iTunes 7.0.2 And Windows Vista

[MacRumors]

Apple has published a guide for installing iTunes on a Windows Vista system. While Apple encourages users to wait "a few weeks" until the next version of iTunes becomes available which will be fully Vista compliant, the guide will help those who wish to install iTunes 7.0.2 until the new version is available.

A list of known issues includes:
* iTunes Store purchases may not play when upgrading to Windows Vista from Windows 2000 or XP. (Ed Note: Workaround exists. See permissions repair tool)
* iPod models with the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may be unable to update or restore iPod software, and make changes to iPod settings.
* iPod models configured to Auto Sync and have the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may require being ejected and reconnected to resync.
* Ejecting an iPod from the Windows System Tray using the "Safely Remove Hardware" feature may corrupt your iPod. To always safely eject an iPod, choose Eject iPod from the Controls menu within iTunes.
* Cover Flow animation may be slower than expected.
* Contacts and calendars will not sync with iPod.

The next version of iTunes which is expected to bring not only Vista compatibility but AppleTV compatibility is expected to be branded iTunes 7.1 as per the original AppleTV specifications page when the product launched (now simply states "iTunes 7").

iTunes was last updated to version 7.0.2 in late October 2006, providing performance and stability improvements as well as compatibility with Apple's second generation iPod shuffle.

 

[skoker]

iTunes on my Vista machine, less than a week old, is unstable as all hell.

 

[longofest]

iTunes on my Vista machine, less than a week old, is unstable as all hell.

Did you follow Apple's advice? Describe "unstable". Does it fit what the list of known issues is?

 

[iJawn108]

I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Why does this not surprise me? After all, Apple's Windows development is secondary to its Macintosh development... so I'd expect a delay between the release of a new OS from Microsoft and a compatible iTunes+QuickTime release.

I'm guessing that Leopard will also necessitate an iTunes update... I wonder how Apple's doing on this front.

 

[tallgeek]

minimal problems

I've been running iTunes on Vista since June, and the only issues I've had are the inability to burn CDs, and occasionally the computer will restart while I'm downloading podcasts.

 

[lazyrighteye]

iLife '07?

Any correlation between the upcoming iTunes bump & a release date for iLife '07?

 

[iMikeT]

* iTunes Store purchases may not play when upgrading to Windows Vista from Windows 2000 or XP.

I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

 

[Flowbee]

Oooh... iTunes 7.1. Please add tagging support, Apple. "Genre" is so twentieth century.

No, I don't really expect such a big change in 7.1. Hopefully by the time Leopard ships, though.

 

[flyinmac]

I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

Didn't you get the news???

Leopard is just going to be Vista bundled with Bootcamp

 

[tallgeek]

I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

I have been both playing previous purchases, and songs I've purchased since using Vista without any problems. Vista did it's usual annoying check to make sure I wanted to install iTunes, and hasn't bothered the program since.

 

[dernhelm]

It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

 

[aswitcher]

Any correlation between the upcoming iTunes bump & a release date for iLife '07?

I agree, rumors of a 20th Feb announcement seem to be hardening up. Hopefuly its more than an iTunes bump.

 

[flyinmac]

It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Well, to produce a truly stable and secure operating system, that is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to abandon all the old compatibility layers and start fresh. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

Now that is a scary thought.

But, Apple's approach was a bit different. For the most part, they have been less concerned with backwards compatibility in the actual OS code than Microsoft.

Microsoft has attempted to keep the compatibility in-place dating all the way back to DOS 1.0. And, that has been a penalty in their OS code. By keeping native support for old programs built-in to new Windows versions, they have limited their ability to start fresh and produce something truly spectacular.

Apple has taken a slightly different approach. They've totally started over a few times. And, it has worked-out pretty good for them. The reason it worked-out so well, is that they were able to start fresh, but also maintain compatibility.

That's because they created a fresh environment without all the legacy code built-in. Then, they created a virtual environment that would run in the new environment (Classic and now Rosetta).

The closest comparison would be if Microsoft totally re-wrote Windows from scratch and produced a totally new environment that didn't contain any old code (or compatibility layer). Then, provided the Windows version of Virtual PC to enable you to run your old version of Windows in a virtual environment. That would be very close to the transition Apple used to go from OS 9 to OS X.

For the new Rosetta method, Microsoft could have created something along the lines of a "run-time" XP-layer. Basically, a fresh Windows OS that would call on XP compatible API's as needed in a separate "box" or separate memory space.

Of course, that's just some thoughts. Actual implementation would likely require something a bit more in-depth.

The main point being that it is possible (as Apple has demonstrated) to start completely fresh, and maintain compatibility.

 

[mikeinternet]

I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

i noticed in a macmall catalog i got yesterday that they are offering all of the intel macs to ship bundled with XP or vista pre-installed.

personally i have no desire to deal with windows at all.

 

[hagjohn]

I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

Actually, that's more myth than anything.

I installed iTunes last night and copied over my files without any issues. Of course, all are non-DRM files though.

 

[FreeState]

I agree, rumors of a 20th Feb announcement seem to be hardening up. Hopefuly its more than an iTunes bump.

I think there will be an announcement this Sunday. Also an iTunes update Monday. Or thats just widescreen speculation

 

[hagjohn]

IMHO, at some point MS has to break backward compatibility. They really need to dump anything older than XP... but that's only my opinion.

It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

 

[dernhelm]

IMHO, at some point MS has to break backward compatibility. They really need to dump anything older than XP... but that's only my opinion.

The problem is that stuff written for XP doesn't even work! And iTunes is not the only example.

 

[tny]

Microsoft has attempted to keep the compatibility in-place dating all the way back to DOS 1.0. And, that has been a penalty in their OS code. By keeping native support for old programs built-in to new Windows versions, they have limited their ability to start fresh and produce something truly spectacular.

Sort of. The NT/2K/XP/Vista family is rewritten from the ground up, versus the DOS/Windows/95/98/ME family. If I recall correctly, there's a DOS compability layer added into the code. Note, too, that the NT family is putatively processor-agnostic, though versions for other processors haven't been sold in this millennium.

 

[dernhelm]

Well, to produce a truly stable and secure operating system, that is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to abandon all the old compatibility layers and start fresh. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.

Really? Try installing a Windows 3.1, 95 or 98 program on Vista. See how well it works. Many 95 programs won't even install on XP.

They are abandoning old compatibility layers, they are just doing it poorly.

----

But the upgrade from XP to Vista will be more like the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 than anything. Can you think of a single program that ceased to run when you upgraded to 10.4? How would you feel if Word stopped running when you upgrade to 10.5?

The simple fact is, that Microsoft is rolling out Vista, and apps that ran fine on XP no longer run. That's ridiculous anyway you look at it.

 

[flyinmac]

Sort of. The NT/2K/XP/Vista family is rewritten from the ground up, versus the DOS/Windows/95/98/ME family. If I recall correctly, there's a DOS compability layer added into the code. Note, too, that the NT family is putatively processor-agnostic, though versions for other processors haven't been sold in this millennium.

Yes, that is correct.

The NT line was rewritten when it originated. But, it's been mostly updates and enhancements since that point. And, then as you pointed-out, been given some layer that introduces compatibility with the DOS through 98 code. So, it still ends-up being mostly a band-aid approach compared to a completely clean slate.

But, even if the NT base were considered a fresh start, it's been a long time since NT was introduced. That's still a lot of old code.

 

[kingtj]

Vista and bootcamp

It works now, basically. If you search around, you'll see plenty of people who had it working as far back as Vista beta 2.

You have to manually extract and install the XP drivers though, and a few details like the 2-finger right-click trackpad support don't work ... but it's usable.

I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

 

[guzhogi]

I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

Hmm, I got Vista RC2 to run on my C2D MBP using Boot Camp fairly well. I was able to use the drivers CD from Boot Camp to install some of the drivers with the only exceptions being the Airport and the iSight's kinda bad. Other than that, it works fine for me.

 

[Eraserhead]

But the upgrade from XP to Vista will be more like the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 than anything. Can you think of a single program that ceased to run when you upgraded to 10.4?

Yes, for example Intego Anti-Virus wouldn't even install, but most applications had patches out on Tiger release day if not before. What's great now is that Apple have said that they won't be changing the API's for a while so everything that runs under 10.4 should run perfectly under 10.5