iTunes/Win is not so great after all...
I just installed it, it almost exactly looks like the Mac version. This is going to cause a fuss among hardcore windows geeks, since a half-assed port is not what will make them jump up and down with joy.
- the interface is brushed metal with Aqua scrollbars. What kind of lame idea is this? Haven't we all been bitching about Word 6 and the Windows conventions it brought to MacOS? Talk about complete disregard of platform UI guidelines.
- no support whatsoever for WMA. While the format is certainly hateful, a lot of Windows users have WMA. If Apple wants to woo them into using iTunes, they better support it. Talk about complete disregard of platform technologies.
- the installer is 19MB in size.
- frame rates in the visualizer are no good (35fps on a 1.3Ghz Centrino).
- the interface is brushed metal with Aqua scrollbars. What kind of lame idea is this? Haven't we all been bitching about Word 6 and the Windows conventions it brought to MacOS? Talk about complete disregard of platform UI guidelines.
- no support whatsoever for WMA. While the format is certainly hateful, a lot of Windows users have WMA. If Apple wants to woo them into using iTunes, they better support it. Talk about complete disregard of platform technologies.
- the installer is 19MB in size.
- frame rates in the visualizer are no good (35fps on a 1.3Ghz Centrino).
Comments
Now on to specifics...
Originally posted by Smircle
I just installed it, it almost exactly looks like the Mac version. This is going to cause a fuss among hardcore windows geeks, since a half-assed port is not what will make them jump up and down with joy.
How is it a "half-assed" port? It looks and feels great to me. Yes, it looks exactly like the Mac version. What is wrong with that. The Windows folks deserve SOMETHING decent to look at. Especially if they use XP (ick).
- the interface is brushed metal with Aqua scrollbars. What kind of lame idea is this? Haven't we all been bitching about Word 6 and the Windows conventions it brought to MacOS? Talk about complete disregard of platform UI guidelines.
Windows HAS UI guidelines? Applications are more inconsistent on the Windows Platform than any place else (even Linux). This is particularly true in the media applications. Maybe this will begin a trend of Apple moving apps to Windows (iPhoto, iCal, Safari) with a consistent UI among them...Maybe TAKING over the Windows platform (hmmm...how's that for world domination thinking?)
- no support whatsoever for WMA. While the format is certainly hateful, a lot of Windows users have WMA. If Apple wants to woo them into using iTunes, they better support it. Talk about complete disregard of platform technologies.
People will use iTunes even w/out it. Perhaps it is planned but not yet complete? Perhaps they don't see the need to support a competing (to AAC) technology. Who knows. Can you still play WMA on your Windows system? Yes.
- the installer is 19MB in size.
Oh, you HAVE to do better than this. Geez, every other week I get Window Security updates that can be this large. I UPDATE IE and it can be this big.
19MB is nothing for a broadband connection.
My roommate actually said he is now seriously considering completely giving up Nero, WinAmp, MusicMatch Jukebox, and WiMP for his playing and burning needs. He's going all-out iTunes and he's never used a Mac in his life (save just once or twice on mine).
This is hardly a "half-assed port". The app works flawlessly. It is, in fact, a perfect port from what I've seen this afternoon. Everything works exactly as it does in the Mac version. You complain about the interface, eh? What about all the other media players on Windows? I haven't seen ONE that has a "proper" Windows GUI. They all have wacky custom controls and widgets. Personally, I think it's a nice touch that it looks like a Mac app; that'll help distinguish it and show Windows users what Mac apps are like.
As for the installer size, the Mac version is 10 MB. Wouldn't you expect the Windows version to be a bit larger considering that the Mac version relies heavily on existing frameworks that are built into the OS?
If I were Music Match, I would be worried.
Originally posted by Smircle
- frame rates in the visualizer are no good (35fps on a 1.3Ghz Centrino).
Lets pause for a moment and consider this fact: the human eye sees roughly 24 frames per second as smooth video. This isn't Quake3 where larger frame rates equate to larger penile sizes. It's a damned music visualizer. Is there really any need for 100+ framerates on a visualizer?!
It is head and shoulders above ANY music player for Windows. I just copied my entire iTunes library over to my PC - I am so excited that I actually get to listen to music on my PC now if I want to. I never could before, because there isn't an app for Windows that didn't make me want to put my head through my CRT and scream.
Awesome job.
Originally posted by job
Lets pause for a moment and consider this fact: the human eye sees roughly 24 frames per second as smooth video. This isn't Quake3 where larger frame rates equate to larger penile sizes. It's a damned music visualizer. Is there really any need for 100+ framerates on a visualizer?!
People have been dogging the film industry for decades because what you said is simply untrue. You can clearly see the jerkiness of film in action scenes in ANY movie.
Just go to your iTunes prefs - sharing and check "share my library".
Voila.
Your PC can now see all of Mac's iTunes' Library! I just did this and now my wife can listen to all of our Mp3s from her PC.
woohoo!!
Originally posted by Smircle
I just installed it, it almost exactly looks like the Mac version. This is going to cause a fuss among hardcore windows geeks, since a half-assed port is not what will make them jump up and down with joy.
- the interface is brushed metal with Aqua scrollbars. What kind of lame idea is this? Haven't we all been bitching about Word 6 and the Windows conventions it brought to MacOS? Talk about complete disregard of platform UI guidelines.
- no support whatsoever for WMA. While the format is certainly hateful, a lot of Windows users have WMA. If Apple wants to woo them into using iTunes, they better support it. Talk about complete disregard of platform technologies.
- the installer is 19MB in size.
- frame rates in the visualizer are no good (35fps on a 1.3Ghz Centrino).
WOw just cuase they used the same SUCCESFUL UI its a half assed port? THats the most uninformed comment I ever heard.
As far as i can tell I SEE all standard windows UI elements NOTHING IS MISSING. WMA sucks who cares.
Go download full version of music match and let me know how big it is. Frame rate? get a better graphics card/computer. its doing 50 on my 1.6 ghz p4 with nvidia geforce 4.
Only problem i'm having is its not playing my aac files.
Originally posted by job
Lets pause for a moment and consider this fact: the human eye sees roughly 24 frames per second as smooth video. This isn't Quake3 where larger frame rates equate to larger penile sizes.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. *sigh* This isn't the place to hash out this old argument, but I'll just point out a few facts. 24 fps is the speed of film reels. The human eye can distinguish much faster. The human eye needs much faster input to create a slight motion blur; this helps things look more realistic and natural. The push for higher frame rates in games like quake are for two reasons: first, that's to help with the aforementioned motion blur and second, that's a simple average. When there are a number more sprites and higher polygon counts, the frame rate drops dramatically. Thus, you need to have a higher *average* rate so that these lower rates won't be too terribly low.
whew.
Originally posted by murbot
You have got to be kidding me man. Last time I used WinAmp I had to spray oven cleaner directly onto my eyeballs for 5 minutes.
Thanks a lot, I started laughing when I read this and now my sister and mom think I'm crazy!
I don't know but does it make it easy to import files into iTunes? I know most PC users have no idea where their music is. Plus when they download it (which they will use winMX, kazaa, whatever) they need it to auto update. People are stupid in general, they need stuff to work for them. I love that poisoned imports it into iTunes for me.
Someone mentioned in another thread last week about fears that Apple would include vulgar pop-up ads for iPod or something. Well of course, there aren't any. But I did like the iPod ad that appears as one of the screens in the install process. It means that every single Win user will have to look at it... which can only mean more iPod sales.
Originally posted by Brad
Wrong, wrong, wrong. *sigh* This isn't the place to hash out this old argument, but I'll just point out a few facts. 24 fps is the speed of film reels. The human eye can distinguish much faster. The human eye needs much faster input to create a slight motion blur; this helps things look more realistic and natural. The push for higher frame rates in games like quake are for two reasons: first, that's to help with the aforementioned motion blur and second, that's a simple average. When there are a number more sprites and higher polygon counts, the frame rate drops dramatically. Thus, you need to have a higher *average* rate so that these lower rates won't be too terribly low.
whew.
I guess you learn something every day...
But I still want to know one thing: Is it really nessecary to have excessive frame rates for a music visualizer? Sure, for games higher frame rates are fine, but I still can't understand the complaint. I guess what I'm wondering is "What's the point?"
Originally posted by job
Lets pause for a moment and consider this fact: the human eye sees roughly 24 frames per second as smooth video. This isn't Quake3 where larger frame rates equate to larger penile sizes. It's a damned music visualizer. Is there really any need for 100+ framerates on a visualizer?!
Actually, the human flicker fusion frequency depends on the ambient light. It is 24Hz only in very dark environments, going up to 60-70Hz in bright daylight.
But thats only an indication that performance is not so great...
Originally posted by Smircle
But thats only an indication that performance is not so great...
Or an indication that the visualizer deliberately doesn't waste a lot of CPU time on visual effects where frame rate isn't going to matter a whole lot. These are flowing abstract patterns we're talking about here, not live action or gaming.
I've heard of damning by faint praise... perhaps this is praising by weak criticism.
Originally posted by O and A
As far as i can tell I SEE all standard windows UI elements NOTHING IS MISSING.
Come again? Even the scroll bars are Aqua...
Originally posted by Smircle
Come again? Even the scroll bars are Aqua...
Scroll Bar = Standard windows UI element
If you want to say oh its aqua themed its different than buddy you'll have to say the same for THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of other windows app. Your argument is flawed.
Funny how you only defended that point and none of ur other original points. Just goes to show how wrong you are.
BY THE WAY
Did you look up musicmatch download file size? I bet you did because u mentioned nothing about it when file size was a big deal in your original post.
Quote:
Download.com:
Musicmatch Jukebox 8.1 pop
Encode, play, and manage MP3 files.
OS: Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP
File Size: 17.1MB
License: Free to try, $20 to buy
Move along and troll somewhere else
Originally posted by Brad
Wrong, wrong, wrong. *sigh* This isn't the place to hash out this old argument, but I'll just point out a few facts. 24 fps is the speed of film reels. The human eye can distinguish much faster. The human eye needs much faster input to create a slight motion blur; this helps things look more realistic and natural. The push for higher frame rates in games like quake are for two reasons: first, that's to help with the aforementioned motion blur and second, that's a simple average. When there are a number more sprites and higher polygon counts, the frame rate drops dramatically. Thus, you need to have a higher *average* rate so that these lower rates won't be too terribly low.
whew.
actually, the average eye detects continuously (blinking excepted)
the brain processes about 60 samples per second but interpolates
which allows predictive catching of balls based on arc, not 400fps vision
film at 24 fps, PAL tv at 25 fps, and NTSC TV at 29.97(drop frame) or 30 fps are "natural" adaptations
because they factor and recombine into 60 "cleanly" (without getting into the drop frame math)
monitor flicker can be observable at other frequencies, more so if at odd clock freq
you can also generate visible CRT flicker if you hum a low harmonic note
(others won't see the flicker, but you can see it as your skull vibrates in sync)
neurological studies have shown optic nerve pathways send signals in hundredths of a second from the eye
curiously, signals from smell and other more reptilian brain centers take only thousandths of a second
... meaning that we make fight or flight judgements before the visual signal actually registers
weird.
murbot,
oven cleaner is bad for your eyes and makes my sides hurt from laughing