Why does iTunes often get called 'bad software'?

[BaldiMac]

Itunes runs like crap on my 8-year-old laptop, but I don't really expect it to be that fast. Anyway, I need it for my iPhone.

I think feature crawl is the biggest thing for me. It started out as a really good manager for music and iPods. Apple added TV shows, Movies, applications, ringtones, contact and calendar syncing, photos, etc. Now instead of being a slick interface for music, it's a bloated, jack of all trades master of none.

I think they should rewrite iSync to be just like iTunes (look and feel). List all devices so you can manage them without having them connected. Add in applications and the app store and leave it at that. Or make something like doubleTwist into the new iSync. Call it "Mobile Device Manager" or something (MDM sounds Microsoft-ish, totally accurate, but uninspired).

Pull out everything but music, movies and tv shows from iTunes and rename it iMedia (or something like that).

How would this improve anything? You are adding more overhead, more confusion, and more room for error by dividing the features into two separate programs. What are you gaining? You said you used to like the interface for managing music. What has changed for the worse in the interface for managing music? Very little.

Also, the renaming thing seems to come up alot. What's up with that? It's a huge brand at this point. Burger King isn't going to rename themselves "Assorted Fast Food King".

 

[flottenheimer]

Problem with Windows or not, if Apple is writing software that performs poorly on Windows then I can't blame Windows users for not wanting Apple software on their PCs. And frankly, QuickTime for Windows sounds like the reanimated zombie corpse of late-'90s RealPlayer for Mac, and who didn't hate that miserable, system-stealing piece of junk?

Hear, hear.

QuickTime for Windows is the reanimated zombie corpse of late-'90s RealPlayer for Mac. So glad our home is Mac-only now.

 

[markusfarkus]

Performance Issues

I'd say my main complaint is the performace. Granted, I'm running it on a 1.25 GHz G4 Mini with 1 GB of RAM. Add to that, my library is more than 22,000 tracks on an external firewire drive. Every time on click on something, I get the beachball for several seconds and it gets annoying if I'm using it for more than a few minutes. I assume it's because it's constantly updating that one library file. It seems like they could implement a better system for updating the library so that it doesn't make you wait so much.

 

[devburke]

Burger King isn't going to rename themselves "Assorted Fast Food King".

Ha!

 

[jdechko]

How would this improve anything? You are adding more overhead, more confusion, and more room for error by dividing the features into two separate programs. What are you gaining? You said you used to like the interface for managing music. What has changed for the worse in the interface for managing music? Very little.

Also, the renaming thing seems to come up alot. What's up with that? It's a huge brand at this point. Burger King isn't going to rename themselves "Assorted Fast Food King".

I think that having separate programs could likely result in speed increases. One of the top complaints is that iTunes is so slow. iTunes has to load a lot of stuff now, including the iTunes Mobile Device service. Older versions were much faster. I know, I know, progress and features. Don't get me wrong, I like having Movies and TV shows and a lot of the new features (Genius is great), but iTunes has only gotten bigger (new versions used to be ~30MB, and now they're pushing 80!) and slower.

I still do like the interface, even the current one with all of the "extras" in there. Playlist folders and Genius make it even better for music. I'm just saying that it could use a few improvements, and pointed out a few ways I thought they could improve (rather than just complaining about it).

I'll agree that they probably won't rename the program either. But then, I thought they should have done it several years ago when they added TV shows.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think that having separate programs could likely result in speed increases. One of the top complaints is that iTunes is so slow. iTunes has to load a lot of stuff now, including the iTunes Mobile Device service.

The Mobile Device service would be running under both scenarios. Other than that, the ability to sync doesn't have any other performance hits when its not syncing. Separating it into a separate app would gain nothing and add the problems that I mentioned.

iTunes does need extensive performance improvements.

Older versions were much faster.

Were they? Or did you just have a smaller library? And not show album art? Or not use features like Genius? All of these things can be turned off in the current version to improve performance.

I know, I know, progress and features. Don't get me wrong, I like having Movies and TV shows and a lot of the new features (Genius is great), but iTunes has only gotten bigger (new versions used to be ~30MB, and now they're pushing 80!) and slower.

I assume you are talking about download size. Most of the difference can be attributed to the fact that it is a Universal binary.

I still do like the interface, even the current one with all of the "extras" in there. Playlist folders and Genius make it even better for music. I'm just saying that it could use a few improvements, and pointed out a few ways I thought they could improve (rather than just complaining about it).

I agree. I just think it's weird that people (not you) complain about features that they can turn off. And obviously I think the separating it into multiple programs is one of those things that sounds logical to a forum poster, but is really overrated once you think about it.

 

[jdechko]

The Mobile Device service would be running under both scenarios. Other than that, the ability to sync doesn't have any other performance hits when its not syncing. Separating it into a separate app would gain nothing and add the problems that I mentioned.

True. I'm not even sure it would help much, but I'm sure that there are features which come at the expense of speed. And if these features aren't always used, it might see some speed increase.

On windows, you also have the SyncServices service that's running. So when iTunes is running, I have no less than 4 services running.

The other way around is that if I want to sync my iPhone, I'm sure a dedicated program would open and perform faster than iTunes currently does. Once DoubleTwist adds 3.0 support, I might see if that improves anything.

Were they? Or did you just have a smaller library? And not show album art? Or not use features like Genius? All of these things can be turned off in the current version to improve performance.

I have ~400 songs, most 256k, less than 4GB. No podcasts, movies or TV shows. Maybe 40 or so apps. I don't think the size of my library has anything to do with the speed. Album art is usually off, but I like Genius.

Although I'd noticed some slow downs since moving to iTunes 7, I think the best thing to improve performance for me would be getting a new computer. Or getting my desktop back. But I'll put up with iTunes 8.2 until then.

I assume you are talking about download size. Most of the difference can be attributed to the fact that it is a Universal binary.

Perhaps, but not on a Windows build. (Although that may have more to do with it than anything).

I agree. I just think it's weird that people (not you) complain about features that they can turn off. And obviously I think the separating it into multiple programs is one of those things that sounds logical to a forum poster, but is really overrated once you think about it.

I'm sure Apple have their reasons. By the way, this is a great read. It's a blog post written by Brent Simmons, creator of NNW for the Mac and iPhone.

 

[devburke]

(new versions used to be ~30MB, and now they're pushing 80!)

Ha! 80'd be nice!

 

[jdechko]

Wow, yeah. Installed, itunes is right at about 90 MB.

Well, it seems I did forget one small detail. With every download of iTunes, Windows users are also downloading Quicktime 7, so that does add a considerable amount. But I just found this iTunes 4.1 was only 20MB!

After thinking about it, I'm going to see if I can put an older version on the computer. If that supports iTunes Plus, and DoubleTwist works with it and 3.0 and my library, I might drop itunes 8.

 

[bfc]

My biggest problem with iTunes is lack of codec support, especially FLAC support.

I also don't understand why iTunes doesn't have a "watch folder" feature...

 

[michael.lauden]

Wow, yeah. Installed, itunes is right at about 90 MB.

Well, it seems I did forget one small detail. With every download of iTunes, Windows users are also downloading Quicktime 7, so that does add a considerable amount. But I just found this iTunes 4.1 was only 20MB!

After thinking about it, I'm going to see if I can put an older version on the computer. If that supports iTunes Plus, and DoubleTwist works with it and 3.0 and my library, I might drop itunes 8.

if you're complaining about 70 megabytes, then you might want to rethink 'digital music/video collection'.

 

[wywern209]

iTunes is just plain bad on windows. On the Mac, it is far better. On windows(I do my school work and stuff on a older windows computer that has a Pentium 4 3.4GHz), it just sucks. I can't watch ANY videos in iTunes because apparently "it doesn't meet the requirements". That is not true as the same video plays very smoothly in VLC player etc. I agree that apple needs a better windows dev team that actually knows how to program clean, smooth running code. Itunes also takes up a ton of power when just running(playing music) and the music will skip each time i go to a new webpage if i am surfing and listening at the same time. Soo... in a nutshell, iTunes BADLY needs a overhaul with the code and the organization.

 

[Teej guy]

I can multi task without any problems in Windows, as you can in OSX. You blaming MS for poor iTunes performance is like me blaming Apple for poor games performance.

+1000, absolutely. I'm an OS X guy now (except for gaming...Windows 7 all the way...) but calling out Windows for making iTunes sluggish is ridiculous.

 

[jdechko]

if you're complaining about 70 megabytes, then you might want to rethink 'digital music/video collection'.

1) It's not so much the 70MB, as it is reflecting back to the fact that 4.1 was only 20MB. It's also things like feature crawl that contribute to slower performance while iTunes is running.
2) I do have a relatively small music library on my laptop. I currently have only the songs that I like listening to in my library. All of the video goes onto my external drive. That's not to say that I want it that way, but at least I understand the limitations of my current computing situation.
3)

iTunes is just plain bad on windows. On the Mac, it is far better. On windows(I do my school work and stuff on a older windows computer that has a Pentium 4 3.4GHz), it just sucks. I can't watch ANY videos in iTunes because apparently "it doesn't meet the requirements". That is not true as the same video plays very smoothly in VLC player etc. I agree that apple needs a better windows dev team that actually knows how to program clean, smooth running code. Itunes also takes up a ton of power when just running(playing music) and the music will skip each time i go to a new webpage if i am surfing and listening at the same time. Soo... in a nutshell, iTunes BADLY needs a overhaul with the code and the organization.

That's all good to know.

 

[wywern209]

That's all good to know.

LOL sorry about the long rant.

 

[Muncher]

Ha! 80'd be nice!

View attachment 189151

Remember, that's a universal binary. Also, it carries multiple languages for every possible dialog box.

EDIT: I tried cutting down itunes by using Xslimmer, and now it doesn't work. Time to reinstall!

 

[EmperorDarius]

EDIT: I tried cutting down itunes by using Xslimmer, and now it doesn't work. Time to reinstall!

Don't remove languages. It's the only thing which causes problems after slimming. If you only remove PPC/Intel code, even Adobe programs will work flawlessly.

 

[Muncher]

Don't remove languages. It's the only thing which causes problems after slimming. If you only remove PPC/Intel code, even Adobe programs will work flawlessly.

Ok, maybe I'll try that.

 

[Drag'nGT]

How much quicker does it load slimmed down with the languages back on?

I like some of the new features, like genius playlists. I find new music or songs I forgot about all the time. If you have ~90gb of music it helps.

And people asked for TV and Movie rentals and such... So they don't need to get rid of it just speed it up.

 

[ravenvii]

While, for me, iTunes runs pretty well, and I haven't had any serious problems with it, I do see why it's considered "bad software".

Firstly, it's still carbon. Carbon! It really needs to be rewritten in Cocoa.

It's bloated. Store, organizer, player, ripper, all in one program? Unnecessary.

What should happen is, iTunes should be split into the player (QuickTime X is the perfect candidate, it already exists, and it looks awesome), the organizer (organizes all your media, should include the ripper, too) and the store.

All three programs should be tightly integrated (what you buy in the store automatically gets organized in the organizer program, with all the metadata and cover art and all that stuff), the organizer should check the store for cover art and metadata, and trailers in the store and the media in the organizer automatically opens in QuickTime X and plays. QuickTime X should have both a movie player and a music player interface, and should have the mini-player, and Front Row plugins should be integrated into all three programs (to browse your media, to play your media, and maybe, if it's updated to the AppleTV Front Row, buy media).

And of course, all should be Cocoa, damn it.

THAT is what Apple should do. Not add and add and add to one program.

 

[ChrisN]

Well on my iMac it is so slow but that might be because I used transferred all my music and such from my old iMac G5 and I always have to force quit it.

ChrisN

 

[BaldiMac]

Firstly, it's still carbon. Carbon! It really needs to be rewritten in Cocoa.

Why? I'm not disagreeing, just wondering what kind of performance advantage we would see.

It's bloated. Store, organizer, player, ripper, all in one program? Unnecessary.

What should happen is, iTunes should be split into the player (QuickTime X is the perfect candidate, it already exists, and it looks awesome), the organizer (organizes all your media, should include the ripper, too) and the store.

All three programs should be tightly integrated (what you buy in the store automatically gets organized in the organizer program, with all the metadata and cover art and all that stuff), the organizer should check the store for cover art and metadata, and trailers in the store and the media in the organizer automatically opens in QuickTime X and plays. QuickTime X should have both a movie player and a music player interface, and should have the mini-player, and Front Row plugins should be integrated into all three programs (to browse your media, to play your media, and maybe, if it's updated to the AppleTV Front Row, buy media).

And of course, all should be Cocoa, damn it.

THAT is what Apple should do. Not add and add and add to one program.

How would your suggestion help? The player functionality is already separated out in Quicktime. How would making a separate app for the store help? Does the store impact performance of iTunes if you aren't actually currently accessing the store? Three apps running at one time would have more overhead than one app with the same functions.

 

[wywern209]

Why? I'm not disagreeing, just wondering what kind of performance advantage we would see.

Well, i don't know much about cocoa and carbon but, i do know that a lot of the stuff in SL is being recoded in cocoa and that somehow makes it run faster.Yeah, i don't know much but i think that is the gist of it.

 

[0098386]

I use it on PC and Mac and neither have been "bad". It's not great under Windows, not sure why. It's not slowing down performance and isn't "slow and bloated". Even on my 2ghz C2D it loads in 3 seconds (VLC in 2 seconds, Quicktime in a year).

It has features that I don't use but I can remove the ringtones and podcast icons, so in the end the only 2 things I'm seeing that my early versions of iTunes didn't have are the Genius buttons and coverflow.

So; .

 

[BaldiMac]

Well, i don't know much about cocoa and carbon but, i do know that a lot of the stuff in SL is being recoded in cocoa and that somehow makes it run faster.Yeah, i don't know much but i think that is the gist of it.

Right. But is it the fact that it is being recoded making it faster, or the fact that it is cocoa?