How did this turn into a discussion about frame-rates? All I know is that our friend started bitching about the good parts of iTunes. It's a bit like saying, you know, Lord of the Rings movie, it has all the good elements of the books. Sheesh, who woulda thought.
The transfer of the good stuff from the Mac to Windows is therefore a GOOD thing.
As for installing it on my work peecee, I came close to weeping with joy and relief. It is a perfect port of a pretty damn good product. Nuff said on that.
However, let's talk about what's still missing in iTunes that we would have really liked. . . .
- Links to reviews and descriptions of music.
- Lyrics to songs available.
- Improved consistency on song / album available. Anyone tired of 'partial' albums?
- Recommendations based on listening / purchasing behaviour.
Funny how you only defended that point and none of ur other original points. Just goes to show how wrong you are.
OK bloke, go ahead and show me how to play WMA with iTunes. Why should i "defend" things that noone up to now has proven wrong?
And obviously you are a kid that has never suffered through the Word 6 days, else you would know what I mean by ass-sucking ports that disregard the platform native UI.
Just installed it on my PC (Sony Vaio laptop). iTunes for Windows simply rocks! Apple have delivered IMO. The only small 'issue' I can see on the OS integration side is that the Windows maximise button doesnt maximise the Window but rather produce the iTunes mini-remote. I can see this raising a few eyebrows on the Windows side and being a bit confusing at first. But it is a minor point.
OK bloke, go ahead and show me how to play WMA with iTunes. Why should i "defend" things that noone up to now has proven wrong?
And obviously you are a kid that has never suffered through the Word 6 days, else you would know what I mean by ass-sucking ports that disregard the platform native UI.
You've already been proven wrong about the crappy port part of ur argument by various members of this forum in this thread.
WMA support is not there because wma simply SUCK. Any audiophile will tell you how much fidelity WMA lacks. I'm not a kid and i didn't suffer through word 6 UI problems simply becuase i USED CLARIS WORKS
Maybe I missed it, but no one has mentioned WHY iTunes is 19mb for Win. Could it be perhaps because it INCLUDES Quicktime 6.4? Hrrmmm yesss? Methinks one needs to read the "Windows Requirements" on the download page before criticizing on installer size. Pretty damn good for QT 6.4 + iTunes 4.1 if you ask me.
As for the UI, the originator of this thread should really open up WMP in XP and show me what frickin' UI guidelines THAT adheres to? Riiiiight. I think adding OS X widgets in there was a nice touch to say "hey look its an Mac app on Windows".
Also when you take into account that iTunes for Win has to interface with the look of the iTMS, WinXP scrollbars and arrows would look very out of place and slapped on. Why ugly up a good thing? Not to mention it might be considered subtle advertising for potential switchers
Is no WMA support any big surprise? Apple is pushing its "open" media standards and they are not on the Windows platform to generously give them a cool music app, they are there to sell iTMS. Plain and simple. Supporting WMA is counter-productive to that agenda with all the competing music download services cropping up. Duh.
You've already been proven wrong about the crappy port part of ur argument by various members of this forum in this thread.
You mean by platform bigots who have never had any contact with the Windows UI guidelines? Yeah, right.
Quote:
WMA support is not there because wma simply SUCK. Any audiophile will tell you how much fidelity WMA lacks.
I have yet so meet an audiophile who would listen to mp3 or AAC for that matter...
Those I have met are unhappy with CDs and prefer DVD-A.
Quote:
I'm not a kid and i didn't suffer through word 6 UI problems simply becuase i USED CLARIS WORKS
Dude, this is exactly what I am saying. You know shit about how bad the Word 6 port was because you did not have to use it. A lot of Windows die-hards will not touch iTunes with a six-foot pole, because it is a Mac-app running on windows, not a windows port.
It's always amusing to see how the same people who cry foul murder if an application on their OS has a windowsian look-and-feel are completely incapable to transfer this to how users on other platforms might feel.
Just installed it on my PC (Sony Vaio laptop). iTunes for Windows simply rocks! Apple have delivered IMO. The only small 'issue' I can see on the OS integration side is that the Windows maximise button doesnt maximise the Window but rather produce the iTunes mini-remote. I can see this raising a few eyebrows on the Windows side and being a bit confusing at first. But it is a minor point.
Apple breaks its own GUI guidelines on the Mac OS X side as well, so at least they don't discriminate...
Smircle, if Windows has UI guidelines, would you please point them out to us? Windows applications are so inconsistent that it's hard to tell what's right and wrong. I swear every media app I've ever used (not to mention every system utility, firewall and internet "protection" app) has a different type of UI. It's crazy. At least iTunes is well thought out.
You mean by platform bigots who have never had any contact with the Windows UI guidelines? Yeah, right.
That's right ... you're the only person here who uses both Apple and Windows machines.
Answer the previous post, by dviant, regarding WMP.
Perhaps WMP doesn't automatically fail your 'UI guidelines' because it was programmed by Microsoft and as such becomes a defacto 'guideline'? I'm sure that's the line you'll take.
It's always amusing to see how the same people who cry foul murder if an application on their OS has a windowsian look-and-feel are completely incapable to transfer this to how users on other platforms might feel.
You obviously don't get it. iTunes isn't meant to fit seamlessly into the windows environment. It's basicly a way to show off Apple technology and design. Besides, you'' find that P.C. users don;t give a crap what the app looks like. That's why they're still using the P.C. platform.
Too bad they couldn't make it do a "Genie Effect" when minimized to the tas bar ... that would rock.
Answer the previous post, by dviant, regarding WMP.
Perhaps WMP doesn't automatically fail your 'UI guidelines' because it was programmed by Microsoft and as such becomes a defacto 'guideline'? I'm sure that's the line you'll take.
I always thought Apple prided itself of a better understandig of the importance of UI guidelines than MS?
Just choose the "classic" skin in WMP and tell me what you see. Oh, you never knew there was such a thing as configurable skins in WMP? Too bad, but just do me a favor and show me where I can select a "classic" skin in iTunes...
I always thought Apple prided itself of a better understandig of the importance of UI guidelines than MS?
Just choose the "classic" skin in WMP and tell me what you see. Oh, you never knew there was such a thing as configurable skins in WMP? Too bad, but just do me a favor and show me where I can select a "classic" skin in iTunes...
You're fairly condescending and annoying, huh?
If Microsoft were so concerned about UI look-and-feel, they would have made the classic skin the default.
You'd better stop using Quicktime on Windows, as the UI Guidelines are being ignored. Uninstall Winamp, too, while you're at it. Actually, I'm sure you'll be able to clear yourself a chunk of hard drive space by removing all of your software that doesn't follow the guidelines.
The brushed metal interface is a function of 'branding'. Live with it.
The only platform bigot here is you SMIRCLE. You've clearly demonstrated that with your uninformed comments.
REAL player - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
MUSIC MATCH - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
WINAMP - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
U can name THOUSANDS of apps that ignore the windows UI.
As for your audiophile comment I've met audiophiles who are satisfied with high bit rate AAC files and High bit rate MP3 files. If you don't believe me u can head on over to AVS forums and you can find them there. You'll also find those people complaining about WMA files fidelity problems.
Comments
The transfer of the good stuff from the Mac to Windows is therefore a GOOD thing.
As for installing it on my work peecee, I came close to weeping with joy and relief. It is a perfect port of a pretty damn good product. Nuff said on that.
However, let's talk about what's still missing in iTunes that we would have really liked. . . .
- Links to reviews and descriptions of music.
- Lyrics to songs available.
- Improved consistency on song / album available. Anyone tired of 'partial' albums?
- Recommendations based on listening / purchasing behaviour.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by O and A
Funny how you only defended that point and none of ur other original points. Just goes to show how wrong you are.
OK bloke, go ahead and show me how to play WMA with iTunes. Why should i "defend" things that noone up to now has proven wrong?
And obviously you are a kid that has never suffered through the Word 6 days, else you would know what I mean by ass-sucking ports that disregard the platform native UI.
Originally posted by Ti Fighter
I installed it on a 1ghz celeron Dell el chepo machine with 2K and it resizes worse than a 233hmz imac running OSX 10.1
I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you're using celery as a processor....I mean celeron.
The app runs great on my Athlon XP 2600.
Originally posted by kumrabai
However, let's talk about what's still missing in iTunes that we would have really liked. . . .
An option that makes the collapsed window float above all other windows.
Here is a screenshot of the win version:
http://www.julian-vieth.de/itunes.jpg
Originally posted by Smircle
An option that makes the collapsed window float above all other windows.
this is a must!
Originally posted by Smircle
OK bloke, go ahead and show me how to play WMA with iTunes. Why should i "defend" things that noone up to now has proven wrong?
And obviously you are a kid that has never suffered through the Word 6 days, else you would know what I mean by ass-sucking ports that disregard the platform native UI.
You've already been proven wrong about the crappy port part of ur argument by various members of this forum in this thread.
WMA support is not there because wma simply SUCK. Any audiophile will tell you how much fidelity WMA lacks. I'm not a kid and i didn't suffer through word 6 UI problems simply becuase i USED CLARIS WORKS
As for the UI, the originator of this thread should really open up WMP in XP and show me what frickin' UI guidelines THAT adheres to? Riiiiight. I think adding OS X widgets in there was a nice touch to say "hey look its an Mac app on Windows".
Also when you take into account that iTunes for Win has to interface with the look of the iTMS, WinXP scrollbars and arrows would look very out of place and slapped on. Why ugly up a good thing? Not to mention it might be considered subtle advertising for potential switchers
Is no WMA support any big surprise? Apple is pushing its "open" media standards and they are not on the Windows platform to generously give them a cool music app, they are there to sell iTMS. Plain and simple. Supporting WMA is counter-productive to that agenda with all the competing music download services cropping up. Duh.
Better luck next time Smircle-troll....
Originally posted by O and A
You've already been proven wrong about the crappy port part of ur argument by various members of this forum in this thread.
You mean by platform bigots who have never had any contact with the Windows UI guidelines? Yeah, right.
WMA support is not there because wma simply SUCK. Any audiophile will tell you how much fidelity WMA lacks.
I have yet so meet an audiophile who would listen to mp3 or AAC for that matter...
Those I have met are unhappy with CDs and prefer DVD-A.
I'm not a kid and i didn't suffer through word 6 UI problems simply becuase i USED CLARIS WORKS
Dude, this is exactly what I am saying. You know shit about how bad the Word 6 port was because you did not have to use it. A lot of Windows die-hards will not touch iTunes with a six-foot pole, because it is a Mac-app running on windows, not a windows port.
It's always amusing to see how the same people who cry foul murder if an application on their OS has a windowsian look-and-feel are completely incapable to transfer this to how users on other platforms might feel.
Originally posted by musicaltone
Just installed it on my PC (Sony Vaio laptop). iTunes for Windows simply rocks! Apple have delivered IMO. The only small 'issue' I can see on the OS integration side is that the Windows maximise button doesnt maximise the Window but rather produce the iTunes mini-remote. I can see this raising a few eyebrows on the Windows side and being a bit confusing at first. But it is a minor point.
Apple breaks its own GUI guidelines on the Mac OS X side as well, so at least they don't discriminate...
Originally posted by Smircle
You mean by platform bigots who have never had any contact with the Windows UI guidelines? Yeah, right.
That's right ... you're the only person here who uses both Apple and Windows machines.
Answer the previous post, by dviant, regarding WMP.
Perhaps WMP doesn't automatically fail your 'UI guidelines' because it was programmed by Microsoft and as such becomes a defacto 'guideline'? I'm sure that's the line you'll take.
Originally posted by Smircle
It's always amusing to see how the same people who cry foul murder if an application on their OS has a windowsian look-and-feel are completely incapable to transfer this to how users on other platforms might feel.
You obviously don't get it. iTunes isn't meant to fit seamlessly into the windows environment. It's basicly a way to show off Apple technology and design. Besides, you'' find that P.C. users don;t give a crap what the app looks like. That's why they're still using the P.C. platform.
Too bad they couldn't make it do a "Genie Effect" when minimized to the tas bar ... that would rock.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Answer the previous post, by dviant, regarding WMP.
Perhaps WMP doesn't automatically fail your 'UI guidelines' because it was programmed by Microsoft and as such becomes a defacto 'guideline'? I'm sure that's the line you'll take.
I always thought Apple prided itself of a better understandig of the importance of UI guidelines than MS?
Just choose the "classic" skin in WMP and tell me what you see. Oh, you never knew there was such a thing as configurable skins in WMP? Too bad, but just do me a favor and show me where I can select a "classic" skin in iTunes...
Originally posted by the cool gut
Besides, you'' find that P.C. users don;t give a crap what the app looks like. That's why they're still using the P.C. platform.
This is so false, but thanks again for underscoring my point re: ignorant platform bigots
Originally posted by Smircle
This is so false, but thanks again for underscoring my point re: ignorant platform bigots
Actually, I just threw that line in to piss you off. Glad it worked.
Originally posted by Smircle
I always thought Apple prided itself of a better understandig of the importance of UI guidelines than MS?
Just choose the "classic" skin in WMP and tell me what you see. Oh, you never knew there was such a thing as configurable skins in WMP? Too bad, but just do me a favor and show me where I can select a "classic" skin in iTunes...
You're fairly condescending and annoying, huh?
If Microsoft were so concerned about UI look-and-feel, they would have made the classic skin the default.
You'd better stop using Quicktime on Windows, as the UI Guidelines are being ignored. Uninstall Winamp, too, while you're at it. Actually, I'm sure you'll be able to clear yourself a chunk of hard drive space by removing all of your software that doesn't follow the guidelines.
The brushed metal interface is a function of 'branding'. Live with it.
REAL player - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
MUSIC MATCH - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
WINAMP - DOESN'T USE WINDOWS STANDARD UI
U can name THOUSANDS of apps that ignore the windows UI.
As for your audiophile comment I've met audiophiles who are satisfied with high bit rate AAC files and High bit rate MP3 files. If you don't believe me u can head on over to AVS forums and you can find them there. You'll also find those people complaining about WMA files fidelity problems.