iTunes 10 now available for download

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 153
    Are you effing kidding me? Another goddamn interface change? Vertical open/close buttons now? Again, are you effing kidding me? Enough. STANDARDIZE ON A CONSISTENT INTERFACE!!!!



    The original Mac OS designers must be throwing up a little in their mouths right now.



    Time to go to Gnome or KDE methinks. Pathetic.
  • Reply 82 of 153
    The vertical buttons are somewhat of a parody, haven't had to time to look at the rest.
  • Reply 83 of 153
    stuffestuffe Posts: 392member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Are you effing kidding me? Another goddamn interface change? Vertical open/close buttons now? Again, are you effing kidding me? Enough. STANDARDIZE ON A CONSISTENT INTERFACE!!!!



    The original Mac OS designers must be throwing up a little in their mouths right now.



    Time to go to Gnome or KDE methinks. Pathetic.



    FEAR THE CHANGE! FEAR THE CHANGE!! FEAR THE CHANGE!!!



    Cos KDE *never* changes, right?
  • Reply 84 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stuffe View Post


    FEAR THE CHANGE! FEAR THE CHANGE!! FEAR THE CHANGE!!!



    Cos KDE *never* changes, right?



    Between major releases? No it doesn't.
  • Reply 85 of 153
    Interface is 'different' to say the least.

    The vertical buttons are a bit odd, most likely though a preview of the next version of Snow Leopard.

    Icon in dock is blue, and I think it looks better than the old one.



    I do wish Apple would create a better way to sync different devices on one computer. I have three different ipods, all with different capacities.
  • Reply 86 of 153
    Excuse my french, but what the c.ck is that new icon?



    Is it some kind of sick joke where steve balmer sneaked in with his design team? Can I get my old icon back?
  • Reply 87 of 153
    stuffestuffe Posts: 392member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Between major releases? No it doesn't.



    So it's not so much the change you object to, just the timing? There's no ineffable law that says these buttons must be horizontal, it's just force of habit. Perhaps, like many other things that we just do automatically there would be a better way if only we would let go of our reliance on familiarity. If this saves me 20 pixels of vertical height across the entire screen width, then I for one would hope it becomes a part of 10.7.
  • Reply 88 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stuffe View Post


    There's no ineffable law that says these buttons must be horizontal, (...) If this saves me 20 pixels of vertical height across the entire screen width, then I for one would hope it becomes a part of 10.7.



    This only works for apps which:

    a) normally operate in single window mode (like iTunes, iPhoto, Mail), where thus the titlebar does not indicate a document name, and

    b) the toolbar is already high enough to accomodate the vertical set of buttons



    Incidentally, a) and b) correlate pretty well as lots of stuff in the toolbar (ie, a higher than average toolbar) usually goes hand in hand with a single-window app.
  • Reply 89 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    And it's still a 32-bit app. In 2010.



    I've been seeing this comment a lot, but I still don't get it. What would itunes gain being 64 bit. It's a player and syncing program. Not a creative program like Final Cut.



    So someone educate me, why does itunes have to be 64 bit. What is the killer advantage that makes this so important
  • Reply 90 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sweetmate View Post


    You could argue about why a music player needs to be 64 bit, as it would never need to address more than 3GB of ram (well it never should need to anyway..), but if Apple can sell us an update of Leopard with no new features, just "under the hood" improvements like 64-bit and GCD, then they can't be surprised when we moan that iLife, iWork and Final Cut Studio are still 32-bit whilst iCal and iChat are!



    The issue with Final Cut STudio not being 64-bit is simple, I can and do cause things to use more than 4GB of memory - or need to and not able to. The bigger issue is that Final Cut and Quicktime Pro are SINGLE THREADED still in the year 2010 for the most part. Hit render on the timeline and watch only one core get used. Export using Quicktime and only one core gets used.



    You used to be able to setup Qmaster with a QuickCluster on the computer you're editing with, and export using Compressor and get it to use all cores albeit inefficiently. Now you can only export from Final Cut using Compressor if you don't use a QuickCluster, or use one on ANOTHER COMPUTER (What if you only have the one huh Apple?). If you want to export using Compressor and a QuickCluster you have to first render the full timeline in its single-threaded glory, export a reference movie, close Final Cut and then open compressor manually and setup your conversion using the QuickCluster. Then if you're lucky it may work.



    Or you can go use Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, where you at any time do File - Export - Media and chose your settings and hit Export and it takes off using all your cores and as much RAM as is needed without any hassle. And oh yeah the codec quality is better too because its been updated since 2005.



    Now does anyone have any questions as to why I'm highly tempted to UnSwitch since Windows 7 is a marginally acceptable OS, and I can buy my next machine for half the cost? And buy one with a video card Adobe supports for CS5's new features (nVidia), and one for half the price, and that has driver updates every few weeks instead of years. Yeah, needless to say as a video professional I no longer see the need to remain on the apple platform for my work now that Adobe has released CS5.



    Sorry for the slightly unrelated rant, the point being this push to 64-bit on the OS and then abandoning the one app that is goign to benefit the most? And iTunes can benefit from 64-bit with large libraries - it has nothing to do with RAM capacity though. 64-bit opens up more processor registers, this can be a huge performance boost when processing large sequences of data.
  • Reply 91 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stuffe View Post


    ...There's no ineffable law that says these buttons must be horizontal.



    Actually there is. It's called Apples Interface Guidelines, which they themselves CONTINUALLY DON'T FOLLOW. The current version of SL is a bastardization of a dozen different interfaces over the years. Pick a consistent interface and go with it. Stop using users as interface beta testers!
  • Reply 92 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    I've been seeing this comment a lot, but I still don't get it. What would itunes gain being 64 bit. It's a player and syncing program. Not a creative program like Final Cut.



    So someone educate me, why does itunes have to be 64 bit. What is the killer advantage that makes this so important



    It's not that it's 32bit in itself that seems to be the issue, it's more that being 32bit is the most obvious giveaway that the program was written with the old Carbon development tools, and not the modern Cocoa ones that Apple have very publicly chastised other companies such as Microsoft/Adobe etc for not moving to fast enough. As such it doesn't have access to all the modern API calls (including all the nice Snow Leopard multithreading gubbins etc) and as such is less efficient. As to how this affects the end user is debatable, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that out of the box a new Macbook is likely to get the spin beachball much more often when using iTunes, than any other Apple supplied application.
  • Reply 93 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    One other question: is it only one Ping account per iTunes account? In other words, what's the deal if I wanted to create a Ping profile for myself (the iTunes account is in my name), but my daughter also wanted to create her own (but she uses my account name and password for her downloads), and our musical tastes are totally different? Can Apple allow some sort of 'family allowance' for accounts? If not, I am guessing that Apple will seriously miss out on a huge potential social networking population: 14 - 18 year olds who are prolific buyers of music using their mom's/dad's accounts and are the prolific/dominant users of SN. (While I am probably interested in exploring the SN on the music front, I generally avoid things like FaceBook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).



    They probably feel that they have this issue covered in the linked 'allowance' accounts for itunes. The way they designed it, you would create your account then a child account for your daughter wither her own Apple ID and password, but all money concerns come back to you (including being able to load money on her account for her to use), plus you get parental controls etc. And I believe when she turns 18 you can have her account separated from yours so she can keep using it for her music, apps etc
  • Reply 94 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Actually there is. It's called Apples Interface Guidelines, which they themselves CONTINUALLY DON'T FOLLOW. The current version of SL is a bastardization of a dozen different interfaces over the years. Pick a consistent interface and go with it. Stop using users as interface beta testers!



    No, those are guidelines. The hint is in the name. It's not law, it's not mandatory. The same interface isn't necessarily the best interface for every piece of software.
  • Reply 95 of 153
    phizzphizz Posts: 142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ckh1272 View Post


    Click on the "Album list view" icon on the top right (there are four buttons. This one is the second from the left). After that, go to "View" and select "Always Show Artwork". You will have to check this for all of your playlists as well but that will solve the missing artwork dilemma. Hope that helps.



    Cool, thanks - solves that one.



    One more complaint . In list view, when you view the album / artist names in the leftmost column along with the artwork, and then reduce the width of that column, it truncates the names with an ellipsis. This is presumably to keep them the same height as the artwork when the artwork is on the "small" setting. But when the artwork is medium (default) or large, then I would really prefer to see the names "wrap" onto new lines instead - it's not as if there isn't room. This may sound like a small nitpick, but I feel it would make a big difference.



    Also, the more I look at that new icon, the more i dislike it. Nevermind the fact that it doesn't fit in the the other OSX icons, I think my dislike stems from the fact that it looks "cheap" - like somebody with basic Photoshop skills and not much taste made it in minutes. It could be improved, but I think it should just be re-done. Also, who else things that using the new icon as the dot for the "i" in Ping looks ridiculous?
  • Reply 96 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Actually there is. It's called Apples Interface Guidelines



    And how do you change (adjust, improve, evolve) the interface guidelines? By issuing a press release and overnight change all your applications?

    Hardly.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Pick a consistent interface and go with it.



    Until when? At least during your lifetime?

    If we were to follow your rules we would still be stuck in the OS 1 user interface.
  • Reply 97 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    This only works for apps which:

    a) normally operate in single window mode (like iTunes, iPhoto, Mail), where thus the titlebar does not indicate a document name, and

    b) the toolbar is already high enough to accomodate the vertical set of buttons



    Incidentally, a) and b) correlate pretty well as lots of stuff in the toolbar (ie, a higher than average toolbar) usually goes hand in hand with a single-window app.



    Very astute, it's horses for courses, use the best method for each programs usage scenario. If you can save vertical space (approximation follows) of say 20 pixels X 1280 width (total of 25,000 pixels) as the expense of rotating your buttons through 90 degrees then great - I would genuinely love that extra space in several programs I use. If not applicable, don't bother. I'm sure we all understand that the colours and contents of these mere 3 buttons is as indicative of their use as their regular position. Don't understand the hue and cry over this one at all.
  • Reply 98 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    And how do you change (adjust, improve, evolve) the interface guidelines? By issuing a press release and overnight change all your applications?

    Hardly.



    Until when? At least during your lifetime?

    If we were to follow your rules we would still be stuck in the OS 1 user interface.



    Make the interface consistent for each major release. How hard of a bloody concept is that to grasp??
  • Reply 99 of 153
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Granted, I may not be as much of an aesthete as some here, but I am a little puzzled by the angst over the look of the new iTunes. I always thought that iTunes was one of the more drab-looking of Apple's software, and they've simply made it more so.



    The new set-up looks a little cleaner and simpler, actually. As to the icon, I agree that it is a bit jarring. Perhaps they should just get rid of the white ring around it; might make it a little easier on the eye (I did prefer the previous straight top of the musical note icon, though).



    Do people know if the photo upload issue with Ping has been fixed? I could not upload, last night.

    ...



    As a long-time artist and designer with a couple of Art school diplomas, IMO no good graphic artist/designer would think that the new iTunes icon is a good move. It's horrible, as have been a lot of the icons from Apple lately. There was a similar furor over the new Quicktime icon which was rapidly changed between beta and release to make it *somewhat* more palatable.



    It's not just personal preference, there are "rules" to these sorts of things in that certain colours have certain psychological effects and convey one message or another. The choice to remove all the colour out of the app, but to use absolutely garish shades of blue for the icon, is a very strange one indeed.



    The colours are also dark, and the musical note is black. Now, of course musical notes are traditionally black, but there is no reason for one in an icon to be that way and instead of being black on white (because of course traditionally they are seen on paper), this is black on very dark blue. You just don't want icons (which are "invitations" to the application), to be dark, brooding or so garish that they turn people off. The ring around the outside is reminiscent of iOS apps, but the roundness takes away significant weight.



    It ends up looking like a bad pewter and enamel belt-buckle you bought on vacation in Mexico.



    Finally, why, why, why, is this "iTunes 10"? It's a minor upgrade, it does not bring 64 bits, it does not bring all carbon, it does not do a major redesign or re-think of the UI. They haven't even fixed long-standing stuff like the garbage they call "Internet Radio support." iTunes 10 should have been reserved for the big changes we all know that the application needs.
  • Reply 100 of 153
    I have to agree with the naysayers on this one. The new UI is crap.



    The lack of color flattens out the appearance of the album/list view, which now makes everything run together. The album art on the left was a real boneheaded decision, and there is no way to get rid of the layout hogging album art. My normal screen view now needs 30% more screen just to see details I want to see on my music files. Really, really bad guys. Who approved this?
Sign In or Register to comment.