EVERYTHING you ever play to your library, including IP addresses for streaming. The default action should be to just play something - adding to the library should be done more deliberately.

4) iTunes tuner service sucks, it doesn't come up with hardly any of the available internet radio stations out there. WinAMP does a much better job here.

I totally agree here, I love iTunes, but as with any app it is not perfect and there will always be little things which you wish it did or did not do, I see this as a positive, before I switched about a year ago, I used WinAmp as a player and had all my *.mp3's organized in the File System(Singer - Song), there are still people that like this and that is what would make this a good idea for Apple.

I would also like this to enable the use of AAC files to Media Center PC's, In all honestly I would rather see Apple come out with it's own Media Center device, but I doubt that will happen.

[BornAgainMac]

Really? I never understood why people like winamp so much...

-Nathaniel

It was the one of the first and most popular mp3 players for Windows. It was popular for the interface and tiny footprint on the screen. And it was free.

[usarioclave]

Macs are memory hogs, so it is standard to have a mac with 1GB + of memory. This is not the case on the PC however. I happen to have 1GB in my PC (I use both PC and Mac), but I am the only person who does. Most of my friends, even the high tech CS guys, tend to have 512MB in their home machines. 512 is more than enough for most tasks on a PC.

Wow, what planet are you from? Most of the good PC games require at least 768MB of -free- RAM as well as a pretty kick-ass video card.

512MB is more than enough for most Macs, too.

Funny, heavy PC users always have to find a negative about macs. Before they were too expensive. Now they're memory hogs. Next thing you know, they'll be saying Macs are more insecure than windows - oh wait!

[jholzner]

As they have now implemented a WMA to AAC converter, that seems a non-issue. Further, Apple has nothing to do with preventing other music stores from using AAC or FairPlay DRM. While the implementation of FairPlay may be proprietary, other music stores are free to license the technology and create their own implementation (which iTunes would then be unable to play, unless Apple paid for rights to access them).

Real wanted to use FairPlay but Apple said no. If it was so simple to liscense it why didn't Real just do it? I think Apple created FairPlay, or have exclusive rights to it...otherwise real would have jumped on the bandwagon.

[nuckinfutz]

Real wanted to use FairPlay but Apple said no. If it was so simple to liscense it why didn't Real just do it? I think Apple created FairPlay, or have exclusive rights to it...otherwise real would have jumped on the bandwagon.


That's simple. Real brought nothing to the table. Apple right now is the leader in Online Music. Their partnerships need to be with companies like HP to carry iTues. Fairplay needs to be extended to playback devices like El Gato Eyehome, Roku Soundbridge, Phatnoise Phatbox etc. Partnering with Real would simply add a competitor to the table to eat from Apples feast without bringing some food themselves.

[ThomasW]

OOO a shiny 10 bucks to the person who can get me to be able to play my iTunes AAC's through WinAmp!! :) I sure do miss WinAmp!

Windows users are not just getting this ability with the new iTunes COM interface. Windows applications could always use Quicktime to play the FairPlay AACs, just like applications on Mac OS X. And by the way, half a year ago, I have written a plugin for Winamp that plays back the iTunes MusicStore AACs. You can download it here:

http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=137828

I'll tell you my email address so that you can send me $10 via paypal :D

[YWN]

Checked the SDK out a little bit, not very experienced... but as far as I know is the SDK actually an COM interface to iTunes, just like applescript. So I doubt you could actually can do anything funneh with it standalone, since you still need to have iTunes actually open to use it... Have been able to get an VB app to work as an alarm clock, and currently trying to build it in VC++ (so that u don't need runtime files for VB). I Actually think this is a progress, I missed the ability to actually have an alarm clock for iTunes.

But, I haven't seen an command that was actually able to do something outside iTunes... So great stuff this. And euhm, yes it requires 4.5 to actually run!

If somebody is interested in getting one of the alarmclock programs, I got it in Perl, VB and VC++ (partially)... so pm me :D

###Crap, ThomasW was just a lil faster as me :D###

[nuckinfutz]

Wow, what planet are you from? Most of the good PC games require at least 768MB of -free- RAM as well as a pretty kick-ass video card.

512MB is more than enough for most Macs, too.

Funny, heavy PC users always have to find a negative about macs. Before they were too expensive. Now they're memory hogs. Next thing you know, they'll be saying Macs are more insecure than windows - oh wait!


LOL no doubt. Jahutch here's a nice quote that you should probably take to heart. " It is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

[jayscheuerle]

Well, I love iTunes too, but it does have some features I dont like.

1) I HATE how it organizes stuff on its own. Thus, I turn off the auto organization, and keep my own organization system (using the file system to organize as I see fit) and then just add the songs to the library.

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?


Why do you ever have to go into the iTunes library to see how it organizes or names your songs? You can drag and drop them out of iTunes. You can change how they're named in iTunes. I have 37 gigs of mp3s and have NEVER had to go into the iTunes library to deal with them.

Am I missing something or is this just a control issue?

[jayscheuerle]

Macs are memory hogs, so it is standard to have a mac with 1GB + of memory.

We have 9 production artists/designers here on Macs (down from a high of 12) and nobody has ever had a GB of memory. I think I have the most at 640MB, but I'm the only one running OSX.

[Windowlicker]

hopefully this will further the use of AAC as a format instead of WMA

yeah. this is why i voted positive.. i don't really care what software people use to play their music. but i do care if there's no files i can play with my itunes. of course that's not what's gonna happen, but the world would be better with no wma at all.

btw if apple lets windows users use aac and convert wma to it and play aac on different apps, why doesn't MS let us convert those bloody wma's to aac?! ;P

[YWN]

btw if apple lets windows users use aac and convert wma to it and play aac on different apps, why doesn't MS let us convert those bloody wma's to aac?! ;P

use dBpowerAMP Music Converter to do that, quite nifty tool! Can convert every codec to every codec (or at least, most of the codecs... also wma, rm, mp3, and all can be converted to aac with no problem...) try it some time, it is free and really good...

[virividox]

the more aac is mainstream the better; better for hte ipod better for apple, better for digital music

[Windowlicker]

There is one thing I like about Winamp vs iTunes. I am a sound engineer and I listen to lots of different mixes of songs and other band songs and things that I will listen to ONCE or a few times and then delete the files. When I use iTunes it puts the songs into my Library by default. I don't have iTunes COPY THE FILE into the library, but it still leaves an entry in the library for the song I listened to a few times, then deleted it. As far as AAC/PROTECTED FILES, I don't ever listen to those once and delete them, so that's a different issue, but still having the option to using a different player is nice.

yeah here's a thing i'd like to be added: a Temp. playlist where you could drop your songs and if you wanna keep em, then stick them to the library. hmm i'm gonna go give feedback right away.

[SiliconAddict]

Wow, what planet are you from? Most of the good PC games require at least 768MB of -free- RAM as well as a pretty kick-ass video card.


Bull. I've played some seriously agressive, specs wise, games on my 1.7Ghz/384MB/40GB system. You sure as heck do NOT need that kind of RAM for Windows unless you are talking with world's most poorly programed game that is. At most 512MB should do. Hell my home server is only running 512 and that is a web\mail\DHCP\Radius\SSH\RAS server.

And as for laptops I'm running one with 500MHz\256MB with XP. No problems at all. The other is a 800MHz\384MB XP system that also never runs into the pagefile.

[thatwendigo]

Personally, I think the future of Apple may be as a software company, ala Microsoft. Do you know how many people out there would use and pay for products like OS X if they ran on PC hardware?

Hardly any, because people only pay for Windows if the absolutely have to, or if it's bundled with their hardware when it's bought. Apple would die as a purely software company, because even half of their line in hardware is over three times their revenue in software. Combined, they sell some eight times what they do in software in hardware.

For Q2 2004:
Pro Sales (PowerMac and PowerBook) - $685,000,000
Consumer (iBook, iMac) - $475,000,000
iPods - $264,000,000
Software - $213,000,000

Apple made less in software than they did in iPods.

The potential market is enormous.

And flooded... There's no reason to believe that OS X would ever gain a foothold in the PC market, because inclusion of the mass of drivers and other nevessary steps would ruin most of the stability and elegance. The OS would be reduced to a prettier and moderately more secure platform that was far more accessible to the writers of exploits, trojans, worms, and virii, and while there is a lot of inherent security in using a *NIX-derived system, it's not perfect.

Nevermind how Apple would be forced to adopt copy protection to ensure they were paid for the use of the OS... :rolleyes:

Mac hardware, however, will always be a niche market. It is too pricey, you cant build it yourself, and it is not customizable enough.

It's also more stable, less prone to breakdown, and generally more efficiently bountiful in overall features for the price. Believe me, I've done the comparisons, and the only way to consistently beat Apple is to either build your own system (which most home users won't know how to do) or to go with a company that subsidizes their computers off of an electronics market (Sony, HP, Toshiba).

I think slowly, Apple will begin to market more and more of the "Mac experience" for PCs. Then when the time is right, Apple could conceivably strike, and take a large share of the OS market. This might be risky for Apple - but if the company is to grow and not stay RIGHT WHERE IT IS, eventually this need to happen.

Nope. Intel is learning what Apple and AMD discovered years ago, and that's a hard lesson in efficiency over raw numbers. The partners are aligning against Intel and Microsoft both. Look how many are currently on the RISC and Wintel-alternative bandwagon: AMD, IBM, FreeScale, Cisco, Agilent, ATI, NEC, nVidia, PMC, Transmeta, Via, Texas Instruments, Sony, Toshiba, Sun, and Apple.


Note, I am not saying Mac hardware needs to go away, but I think the software by itself is good enough that in the future Apple will be primarily a software producer, and make Mac hardware on the side for those people who want a particularly nice machine.

You obviously don't remember what happened when the clones were allowed. Apple very nearly died.

[Windowlicker]

use dBpowerAMP Music Converter to do that, quite nifty tool! Can convert every codec to every codec (or at least, most of the codecs... also wma, rm, mp3, and all can be converted to aac with no problem...) try it some time, it is free and really good...

thanks for advice!! i'll try it! :)) still, I'd rather just drop those wma's to itunes and they would automatically convert to aac (or stay wma but work just like any other music file)..

edit. UM.. IT'S FOR WINDOWS ;P so there's no use for it in my case.

[YWN]

edit. UM.. IT'S FOR WINDOWS ;P so there's no use for it in my case.

Right, thought u wanted it for Windows, my bad...

[TRiPod]

yeah here's a thing i'd like to be added: a Temp. playlist where you could drop your songs and if you wanna keep em, then stick them to the library. hmm i'm gonna go give feedback right away.
ya but think about it. if you're being LEGAL, you can either listen to your song on your cd before importing or lsiten to a preview in iTMS. people dont buy rando crap in the store then throw half of it away.

Don't violate copyright laws.

[dontmatter]

Clearly, this will help the AAC side in the AAC vs. WMA wars, b/c AAC will be more usable, without restrictions as to which players you can use it in. But I don't see what all apple gets from winning this war, at least if they're winning it by losing the itunes vs. winamp war. And, that's exactly what they're doing-now winamp can play all your music, and itunes can only play some of it. Isn't itunes the actual apple product, actually the important thing here? Most PC users I know prefer winamp, except for the use of mytunes and some people who value the searchability and features of itunes. I think apple should make an itunes mini application, that's small, lightweight, perfectly compatible with keeping your collection in itunes (uses same id3 tags, etc.), and of course, both should be able to play MP3, AAC, WMA, FLAC, OGG, AIFF, Apple Lossless, and have plug in abilities for any other formats. Make it so there is NO advantage to using any other player, but of course have itunes' uber-cool features, interface, etc. But they seriously need to open it up to 3rd party apps to give it different skins, other visualizers, formats, etc.

But this is a bad move, because it makes winamp a better player, and winamp is the competition.

[dontmatter]

hmm maybe you should quit whining and learn how to use iTunes before you bash it.

then again, the whole reason for apple is that you dont' really need to learn it....it's so intuitive that you already know. I'll say I always use itunes, and I'm not sure how to play songs without adding them to the library.

[usarioclave]

Bull. I've played some seriously agressive, specs wise, games on my 1.7Ghz/384MB/40GB system. You sure as heck do NOT need that kind of RAM for Windows unless you are talking with world's most poorly programed game that is.

Yum yum! From FarCry, which is a fun game:

Supported OS: Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon 2400-3000+ or Pentium 4 2-3 GHz
RAM: 512-1024 MB
Video Card: 128 MB GeForce 4 128 MB to GeForce FX 5950; ATI Radeon 9500-9800 XT

UT2 says 256MB recommended, but nobody in their right mind would play with less than 768...unless they wanted to get smacked around. Same with Halo

Maybe some of us play Real Games on their PCs...

[dopefiend]

UT2 says 256MB recommended, but nobody in their right mind would play with less than 768...unless they wanted to get smacked around. Same with Halo

Maybe some of us play Real Games on their PCs...

Uhh, my laptop plays UT2 with 384megs and a shared memory video card perfectly. No need for any more. What do you mean nobody in their right mind? My minds fine :D .

[foniks2020]

then again, the whole reason for apple is that you dont' really need to learn it....it's so intuitive that you already know. I'll say I always use itunes, and I'm not sure how to play songs without adding them to the library.

Have you tried opening the file in Quicktime? That should just play the file without adding to iTunes.

In OS X we just open a Finder window and use the file preview to play whatever, mpg, mp3, aac in a preview pane. Works perfectly for checking out random stuff.

[SeaFox]

Real wanted to use FairPlay but Apple said no. If it was so simple to liscense it why didn't Real just do it? I think Apple created FairPlay, or have exclusive rights to it...otherwise real would have jumped on the bandwagon.

It wasn't about Fairplay itself, really. What Real wanted was to be able to play on iPods. Real has no music player, or if they do it's certinly not the most popular digital music player. Apple wanted to keep the iPod iTunes Music Store-only. Real had nothing to offer for what they were asking for.

[ClimbingTheLog]

I want apple to do what ever is best for me, as a consumer. So, I want them to open up the iPod, and iTunes. I don't care what Apple's shareholders think

That kind of thinking got Woz to leave.

[Mav451]

WinAmp V5 has all these features. You may be thinking of WA2

If Winamp 5.03 could do the iTunes library thing with 3 column (artist album AND genre), then I might consider returning. Even still, after using iTunes, there is NO way i go back to Winamp. Though I admit, the Internet TV is interesting, it is not enough for me to switch back.

If iTunes consumed half the footprint (11MB for me, since it only takes 22MB rite now), there would be NO CONTEST. Too bad Apple will probably continue releasing bloated iTunes for PC...

[Highland]

Personally, I've found PCs and Macs to require very similar amounts of ram for the same job. You guys get worked up over nothing!

In my experience (mostly design, retouching and music production), I wouldn't buy a PC or mac (today) with less than 1gb. It's just too cheap to skimp on. It was a totally different situation 6 years ago, when a machine use for photo retouching would have thousands of dollars worth of ram.

WinAMP might be very small and efficient (it is), but I wouldn't call iTunes bloated. If you want a simple player, use a simple player. If you want a player with an integrated html based music store and some of the more advanced features of iTunes, use iTunes. Simple.

[Mav451]

I only use iTunes b/c I love the way it handles smart playlists, and obviously the superior organizational format (artist/album/genre).

I still have yet to find another jukebox to do the same thing. None of them can do it. Damn Apple for making me dependent on their software :)

*I call it bloated b/c they force Quicktime down PC users throats. I find that unacceptable, but alas, since I use iTunes its not really a choice.

[Azmordean]

Wow, what planet are you from? Most of the good PC games require at least 768MB of -free- RAM as well as a pretty kick-ass video card.

512MB is more than enough for most Macs, too.

Funny, heavy PC users always have to find a negative about macs. Before they were too expensive. Now they're memory hogs. Next thing you know, they'll be saying Macs are more insecure than windows - oh wait!

First, you assume I'm a pure PC user, yet, I am typing this message on a new POWERMAC G5 I just laid out the cash for a month ago. Macs tend to need more memory than PCs, that is a simple fact. Its probably because OS X is nicer, has more effects, etc. That doesnt change the fact that macs use more memory. Frankly, that isn't a huge problem in this day of cheap memory. I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many power PC users running 512 RAM - a power mac user wouldn't be caught dead with less than a gig.

[Azmordean]

hmm maybe you should quit whining and learn how to use iTunes before you bash it.

I know exactly how to use iTunes. Show me how to make it so when I double click an mp3 or aac it PLAYS in ITUNES (not CrapTime), but doesnt get added to the library, and I'll admit I'm wrong - but I have been unable to find such an option.

[Mudbug]

I know exactly how to use iTunes. Show me how to make it so when I double click an mp3 or aac it PLAYS in ITUNES (not CrapTime), but doesnt get added to the library, and I'll admit I'm wrong - but I have been unable to find such an option.

control-click the name of the file, select "open with" in the drop-down menu while holding the option key so it changes to "always open with"...

and tada. No need to get so hostile about it.

[Azmordean]

control-click the name of the file, select "open with" in the drop-down menu while holding the option key so it changes to "always open with"...

and tada. No need to get so hostile about it.

Yeah but that would mean to play it in quicktime -- I dont want to play it in quicktime, it is so clearly designed for movies... I'd prefer to play it in iTunes, but not auto-add it to the library. Its no biggie, I wasn't being hostile in general, just to the elitists on here who think I know nothing about computers merely because I dared to say iTunes was imperfect and I don't worship on a mat towards Cuppertino, CA three times a day and burn insense around an image of Steve Jobs :P.

[Rower_CPU]

What I prefer to do is to preview a track in Finder if I know I don't want it added to the Library.

Open a new Finder window in column view and browse to the track, making sure you've got the preview turned on. It's easy.

[SiliconAddict]

UT2 says 256MB recommended, but nobody in their right mind would play with less than 768...unless they wanted to get smacked around. Same with Halo

Maybe some of us play Real Games on their PCs...


I run UT2 on 384MB perfectly fine and as for the 512-1GB of RAM: Again poor designing can account for such a necessity. Hell I've run the Half Life 2 Beta on my system and it run pretty dang smooth and that's still beta and isn't even released yet. So please. If you need a justification for your rig fine I'll placate you:

Yes. Yes. You need a 3Ghz, 1GB system to run every new game on the market. Happy now? :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

[SeaFox]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

Agreed! I want an auto tagger/artwork downloader like I have on MusicMatch Jukebox (the only reason I still keep it around). I want to drop it because it keeps me from using audio CD's in iTunes and SonicStage unless I have MMJB running in the background.

Also, I want to be able to use LAME! They have Mac pluggins. Where is the PC versions?

[Windowlicker]

ya but think about it. if you're being LEGAL, you can either listen to your song on your cd before importing or lsiten to a preview in iTMS. people dont buy rando crap in the store then throw half of it away.

Don't violate copyright laws.

that's not what I actually meant it for... for example, I get lots of legal mp3s from guys who like to post their songs on this board I visit daily (www.stealthunit.net) and pretty often the case is I listen to them only a couple of times.

[JFreak]

32MB of memory? Yeah... that's a lot bigger than WinAmp, but in this day-and-age of ridiculous memory of 1GB or more, you pointing out the 32MB usage seems a bit trite.

It falls into the "who cares" category.

no, it doesn't. it falls into "bloated software" category, or at very least, "unoptimized software" category, and we apple users do care about optimized software which we get, unlike microsoft users who always suffer from this.

it's acceptable though, for now, because this (version four) is the first itunes win release - itunes 5 win should however be more optimized if apple wants to gain respect in windows platform.

who cares? daah... :)

[JFreak]

Macs are memory hogs, so it is standard to have a mac with 1GB + of memory. This is not the case on the PC however. I happen to have 1GB in my PC (I use both PC and Mac), but I am the only person who does. Most of my friends, even the high tech CS guys, tend to have 512MB in their home machines. 512 is more than enough for most tasks on a PC.

this is only half of the truth; it is very true that current macs have plenty of memory, but that's not because mac software eats it for breakfast, it's because one can benefit from it. because mac is a unix, there can be as much memory as your wallet permits, and it can be all in use if you like.

windows, however, lives still in the stone-age where people was amazed to see a computer with a whopping 16MB of ram. windows handles the memory in such a way that it tries to keep maximum amount of memory avaliable to apps the user may like to run in the future, in other words, it keeps the memory free and the contents that should reside in memory, it flushes down to the virtual memory (hard drive). that's the reason fewer windows users buy a lot of memory, simply, because it cannot be used efficiently.

mac can have as many apps in memory simultaneously, and switching between them is very fast. windows can in real world have one app in physical memory and the others will be stored in the virtual memory, making it very slow to switch between the app you currently use and the app you haven't used in few hours. windows has to load the not-so-recently-used app from the hard drive, which is very stupid if there would be available memory.

so yes, macs can be memory hogs, if you mean that macs keep the open programs in memory whenever it's possible. usually the term is used when some app uses unnecessarily much memory, but that's hardly the case (if we're not talking about the classic subsystem).

--

this comment inspired me to check the memory situation of my work pc that has a total of 512MB ram. according to the task manager, there is 128MB available and 450MB used in virtual memory - and the kernel takes a whopping 120MB of memory, of which only 8MB resides in the ram and the rest in the hard disk. talk about efficient memory handling? what a joke.

[JFreak]

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?

you know, apple has implemented these things called "folders". i believe windows has it also. is it so uncommon in windows wonderland to organize files into folders?

if you really really really need that feature, please shut up and go to apple.com/feedback and tell them you want that.

[rdowns]

Their partnerships need to be with companies like HP to carry iTues.

iTues? Is that the new iApp where you can guess which Tuesday the next Apple product will be released?

[MacQuest]

Hardly any, because people only pay for Windows if the absolutely have to, or if it's bundled with their hardware when it's bought. Apple would die as a purely software company, because even half of their line in hardware is over three times their revenue in software. Combined, they sell some eight times what they do in software in hardware.

For Q2 2004:
Pro Sales (PowerMac and PowerBook) - $685,000,000
Consumer (iBook, iMac) - $475,000,000
iPods - $264,000,000
Software - $213,000,000

Apple made less in software than they did in iPods.



And flooded... There's no reason to believe that OS X would ever gain a foothold in the PC market, because inclusion of the mass of drivers and other nevessary steps would ruin most of the stability and elegance. The OS would be reduced to a prettier and moderately more secure platform that was far more accessible to the writers of exploits, trojans, worms, and virii, and while there is a lot of inherent security in using a *NIX-derived system, it's not perfect.

Nevermind how Apple would be forced to adopt copy protection to ensure they were paid for the use of the OS... :rolleyes:



It's also more stable, less prone to breakdown, and generally more efficiently bountiful in overall features for the price. Believe me, I've done the comparisons, and the only way to consistently beat Apple is to either build your own system (which most home users won't know how to do) or to go with a company that subsidizes their computers off of an electronics market (Sony, HP, Toshiba).



Nope. Intel is learning what Apple and AMD discovered years ago, and that's a hard lesson in efficiency over raw numbers. The partners are aligning against Intel and Microsoft both. Look how many are currently on the RISC and Wintel-alternative bandwagon: AMD, IBM, FreeScale, Cisco, Agilent, ATI, NEC, nVidia, PMC, Transmeta, Via, Texas Instruments, Sony, Toshiba, Sun, and Apple.




You obviously don't remember what happened when the clones were allowed. Apple very nearly died.

Give member "thatwendigo" a prize! :)

You saved me a lot of time in typing by writing what I tell people everyday. Let's keep spreading the truth.

Good job "thatwendigo". :)

[MacQuest]

...But this is a bad move, because it makes winamp a better player...

ROTFLMAO.

This is such a joke. "LoseAmp" is as appealing as my arse on a bad day. It looks and stinks even worse. :D

[MacQuest]

...Too bad Apple will probably continue releasing bloated iTunes for PC...

At least iTunes is a good multifunctional app, as opposed to companies that release junk bloatware.

*cough* Micrapsoft *cough*

[MacQuest]

I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many power PC users running 512 RAM - a power mac user wouldn't be caught dead with less than a gig.

First of all, welcome to the Mac community with your recent purchase of your G5. :)

But you need to stop posting that Macs are memory hogs because in the 14 years I've worked in ram/processor intensive career fields, I've never had more ram than I do know, 512MB.

And yes, I play all of the most demanding games available for Mac.

[whooleytoo]

if you really really really need that feature, please shut up and go to apple.com/feedback and tell them you want that.

Wow.. you've got to love the Mac "community".. ;)

[whooleytoo]

What I prefer to do is to preview a track in Finder if I know I don't want it added to the Library.

Open a new Finder window in column view and browse to the track, making sure you've got the preview turned on. It's easy.

That's fair enough, but then you're missing out on many iTunes features (such as the visualiser and the graphic equalizer). I must admit, this is an option I'd really like to see too.

[ThomasW]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

Yes, that's exactly what this SDK is supposed to do. The article on Macrumors says that this SDK is for playing music with other applications - but that's totally wrong. I don't know why noone has yet updated the article. Playing music is done using Quicktime, just like on the Mac. This SDK, however, lets you "remote control" iTunes - it's mostly a replacement for AppleScript/AppleEvents which aren't available on Windows.

[elo]

Yes, that's exactly what this SDK is supposed to do. The article on Macrumors says that this SDK is for playing music with other applications - but that's totally wrong. I don't know why noone has yet updated the article. Playing music is done using Quicktime, just like on the Mac. This SDK, however, lets you "remote control" iTunes - it's mostly a replacement for AppleScript/AppleEvents which aren't available on Windows.

ThomasW, you're exactly right and the article (and most of this thread) are entirely wrong. Nothing prevented anyone from adopting AAC before. Today's release opens up part of iTunes itself for add-ons, etc.

If Windows developers create some popular add-ons (as opposed to writing stand-alone apps) then that increases the popularity of iTunes itself.

elo

[phasornc]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.

No smart playlists are not the same thing that I'm talking about

So at least my wife will be able to use MusicMatch now, assuming they support the AAC sdk.

[Rower_CPU]

You don't have to delete your library and re-add, just go to File>Add to Library... and point it at the folder - it will add the new files and ignore the ones already in its database.

[Snowy_River]

Real wanted to use FairPlay but Apple said no. If it was so simple to liscense it why didn't Real just do it? I think Apple created FairPlay, or have exclusive rights to it...otherwise real would have jumped on the bandwagon.

Apple's implementation of FairPlay is proprietary. If Real wanted to use their own implementation of FairPlay, there's nothing stopping them from doing so, but they would face the problem of needing to have players that support this. If they want to be supported by the iPod, then they have to use Apple's implementation, and, therefore, license it from Apple.

However, my point was that there's nothing stopping any other music store from adopting AAC as their music format. They'd have little problem implementing a DRM scheme (FairPlay or otherwise). The only issue would be having players that support it.

[Snowy_River]

...But this is a bad move, because it makes winamp a better player, and winamp is the competition.

When dealing with competing free products, I think the question of competition is a little more complicated than that. While it's been pointed out that the SDK has nothing to do with this topic, if WinAmp were to support iTMS songs (i.e. pAAC), then people would continue to buy songs from iTMS even if they wanted to use WinAmp. Plus, they'd still be able to enjoy their music on their iPods. Thus, the money makers are still boosted, even if the (free) music player isn't.

[Snowy_River]

Uhh, my laptop plays UT2 with 384megs and a shared memory video card perfectly. No need for any more. What do you mean nobody in their right mind? My minds fine :D .

You must be in your left mind... :p

[Snowy_River]

*I call it bloated b/c they force Quicktime down PC users throats. I find that unacceptable, but alas, since I use iTunes its not really a choice.

QT is the engine that powers iTunes on both the Mac and the PC. Saying that iTunes forces it down PC users throats is like saying that automobile manufacturers force the ICE down buyers throats...

[Snowy_River]

...Macs are memory hogs...

Personally, I've found PCs and Macs to require very similar amounts of ram for the same job. You guys get worked up over nothing!

...I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many power PC users running 512 RAM - a power mac user wouldn't be caught dead with less than a gig.

Hmm... I have to agree with Highland here. I am a 'power user' and I have a mere 640MB in my machine. While I know that my tasks might be sped up by more memory, it doesn't seem worthwhile to do that with this machine. Probably, when I buy a new machine in 6 months to a year, I'll get a gig or more of RAM, but, then, I'd do the same if that machine was a PC.

I think that you're statement about there being 'many power PC users' (the first time I read that I read 'PowerPC', not what you intended) should be properly contrasted with the fact that there are many power Mac users who work with 512MB of RAM. As machines are upgraded, so is RAM.

For the record: Me:Power User = 3D design and modeling, web design, graphic design, animation, etc.

[ThomasW]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.


You're right, this feature is unfortunately missing in iTunes. However, you really don't need to delete everything in your library and re-add it. Just Re-adding it is enough. iTunes will only import the new songs.

EDIT: oops, Safari somehow didn't reload this page and I thought noone had said that yet. ;)

[rdowns]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.

No smart playlists are not the same thing that I'm talking about

So at least my wife will be able to use MusicMatch now, assuming they support the AAC sdk.

Let me reply in baby terms for you; you're wrong. You can easily add any tunes to your library by merely pointing to the folder the files are located in. I prefer this and like to control what ends up in my library.

[mdriftmeyer]

I'm an Apple shareholder and what is in the best interest for us shareholders is to have Apple garner hardware relationships that bundle an iPod branded for whatever the hardware vendor be:HP for instance: and through the distribution of this within the HP branded systems people will be exposed to the AAC format and through exposure people become comfortable and less interested in using a variety of formats.

This is how Microsoft does it but via their Operating System being on all 3rd party hardware platforms.

Apple's forbidden fruit is the combination of iPod + iTunes/iTMS.

Is this clear enough? Now that Apple is gearing up vendors in China, and shortly having Europe opened up, the comment about needing WMA support will soon disappear due to its irrelevance.

Are you an Apple Shareholder?

It was one thing back in the late 90s when all of us were rooting for Apple not to bite the dust, for us all to support what ever was in the best interests of the company.

But now that Apple is doing well, the allegiance I see to apple as a company, rather than just there products, is kind of disturbing.

I want apple to do what ever is best for me, as a consumer. So, I want them to open up the iPod, and iTunes. I don't care what Apple's shareholders think

[Highland]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.
I have another solution for that problem...

My g/f and I both have Macs. We also have Airport.

So, all you need to do is turn 'Share my music' on. That way I can play her songs via rendezvous over our LAN. Easy.

Does the PC version have the rendezvous features of iTunes?

[SiliconAddict]

this is only half of the truth; it is very true that current macs have plenty of memory, but that's not because mac software eats it for breakfast, it's because one can benefit from it. because mac is a unix, there can be as much memory as your wallet permits, and it can be all in use if you like.

windows, however, lives still in the stone-age where people was amazed to see a computer with a whopping 16MB of ram. windows handles the memory in such a way that it tries to keep maximum amount of memory available to apps the user may like to run in the future, in other words, it keeps the memory free and the contents that should reside in memory, it flushes down to the virtual memory (hard drive). that's the reason fewer windows users buy a lot of memory, simply, because it cannot be used efficiently.


Umm it’s obvious you know NOTHING about Windows. Zip. Zero. Zilch. That is how Windows 9x worked that is why there was no point in going over 256MB of RAM for 98 or ME the OS couldn’t use it. The NT kernel that is used for NT\2K\XP\2003 uses all RAM to store programs and part of the OS.



mac can have as many apps in memory simultaneously, and switching between them is very fast. windows can in real world have one app in physical memory and the others will be stored in the virtual memory, making it very slow to switch between the app you currently use and the app you haven't used in few hours. windows has to load the not-so-recently-used app from the hard drive, which is very stupid if there would be available memory.

Bull. Where the heck did you get that idea. Application are loaded and STORED in RAM. I don’t know what crack you are on or if that is how Win9x worked but that sure as HELL isn’t how NT/2K/XP works. Look at the attached picture. Isn’t it amazing how I have multiple apps open with NO pagefile. Hell there is a tweak in XP that allows you to load the majority of the OS into RAM so it operates faster. If you are going to make excuses please do a better job then the drivel you posted. I have no problems with you hacking on Windows for ease of use issues or security from hell but not this. OS X has enough virtues that it doesn't need propaganda put up against it to win.

[Highland]

that's the reason fewer windows users buy a lot of memory, simply, because it cannot be used efficiently.
That was a bit of a silly thing to say.

I agree with the previous post. I don't know where you could have heard all that BS.

Let's not talk about using over 4gb of ram though :D

[JGowan]

no, it doesn't. it falls into "bloated software" category, or at very least, "unoptimized software" category,...And you know this,... HOW? How on God's green earth do you know that iTunes isn't as lean as possible. If you want to compare iTunes with WinAmp, then at least be the FIRST in line to admit that WinAmp doesn't do NEEEAAARRR the ***** that iTunes does. And with more WORK to be done, more RAM is needed.

[Mav451]

QT is the engine that powers iTunes on both the Mac and the PC. Saying that iTunes forces it down PC users throats is like saying that automobile manufacturers force the ICE down buyers throats...

Oh sorry, my bad. I didn't know this before. I stand corrected.

[JFreak]

And you know this,... HOW? How on God's green earth do you know that iTunes isn't as lean as possible. If you want to compare iTunes with WinAmp, then at least be the FIRST in line to admit that WinAmp doesn't do NEEEAAARRR the ***** that iTunes does. And with more WORK to be done, more RAM is needed.

you're right about itunes being superior in features, no matter what's the comparison, it's in its own league. totally.

but it's not as lean as possible. it's a hog. it's however understandable, because itunes four is the first windows-release. first versions are never fully optimized.

itunes starts three processes: itunes.exe (28MB), ipodservice.exe (2MB) and ituneshelper.exe (2MB) and while there's nothing wrong in starting processes, the function of such processes shouldn't require that much memory. and itunes itself, i think its memory footprint could easily be halved, if some effort was put into optimizing it at all.

(apple itunes uses 22MB in single process. that's about 30% less than windows version.)

actually, i'm wrong in stating that it hasn't been optimized "at all". some optimizations have been made as itunes memory footprint is only 9MB when it's not playing anyting and is minimized. so something has been done right, but much could still be done. i'd like apple to show windows people how to make efficient applications, not memory hogs.

[JFreak]

Umm it’s obvious you know NOTHING about Windows. Zip. Zero. Zilch. That is how Windows 9x worked that is why there was no point in going over 256MB of RAM for 98 or ME the OS couldn’t use it. The NT kernel that is used for NT\2K\XP\2003 uses all RAM to store programs and part of the OS.

Bull. Where the heck did you get that idea. Application are loaded and STORED in RAM. I don’t know what crack you are on or if that is how Win9x worked but that sure as HELL isn’t how NT/2K/XP works.

umm, yeah, i've only used them since windows 2.0 and missed 1.0 totally. never saw any 0.x releases whatsoever, so i'm a newbie.

seriously, the NT memory handling is not so much better in real life. in my office the windows workstations can be rebooted once a month, so on average the windows os has been up two weeks instead of two hours you might be more familiar. i can surely tell when the os loads apps from the hard drive and when the apps are loaded from memory, and believe me, windows xp DOES load awfully lot from the disk. every morning i find that everything has been put into hard drive as opening any already open app takes forever and longer.

yeah, right, i know nothing. and sure as hell i don't daily face any frustration with these windows workstations. everything is fine and secure. yeah, right.

[xy14]

Bull. You sure as heck do NOT need that kind of RAM for Windows unless you are talking with world's most poorly programed game that is.

First of all, what does this have to do with the iTunes for Windows 4.5 SDK?

Second of all, quit complaining! If you have a problem with sonething, fix it! Maybe you've heard of a thing called xCode? You can design your OWN games and then you can try being a better programmer than someone from a 100 million dollar company and maybe you will make a dollar or two. Unless you require like 768 MB of RAM because you made the world's most poorly programmed game. Sorry but it just gets annoying that people always complain and never do anything about anything. If you people weren't so slothful, maybe you would though. The world would be a much better place if people didn't just complain about the bad things. I don't complain about drugs, and I own a treatment center.

[Highland]

I'm not saying that iTunes is the most efficient app ever written, however the extra 10mb could be accounted for by the extra HTML rendering code that would be required for the Windows version (the OS X version would use the system level Safari HTML renderer, whereas the Windows version would have to have the HTML renderer embedded into iTunes).

If you guys think that iTunes is bloated, then please provide Apple with feedback--optimisations benefit us all.

[phasornc]

In regards to my request to "Watch Folders" this giant wrote:

I have another solution for that problem...

My g/f and I both have Macs. We also have Airport.

So, all you need to do is turn 'Share my music' on. That way I can play her songs via rendezvous over our LAN. Easy.

Does the PC version have the rendezvous features of iTunes?

That's brilliant dude now try to sync your wifes songs to your ipod, try to play your wifes songs when her computer is not on, try to burn a CD from her music . . . the point is YOU CAN'T, cuz iTunes is stupid. I have a low power beige G3 233 running Panther Server and I burn all my songs to it. Did I mention in addition to our Desktops my wife and I both have laptops with 802.11g cards that we use to connect to the networks as well. Now try to make sense of that "shared music" curappy system when you have 4 computer not all of which are around. Only storing songs on a server makes sence. And ONLY watching folders makes this efficient.

[Highland]

That's brilliant dude now try to sync your wifes songs to your ipod, try to play your wifes songs when her computer is not on, try to burn a CD from her music . . . the point is YOU CAN'T, cuz iTunes is stupid. I have a low power beige G3 233 running Panther Server and I burn all my songs to it. Did I mention in addition to our Desktops my wife and I both have laptops with 802.11g cards that we use to connect to the networks as well. Now try to make sense of that "shared music" curappy system when you have 4 computer not all of which are around. Only storing songs on a server makes sence. And ONLY watching folders makes this efficient.

Firstly, she's not my wife ;)

I understand your point, and that would be a cool feature. However, I'm sure the record labels would not want something like that in iTunes.

...now try to sync your wifes songs to your ipod
That's actually illegal (yes, yes, yes... I do realise how stupid that is, but it doesn't fit within the 'time shifting' or 'space shifting' laws that most western countries have). It is a bit of a grey area, but for a company like Apple, who's trying to win over the music industry, a mistake like this could cost them the entire game.

Given that iTunes can be remote controlled via 3rd party apps, why not write an iTunes sync utility? (or pass on the idea for someone else to write.)

[runeasgar]

Did this SDK sprout iTunes Catalog? I went looking like.. a few days after the SDK came out for a program that would find album art / publish my music to the web and I came across iTunes Catalog. I bought it immediately. If this is what SDKs can do.. I look forward to more SDKs released for other apple programs. :rolleyes: