Apple unwraps iTunes 5

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 162
    I am really unimpressed but if it's more solid under the interface I will grow to like it.



    I really hope there is a lot of potential being created by a switch to QT 7. Maybe 4.9 -> 5.0 isn't a big step but further point releases will be.
  • Reply 102 of 162
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    QT 7 had a pretty substantial change to a new API set. Make no mistake, QT 7 is perhaps the most important strategic product Apple has released in five years. AFAICT, iTunes 5 uses the *new* API, not the old one. Hence, a major update. I could be wrong, since I'm just poking into the raw binary by hand, but from what I can see it *looks* like they migrated. Having a little experience with this process... yeah, major build number time.



    And as I mentioned, so does everything else. QT got the version change - from 6 to 7. Everything that uses it shouldn't get a full version change as well.
  • Reply 103 of 162
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    You're missing the point.



    QT < 7 had more or less one API that was added onto over the years. QT 4 brought about a cleanup, but it was still the same API at heart.



    QT 7 brought a new, cleaner API to the table. (No, not QTKit, although the Cocoa API uses it.) Apps could either stick with the old API (which is now deprecated), and still work, or be updated to the new API and be ready for a number of future enhancements that they'll get for free. (It'll make moving from Carbon to Cocoa easier, for one thing.) It's like moving from the old Mac Toolbox to Carbon, or from Carbon to Cocoa. An API change is non-trivial.



    iTunes 4 used the old API.



    From what I can see, iTunes 5 uses the new one. It's still Carbon, but a heck of a lot cleaner. That's the major change under the hood in iTunes that warrants a new major build number.



    If they'd stuck with the old API, it wouldn't have.



    See the difference?
  • Reply 104 of 162
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    IMHO, the gui changes alone make it worth the download. I only wish they could/would make an option to have everything in seperate palletes for maximum flexibility (ala winamp).



    The odd thing is the parental controlls: who does all the "tech support"...the kids....who DLs the music tools...the kids....who is gonna lock the parents out of the parental controls before the parents even see the app? the bad/mischievious kids who this is trying to protect...still a good idea thoughl...for the parents 1337 enouigh to know it is there.



    Also, I would love to see a patcher so the app doesnt need a reinstall for every worthless little point release.*



    *this applies to the windows version - system update is seemless, but having a DL under 15 meg would be cool on the mac too
  • Reply 105 of 162
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    What the FUCK.



    This is UGLY. It reminds me of Mail.



    That is all I have to say now.



    Damn.



    The window is too sharp. The boxy progress (yellow) window is retarded. I've really grown used to the rounded Metal.



    And the side of the window...doesn't have a border!?



    Man Tiger and Panther's GUIs really look shitty. They were heading in the right direction in Jaguar. Damn. They lost their way.
  • Reply 106 of 162
    As someone not too frequent on these boards i would like to thank you for making me read all that mumbo-jumbo about versions numbering...



    :-)



    As far as new look ...



    I like shaded vs metal.

    ....and that's about it :-)



    I HATE inconsistencies in recent apple apps...

    Finder windows are metal, and they have a border, Safari is metal, but Safari windows don't have a border, mail is shaded, but it has a different colour than itunes...



    Now, WTF is going on with the widow corners??? i mean really .... W T F ??





    And that "LCD screen" in iTunes is just wrong... too much shade difference. (IMHO)



    edit:

    and obviously i haven't noticed Aquatic's post before mine...

  • Reply 107 of 162
    Just in case anyone is interested.



    As far as I am aware, gaps in iTunes are the fault of the MP3 format itself and perhaps the AAC codec. MP3s don't support gapless playback and always add space at the end of a track. Try ripping a mix CD in aiff format and seeing if you can burn a gapless copy using that.
  • Reply 108 of 162
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    If the ONLY reason they did that was to normalize the numbering system, fine. But the purpose of jumping a whole number is to designate a major upgrade. This was a tweek.



    My biggest question here would be the simplest: Why the hell does anyone care what the hell they call it? iTunes 5. iTunes 4.9.1. iTunes 4.10 (oh, and that would never work, we tried doing a version 3.10 once, and it completely confused the non-programmers out there who understood decimal numbers, not version numbers).



    Does it really matter? If it was 4.9.1, would you be more or less likely to download it? Do you see "iTunes 5" and go "OMG! A whole new version! I gotta drop everything I'm doing, download this major upgrade, and check out all the hundreds of new features!"? (and if you do, you need a life)



    The only time a version number specification irritates me is when you actually have to pay for the software, i.e. a v5 comes out and you have to upgrade, but its really more like v4.10 (think the last couple releases of Stuffit). And then it only matters if you can tell they're doing it just to sell the 'new' version. But since iTunes is free, I could care less if they just called it "iTunes 4.9.23.03.734.89"



    Oh, I also remember this basic same argument, when Apple released 10.3. People couldn't believe they'd have to pay $100 for a freakin' point release, and they should've called it 11.0. Why? I have no idea. Its the exact same software, but in their heads they just think you shouldn't have to pay for x.y releases, x.0 only.
  • Reply 109 of 162
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Oh forget it. Pandering to ignorance is apparently the wave of the future. Go for it.



    You know, the way you constantly talk down to people is getting really old. You're not so much smarter or better than everyone here.
  • Reply 110 of 162
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    You're missing the point.



    QT < 7 had more or less one API that was added onto over the years. QT 4 brought about a cleanup, but it was still the same API at heart.



    QT 7 brought a new, cleaner API to the table. (No, not QTKit, although the Cocoa API uses it.) Apps could either stick with the old API (which is now deprecated), and still work, or be updated to the new API and be ready for a number of future enhancements that they'll get for free. (It'll make moving from Carbon to Cocoa easier, for one thing.) It's like moving from the old Mac Toolbox to Carbon, or from Carbon to Cocoa. An API change is non-trivial.



    iTunes 4 used the old API.



    From what I can see, iTunes 5 uses the new one. It's still Carbon, but a heck of a lot cleaner. That's the major change under the hood in iTunes that warrants a new major build number.



    If they'd stuck with the old API, it wouldn't have.



    See the difference?




    I agree with you about most of that. All I'm saying is that it is QT that recieved the major hpgrade. no other programs were given a full number designation because they use it, that had only minor changes to the programs themselves EXCEPT iTunes.



    Therefore iTunes doesn't deserve to go to 5. Unless the 5 has nothing at all to do with it, and is just there to fit in with iLife 5, as I and someone else said.



    That would be purely a marketing decision, as it wouldn't indicate major additions or changes to the program.
  • Reply 111 of 162
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    *beats forehead against wall*



    That's because the other apps didn't migrate to the new API.



    QT7 includes both APIs. Old apps continue to use the old ones = no change to app = no change to version number. Maybe a tweak was needed, but that was all = minor build or bug fix bump. This is one of the great things about dynamic libraries and frameworks - upgrade the guts, and apps get a boost for free. Until the API changes.



    *If* an app that previously used the old API migrates to the new API, that *is* a big deal. It justifies a major build number change. That seems to be the case with iTunes 5.0, from what I can tell.



    If they had left iTunes using the old QT APIs then yes, it would not have justified a major build increment.



    It's like the Carbon -> Cocoa move. An app can remain Carbon, and Apple can update the Carbon libraries without the app having to change = no version number increase for the app. Or, the developer can move to a new API, like Cocoa, and justify a completely new major build number because the underlying code has changed substantially. While the QT APIs haven't changed *that* much, it's still not peanuts.



    QT got a major build increase because *it* changed substantially under the hood, iTunes got a major build increase because *it* changed substantially under the hood. The two bumps are independent, except that iTunes happens to use QT7 and the new API. iTunes didn't get a bump because QT7 was released, iTunes got a bump because it substantially changed under the hood.
  • Reply 112 of 162
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    It's so funny when geeks argue.
  • Reply 113 of 162
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Not nearly as funny as when we party.
  • Reply 114 of 162
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Not nearly as funny as when we party.



    Is that what you call it?
  • Reply 115 of 162
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Alrighty, I *refuse* to get into a meta-argument with you about partying.
  • Reply 116 of 162
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    On the surface, this was a tweak.



    Under the hood, it signified a shift to QuickTime 7.




    Not sure I understand that "shift" since iTunes 5 runs on systems with QuickTime 6.
  • Reply 117 of 162
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jasenj1

    Yeah. One of the arguments in favor of Apple back in the day was their user interface guidelines and the research they did to develop them. Now Apple seems to make up the UI as they go along and violate whatever "principles" they feel. Sure, the UI is still "slick" and "lickable", but it really feels like they're losing sight of something.



    With this new GUI of the week approach, why can't they develop a skinnable UI and let us users have some of the fun too?



    - Jasen.




    Because most "users" have absolutely no taste whatsoever Other than voting with their money and purchasing Apple products of course It's a joke, calm down.



    If you insist, there's always ShapeShifter. It is your machine and you have the right to change the currently schizophrenic melty-chromed-random elegance, to whatever crayola paradigm makes you the happiest.
  • Reply 118 of 162
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sjk

    Not sure I understand that "shift" since iTunes 5 runs on systems with QuickTime 6.



    Does it? *checks on Apple*



    BWAHAHAHAHA



    Apparently what I was seeing was possibly detritus from the Windows code, which *DOES* require QT7.0.2. The Mac version only requires 6.5.2.



    Nevermind. mel, you're right, I haven't a clue why they bumped it to 5. This should have been 4.10 from a feature point of view.
  • Reply 119 of 162
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Does it? *checks on Apple*



    BWAHAHAHAHA



    Apparently what I was seeing was possibly detritus from the Windows code, which *DOES* require QT7.0.2. The Mac version only requires 6.5.2.



    Nevermind. mel, you're right, I haven't a clue why they bumped it to 5. This should have been 4.10 from a feature point of view.




    Then again, the "out of the box number experience" counts.

    iLife5 == iTunes5, no?
  • Reply 120 of 162
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,150member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Does it? *checks on Apple*



    BWAHAHAHAHA



    Apparently what I was seeing was possibly detritus from the Windows code, which *DOES* require QT7.0.2. The Mac version only requires 6.5.2.



    Nevermind. mel, you're right, I haven't a clue why they bumped it to 5. This should have been 4.10 from a feature point of view.




    Being that I don't gloat...
Sign In or Register to comment.