iTunes 4.1.1 for Windows

[Xenex]

Originally posted by MorganX
Considering both dominant desktop OS' include these basic facilities, yes, burning CDs is a basic function.

But the most popular music player for Windows currently doesn't even support it. Looks like Nullsoft don't consider it to be "basic".

Originally posted by MorganX
CD-text is very standard. It's supported by every Superdrive in every Mac made in the past two years at least. That's pretty standard.

Virtually all DVD players and Car Receivers made in the past few years support it. That's pretty standard.

Looks like you don't know what the word "standard" means either.

Just because a lot of things support something, does not make something a standard. Is this CD-text part of Red Book?

Originally posted by york2600
There are plenty of consumers that continue to run 2000 (it's much more stable than XP) and there have been consumers running 2000 since it first came out.

This is simply not true. Windows 2000 Professional was targeted at the same segment as Windows NT 4.0 Workstation - businesses. Until Windows XP Home was released, OEMs were shipping Windows Me with their consumer systems.

That's not to say that power users hadn't started using Windows 2000 Pro in 'consumer' environments, however it was never sold that way.

 

[iHack]

Originally posted by MorganX
snip.

If you don't use visualizations, it's a non-issue.

snip.

I tend to agree. I've looked at visualisations regularly, in WMP, Real player, iTunes, but the novelty wears off in about, say, 5 seconds. The only use I can imagine is when I would have a LCD projector and a party, I would project the visualisations on the wall - wouldn't that beat a 'rotating mirror disco ball' (or whatever they're called)!

So my question really is this: what do people do with the visualisations? Sit in front of their computer and stare at the screen? Auto-hypnosis? caal their friends and say; 'look at all the pretty colors'?

Can some-one please explain?

M.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by MorganX
It supported more, selectable, visualizations

As has already been mentioned, there are other visualizers available for iTunes. And, FWIW, other jukebox software that I've used (not an expansive list, but still) only offered one or two visualizer type functions. Others were available, as with iTunes, as plug-ins.

[ASIDE]There is one "visualizer" type plug-in that I saw on a former co-worker's computer. It is the one visualizer plug-in that I've actually looked for for iTunes. It was of a dancing sheep that was quite amusing. Does anyone know where such a thing might be found?[/ASIDE]

It also cataloged and played back mpg, mov, and windows media (goodbye WMP)

While iTunes doesn't support windows media or standard .mpg files, you can play QT .mov files (audio only), as well as many other formats, including WAV, AIFF, etc.

As it stands it's one of the best apps ever written for Windows.

Well put.

 

[MorganX]

>>But the most popular music player for Windows currently doesn't even support it. Looks like Nullsoft don't consider it to be "basic"<<

Winamp is clearly not the Best windows app ever written and never will be, even making allowance for class becasue it does not include this basic functionality, JMO, OC.


>>Looks like you don't know what the word "standard" means either.

Just because a lot of things support something, does not make something a standard. Is this CD-text part of Red Book?<<

You tell me:

RED BOOK: CD-Audio, CD-Text (Standard Audio Recording) CD-DA (Audio CDs)
The Red Book describes the physical properties of the compact disc and the digital audio encoding. It comprises:

Audio specification for 16-bit PCM.
Disc specification, including physical parameters.
Optical stylus and parameters.
Deviations and block error rate.
Modulation system and error correction.
Control and display system (ie subcode channels).
An addition to the Red Book describes the CD Graphics option using the subcode channels R to W. This describes the various applications of these subcode channels including graphics and MIDI.
Recently CD Text, which also uses the subcode channels, has been added to provide content related information to audio CDs.
The current status and versions of the Red Book and extensions are listed below.

Format Version Date Comments
CD Audio - Aug 1995 Red Book
Subcode/Control and Display System - Nov 1991 Extension to Red Book for CD Graphics
CD Text 1.0 Sep 1996 Extension to Red Book

Frame: 1/75 Sec
Audio Recording w/ Optional Digital Text Area
Text can be read and displayed on LCD
User Data: 2,352 Bytes


Source Plextor:
CD TEXT is the latest extension of the standard Audio CD that contains additional information besides the audio tracks. This information can be the title of the CD, the name of the artist, info on the tracks (songtitle, artist), etc.

The CD TEXT information can be displayed by the newer generation Audio CD players and Audio CD multichangers.

Also the latest CD-ROM Drives, like the Plextor PX-40TS, and CD-Recorders, like the Plextor PX-R820T and PX-W4220T, can retrieve this information...

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MorganX
The part where Steve Jobs said iTunes was the best Windows app ever To be the best Windows app ever it would have to do a litte more than manage songs and burn CDs, without CD-text at that.

It has an intuitive user interface, so it's better than any other Windows app in human history.

Being the best Windows app ever is like being the richest man in Cuba. It's not very hard, there's no competition

Originally posted by MorganX
So how many selectable, customizable visualizations does iTunes support without an add-on again?

Hate to say it, but the standard, built-in visualizer of every player other than iTunes is crap. Like the WMP one, which is just a circle, that does some crazy stuff. Pssh. iTunes blows that out of the water.

Originally posted by MorganX
Steve should save the Jobisms for the Apple platform that accepts them without scrutiny. They can do harm to Apple's credibility on the PC platform. Even the most die-hard Apple fans have to realize that is not a good thing.

Anyone who doesn't realize that "Best Windows app ever" is hyperbole is just plain dumb.

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by Xenex
Looks like you don't know what the word "standard" means either.

Just because a lot of things support something, does not make something a standard. Is this CD-text part of Red Book?

Actually I'd say you're a little confused about the meaning of standard. (Don't worry, I'm not going to quote Websters... ;-)

When a majority, or even "a lot" of new devices all follow a similar pattern, that pattern becomes "standard".

There are many shades of meaning-- a standard can be documented as a standard, or it can be a de facto standard.

The Red Book, on the other hand, is a specification.

 

[Analog Kid]

If anyone watches when Jobs makes the "best Windows app ever written" statement, even he laughs...

People need to stop getting their panties in a bunch about this. It was a dig at a competitor, and was meant for a Mac audience.

As far as backfiring, who cares? If someone says "I use iTunes every day, and even though it's not the best Windows app ever written, I like it better than the alternatives" so be it.

Microsoft has been calling their platform secure for years now, and throwing around phrases like "Trustworthy Computing" and "improved stability". Hasn't hurt their market share much...

 

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by MorganX
This would most likely eliminate all sluggish UI, Window redraw, and visualization frame rate issues many are experiencing. The developer also wouldn't have to worry so much about all the different video and sound configurations. Might even reduce some of the 30MB overhead.

I'd guess a lot of that overhead is the need to load Quicktime. I'm not going to begrudge Apple that...

As far as needing to rely on some trap door to the hardware to do basic window drawing, that seems absurd to me. I mean, look at Quartz, it's not like Apple said, "Hmmm, basic window drawing is too slow, what we need to do is tap the 3D render engine to accelerate it"...

Err... nevermind...

 

[MorganX]

>>I'd guess a lot of that overhead is the need to load Quicktime. I'm not going to begrudge Apple that...<<

I'm not begrudging them. I would simply be better, IMO, using the best APIs for the job. I cant' say it doesn't use DirectDraw. But pretty much anything other than Workstation Class 3D modeling (read consumer multimedia) can be done faster with Direct3D. OpenGL has it's own overhead for peak performance, finely tuned drivers (which is a rarity except in 3D workstations) for one.


>>As far as needing to rely on some trap door to the hardware to do basic window drawing, that seems absurd to me. I mean, look at Quartz, it's not like Apple said, "Hmmm, basic window drawing is too slow, what we need to do is tap the 3D render engine to accelerate it"<<

It's not a trapdoor it's just technology. Forget for a minute that you hate anything Microsoft. Cutting out the middle man is always faster barring any extaordinary circumstances (read, Nvidia's latest).

Apple has similar technology. And like DirectX (via DirectDraw), Apple's Quartz library provides 2D acceleration. Graphics hardware can always do a better job than software/cpu especially when you start adding effects like textures and transparency.

Quartz (w/display postscript) would be most analagous to DirectDraw. Oooh if Windows had Display Postscript.

Quartz Extreme most analagous to Direct3D.

Before Quartz weren't there some "sprockets" APIs? Game Sprockets? Same thing. Without "trapdoors" to allow writting directly to video hardware to accelerate 2D and 3D functions, you would see just how much overhead there is redrawing/sizing windows and playing back quicktime and windows media; and DVD playback would probably not be enjoyable at all.

 

[legion]

Originally posted by MorganX

>>As far as needing to rely on some trap door to the hardware to do basic window drawing, that seems absurd to me. I mean, look at Quartz, it's not like Apple said, "Hmmm, basic window drawing is too slow, what we need to do is tap the 3D render engine to accelerate it"<<

It's not a trapdoor it's just technology. Forget for a minute that you hate anything Microsoft. Cutting out the middle man is always faster barring any extaordinary circumstances (read, Nvidia's latest).

Apple has similar technology. And like DirectX (via DirectDraw), Apple's Quartz library provides 2D acceleration. Graphics hardware can always do a better job than software/cpu especially when you start adding effects like textures and transparency.

Quartz (w/display postscript) would be most analagous to DirectDraw. Oooh if Windows had Display Postscript.

Quartz Extreme most analagous to Direct3D.

MorganX

Analog Kid was being sarcastic (hence the "errr.. nevermind" bit at the end of his/her post.) A. Kid was also pointing out the Apple had issues with GUI draws and developed Quartz to supplement the process much as DirectX does. (And therefore Apple, if wishing to port software to XP, should take advantage of DirectX or look like poor coders; which is the current case with the bloat/overhead of iTunes for Windows.)

Part of me also wonders if this was done intentionally because there's a pretty good chance that iTunes on Windows would run considerably better than iTunes on Mac (which couldn't be good for Apple) as the Video Card manufacturers strongly support the DirectX protocols on a hardware level thereby accelerating the software to a higher degree if iTunes was properly code to the platform. However, I may just be too cynical about big business and this is just a classic case of a rushed job. I'm now wondering how Expose would port to Windows.... hmmmm...

 

[MorganX]

>>Analog Kid was being sarcastic (hence the "errr.. nevermind" bit at the end of his/her post.)<<

Yeah, I missed that. :/


>>I'm now wondering how Expose would port to Windows.... hmmmm... <<

The effects of Expose are cool, but functionally I don't think it's really needed on Windows because of MDI and the Task bar. Font book I would like to see in Windows.

 

[Iconocat]

Just thought this was cute

I was doing my daily checks at various news sites here at work, and when I checked to see what was going on over at wired, I saw one of the new "web" ads. Was a nice little brightener to the fact I always feel a bit wistful at work waiting to get back home to my mac.

Managed to get a screen shot... not the most exciting thing in the world, but I thought it was cool.

FYI - iTunes for windows is a massive hit with the people I know who have started using it. Already have one person I know looking to switch to a mac before the end of the year! Also, even though the windows users I know made the upgrade to 4.1.1, none of them had any problems with the initial release.

Well, I tried to attach the screenshot I took but it didn't work! Sorry about that. *sheepish grin*

 

[m.r.m.]

most media center 9 users decide to stick with media center after trying itunes though. i never tried media center, so i´m on itunes at the moment, but it seems the smart playlists in media center 9 are more evolved.

 

[rjstanford]

iTunes does have some problems. The biggest easily-fixable ones would be simple things like it not remembering what playlist you were listening to when you restart the app, or where you are within it. For instance, if you have a "Music" playlist containing songs to be played (ie: no audiobooks, etc), its a pain to have to keep selecting it when the "Library" is the perpetual default.

From a pure interface standpoint, some things continue to be inexcusible (like using fastForward/fastBackward buttons for track up/down).

Much more aggrevating on a Windows machine is Apple's continual desire to change existing standards. Apple used to champion adherence to existing look-and-feel guidelines (although recent releases of their own software for OSX have suffered here too). Indeed, one of the first things that Microsoft products for OSX are judged on are their adherence to existing Apple standards!

Some examples? Not following system-set standards like title bar color (or shape for that matter). Redefining standard title bar buttons such as the "maximise" one (while keeping standard-ish logos for them - this is bizarrely awful). Likewise, changing the behavior of the window-move and window-resize functions. I would submit that the idea is for Windows users to get used to iTunes, the iTunes store, and AAC, not for Mac users to become more comfortable using Windows machines, no?

Also (but covered elsewhere), using their own graphics library and (poorly) reimplementing existing behavior (not talking about Visualizer FPS, which is bad enough - simple things like responding to mouse-in / mouse-out events are hideously slow (very obvious if you use "focus follows mouse" for activation)).

iTunes for Windows also changes many defaults. For example, the "My Music" folder was designated and is adhered to by just about every Windows application as the place to store music. This allows multiple jukebox-style apps to share a common file structure. iTunes benefits from this by reading it, but unless you change an "Advanced" setting will store music that it rips into a special My Music / iTunes / Music (or something like that) folder. Many other programs can figure this out, but they shouldn't have to.

Adherence to standards is more important than ever these days, with multiple viable platforms, and little quirks like these get very old, very fast. The Windows platform remains, sadly, waiting for a truly powerful yet simple standards-based jukebox-type application. Many Windows users (who already have solutions that they're comfortable with, if annoyed by) may revert after realizing that, while pretty, the new iTunes app is really no easier to use (in a Windows framework) than many of the others.

-Richard

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by rjstanford
I would submit that the idea is for Windows users to get used to iTunes, the iTunes store, and AAC, not for Mac users to become more comfortable using Windows machines, no?

But what you're talking about is changing iTunes to make it more like Windows. How is that going to help Windows users get more used to iTunes? As it stands, iTunes functions, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same on both platforms. The maximize window button (the behavior of which is unique on the Mac side, too) behaves the same on both platforms, the uniqueness is a nod to the usefulness, not a pull away from standards, IMO.

Still, if the point is to give Windows users a taste of what the Mac platform is like, and to let them get comfortable with at least some small element of that, then changing iTunes to be more Windows like would utterly defeat that purpose.

Every Windows user that I know that's used iTunes has been thrilled with it, even if its title bar is the wrong color. (Most like the consistency of the grey title bar with the metal window, in fact.) I don't think that most of the issues you've brought up have much merit.

I will grant that there are a few things that could improve, including, as you mentioned, playlist memory. But, for the most part, these are fairly minor.

P.S. What's the issue with the FF button being the same as the next track button? I have several CD players that function the exact same way. It seems to me that this is a, more or less, standard interface...

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
But what you're talking about is changing iTunes to make it more like Windows. How is that going to help Windows users get more used to iTunes?

Ah, so Office X should be changed to look more like a Windows application? Same issue, from the other side, and I don't think that anyone would argue that point .. no?

P.S. What's the issue with the FF button being the same as the next track button? I have several CD players that function the exact same way. It seems to me that this is a, more or less, standard interface...

Standards have fast forward and reverse being two triangles stacked horizontally, angled in the direction of time motion. An automatic forward/reverse to the end of a track should be noted by the addition of a vertical bar indicating that the movement will "stop" at a boundary (if limited for space, a triangle may be dropped, but not the vertical bar). Almost every consumer device and software app, virtual CD players, physical DVD devices, whatever, follow this standard.

-Richard

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by rjstanford
Ah, so Office X should be changed to look more like a Windows application? Same issue, from the other side, and I don't think that anyone would argue that point .. no?

Not quite. Yes, MS could take that approach, and, to some extent, until recently, did. In general, however, the response was negative. Mac users didn't want to "get a taste of Windows" on their Macs. Indeed, I think that part of the near total domination of the Office Suite software on the Mac side has only come since MS fully embraced the Mac interface for MS Office.

Now, if Windows users end up feeling that way too (not wanting a "taste of Mac" on their Windows machines), then one of two things will happen. Either iTunes for Windows will be a dismal failure because most Windows users will hate the Mac-ish interface, or Apple will have to change the interface to be more Windows-like.

However, I don't think that will happen. As I've said, every Windows user I know that's used iTunes has praised it, so far (present company excepted). Not only that, but I know that their are a lot of applications out there that don't follow the standards for Windows. This opens the field up a bit. Most Mac users know what it's like to use Windows machines (and frequently express dislike of such), whereas most Windows users don't know what it's like to use a Mac. Therefore, using iTunes is a taste of something new.

In any event, it should be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[m.r.m.]

the worst thing about itunes (mac or windows) is if you start playing a song (like the first one of an album) and browse to another menu, itunes doesn´t play the second one after the first one is done. the music just stops. it only goes on if you play the first song off a playlist, or if the song is played off the main library menu. that´s horrible. i´m not going to make a playlist for every album. if by any chance all this isn´t true and i´m just too dull to understand apple apps, my humblest apologies. i´m new to itunes and i haven´t gotten my mac yet, so this is all new ground for me.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by rjstanford
Ah, so Office X should be changed to look more like a Windows application?

No, the Mac user interface is better, therefore all apps should use it, Mac or Windows.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by m.r.m.
the worst thing about itunes (mac or windows) is if you start playing a song (like the first one of an album) and browse to another menu, itunes doesn´t play the second one after the first one is done. the music just stops. it only goes on if you play the first song off a playlist, or if the song is played off the main library menu. that´s horrible. i´m not going to make a playlist for every album. if by any chance all this isn´t true and i´m just too dull to understand apple apps, my humblest apologies. i´m new to itunes and i haven´t gotten my mac yet, so this is all new ground for me.

If you're in iTunes and you start to play another song while one is still playing, it does indeed stop and then play the other song, it doesn't just queue them up.

If you really must play your songs in album format, they're conveniently arranged as such in the library.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by m.r.m.
the worst thing about itunes (mac or windows) is if you start playing a song (like the first one of an album) and browse to another menu, itunes doesn´t play the second one after the first one is done. the music just stops. it only goes on if you play the first song off a playlist, or if the song is played off the main library menu. that´s horrible. i´m not going to make a playlist for every album. if by any chance all this isn´t true and i´m just too dull to understand apple apps, my humblest apologies. i´m new to itunes and i haven´t gotten my mac yet, so this is all new ground for me.

I'm not sure if I understand your problem. When I start a song on a playlist, even when I go to other playlists or the library, it continues to play through the playlist, regardless of whether I started on the first song or not.

 

[m.r.m.]

@ snowy, that´s true, but that´s only the case if you play the song from a playlist. what i mean is you press browse and select the first song to play from an album in the album window. then you close the browse window and look through your library (maybe to edit tags or whatever). when the song finishes itunes doesn´t play song two of the album. it just stops.

a friend of mine noticed this as well. this is what he wrote:

"1. I use the three browse panes (ctrl+b) to browse Rock > 3 Doors Down > The Better Life
2. I select the song "Kryptonite" from the bottom pane and double-click it.
3. I rock out. It's a good song.
4. Whilst rocking out, I use the browse panes to browse RAP > Dr. Dre > 2001
5. I'm looking at the contents of this album while "Kryptonite" continues to play. NOTE -- "Kryptonite" is no longer visible in the bottom pane!!
6. I'm still perusing Dre. Or maybe I've gotten up from my desk or tabbed over to an IE window or whatever. The point is, the bottom pane still doesn't have "Kryptonite" in it.
7. The song ends. ALL PLAYBACK STOPS. It doesn't go to the next track of "The Better Life". "Kryptonite" was track 1. Where the heck is track 2? There's nothing playing now. Silence. Music's original alternative.

That's so incredibly lame. I can't browse about or use iTunes to do anything else (like maybe shop in their handy store) that involves browsing away from the track that's playing without PLAYBACK ENDING once the currently playing song is over? "

please excuse the rant. i´m not trying to slam apple here. the post is just to explain what i´m talking about.

so, as phil of mac explains, it´s only possible to automatically queue up songs in the library. that does defeat (or greatly limit) the browse feature, doesn´t it?

 

[Rower_CPU]

It makes sense to me. iTunes sees that you're browsing around elsewhere and figures that you want to listen to something else. If you don't navigate out of the chosen artist/album it keeps playing through.

Also, the only time playback stops when you're in the iTMS is when you listen to a song preview. Again, it makes sense. I browsed to an album started playing a song and went to the iTMS, it went to the next song no problem.

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It makes sense to me. iTunes sees that you're browsing around elsewhere and figures that you want to listen to something else. If you don't navigate out of the chosen artist/album it keeps playing through.

Nah, I'm with the original here. If I want to play something else, I would select it. Absent any directive to play something else, it should continue doing what it would have done had the user simply wandered away physically (instead of electronically) - play the next song.

The closest it could do if it was following the logic that you give would be to play whatever you were looking at. That would be strange, no? And yet, if its not going to do that (which it shouldn't), why does it assume that you want it to stop playing? Alternatively, if it assumes that you want it to stop playing when you navigate away, why does it keep playing the original tune until the track is over? The behavior is simply inconsistent, and should be corrected.

-Richard

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by m.r.m.
@ snowy, that´s true, but that´s only the case if you play the song from a playlist. what i mean is you press browse and select the first song to play from an album in the album window. then you close the browse window and look through your library (maybe to edit tags or whatever). when the song finishes itunes doesn´t play song two of the album. it just stops.
...
that does defeat (or greatly limit) the browse feature, doesn´t it?

I think that you're expecting the browse feature to act more like a dynamic playlist function, which is not at all what I see its function as being. It doesn't remember what you were looking at before, so it can't know what the next song should be. If, on the other hand, instead of browsing to something else, you switch back to the regular Library view, it will, in fact, continue playing, based on whatever song comes next in the Library based on how you have it sorted.

Now, I'll grant that it'd be great to have a dynamic playlist function, but I really don't think that's what the browse function is trying to be. If you don't want to have a playlist for every album, you could have a list that you usually keep empty (call it 'dynamic'), and drag a handful of songs into it from your browsing whenever you want to.