I mentioned earlier the photoshop mockup that I'd made a few months ago of iTunes using the Mail.app look... Well, I've uploaded it to my iDisk and you can have a look at it here. It's quite a bit different now I look at them side by side. I'd missed a few controls out, and the grey gradient in iTunes is much darker than the unified toolbar look in Tiger, for instance. Interesting, nonetheless.
I've been using the Windows version at work today, and it looks quite a bit more cluttered than the Mac one thanks to the menu cramping the toolbar area.
A few items on my wishlist for v5.1:On the search bar, only show me filter options for things I have in my library. I don't have any videos or booklets, so don't show those options!!! Move the volume control back where it was - it was so much tidier! Have an option for whether Podcasts show up in the main Library or not. That way we can leave Podcasts in their own section.
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
I think I prefer you're look- you're buttons are quite cool.
You can still burn CDs with no gaps between songs.
And the reason the search bar doesn't resize is because it would become too small to write in.
iTunes uses QuickTime for all of its encoding and decoding.
QuickTime is, despite what some people will try and tell you, open to expansion by anybody willing to write a plug-in. All apps that use QuickTime will then be able to import and export in that format. Including iTunes.
The OSS community that keeps touting the wonders of open source needs to get off their arses and write the plug-ins, instead of waiting for Apple to do it. All the tools, documentation, and APIs are free.
So, like, get to it.
There was an OGG component going around as I had a few OGG files that I converted using iTunes. My belief is that it stopped working with the release of QT7, but the component was years old with no more work being done on it.
edit: Not the component I had, but seemingly one that is now in open beta, so is being worked on is Ogg Drop, which contains an ogg QT component.
edit 2: Well I can't find the ogg QT component in that app. And although iTunes adds the track, upon playing it crashes.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
And the reason the search bar doesn't resize is because it would become too small to write in.
I meant the actual bar, not the search field.
Initiate a search, and then resize the window: options in the fancy new bar exit stage right. If you already have a small iTunes window (12" screen, don't need window at maximum size, whatever) and try to search, you are never going to see all the available variables. Finder displays the same behaviour in search windows; there is nothing to indicate that stretching the window reveals more options. No scroll-bar, no slider, no arrow, nothing.
I meant the actual bar, not the search field.
Initiate a search, and then resize the window: options in the fancy new bar exit stage right. If you already have a small iTunes window (12" screen, don't need window at maximum size, whatever) and try to search, you are never going to see all the available variables. Finder displays the same behaviour in search windows; there is nothing to indicate that stretching the window reveals more options. No scroll-bar, no slider, no arrow, nothing.
oh, that's awful - they really do need to work on these things. The same happens in the Finder.
Re the DJ mix thing, I was actually talking about gapless encoding and playback. Ripping a mix CD, and then burning it to a CD to listening to it gapless? not really ideal! Surely this is taking the micky, how you you justify not having this as part of the programme? around 30% of the music I have is on mix CD's, and thus 30% of my music ruined by itunes.
There's no excuse for this as far as I'm concerned. Its like putting gaps between each different shot of a movie and having audio drop out between. Can someone PLEASE explain to why gapless encoding a playback is such a difficult thing to achive?!? you can make look of intunes pink polka dot for all I care, just sort this out!!!
Re the DJ mix thing, I was actually talking about gapless encoding and playback. Ripping a mix CD, and then burning it to a CD to listening to it gapless? not really ideal! Surely this is taking the micky, how you you justify not having this as part of the programme? around 30% of the music I have is on mix CD's, and thus 30% of my music ruined by itunes.
There's no excuse for this as far as I'm concerned. Its like putting gaps between each different shot of a movie and having audio drop out between. Can someone PLEASE explain to why gapless encoding a playback is such a difficult thing to achive?!? you can make look of intunes pink polka dot for all I care, just sort this out!!!
Grr...
in itunes you can use crossfade - or import as one track, they do need to fix it for the iPod.
I too own many mix cd's and have never had this problem.
I reccomend using crossfade playback AND putting the crossfade playback to 0 seconds.
This then loads the next tune before the tune playing has finished and therefore has no gaps. This wll also make sure that the tunes do not get clipped.
Ipods are different. however. my 2nd generation ipod couldn't do this sadly. neither can my suffle...
in itunes you can use crossfade - or import as one track, they do need to fix it for the iPod.
That is not what he is talking about.. everything is perfect when you playback within itunes but burning is the problem. That is what he is talking about.. not playing withing itunes, but burning. Even if you set a crossfade within itunes, it does not burn your songs that way.
How hard is it to clone and playback an album as is?!?!?!?!
Another problem, with no really good solution, is that many CDs have audio between tracks which really aren't part of the tracks themselves. This get's dropped when you import a CD into iTunes.
See how tight the top margin is? That's just wrong, IMHO. And the window controls are dinky.
And the titlebarless paradigm falls apart the second you enter a dialog box - like preferences - those are standard Windows UI components.
- Jasen.
Windows breaks their own UI rules with MSN messenger and Media Player, if you were using the default font and size you would notice a big improvement - it takes up less space and gives users more information so I'm sure the majority will appreciate the change.
iLife members to match all others makes plenty sense.
It is da logic, dude
Also what were they going to call it - iTunes 4.9.1? or 4.95? 5 makes more sense as you can also distinguish between versions - 5 represents the end of brushed metal.
Also what were they going to call it - iTunes 4.9.1? or 4.95? 5 makes more sense as you can also distinguish between versions - 5 represents the end of brushed metal.
4.10, duh. It's not a decimal number. You can have 4.427 if you want, and it's the 427th minor version of major build 4.
Why does everyone get so confused about this?? I mean, obviously 10.4.2 isn't a decimal number, since it has *TWO* decimal points. So why does anyone assume that it follows the rules of decimal math??
*shakes head*
Again, for the those just joining the class...
Build numbers are given in the form X.Y.Z.
X is major build: major changes to the UI or under the hood code base
Y is minor build: new features
Z is bugfix: fixes bugs, *might* include minor new features
The three numbers are independent of one another.
It's iTunes 5 because a) the UI changed. Not a lot though, and it's more because of b) it uses QuickTime 7, which is a pretty big bump. iTunes 5 on Windows == QT7 on Windows == H.264 on Windows. Prepping the masses for the video revolution. Muahahahaha.
On Windows, my iTunes title bar doesn't have the name "iTunes" squished up against the very top edge of the window like you show in your screen shot. Perhaps iTunes simply isn't dealing very well with your chosen desktop theme, or personal variations thereof in Display Properties/Appearance? Your window title seems to be in a larger font size than mine.
4.10, duh. It's not a decimal number. You can have 4.427 if you want, and it's the 427th minor version of major build 4.
Why does everyone get so confused about this?? I mean, obviously 10.4.2 isn't a decimal number, since it has *TWO* decimal points. So why does anyone assume that it follows the rules of decimal math??
*shakes head*
Again, for the those just joining the class...
Build numbers are given in the form X.Y.Z.
X is major build: major changes to the UI or under the hood code base
Y is minor build: new features
Z is bugfix: fixes bugs, *might* include minor new features
The three numbers are independent of one another.
right, but if you called it 4.10 it would seem to most people like a downgrade and confuse people - because of the way decimals work. It makes more sense to call it iTunes 5 - anyway it has a new look so a major revision number makes more sense.
right, but if you called it 4.10 it would seem to most people like a downgrade and confuse people - because of the way decimals work.
Then they're idiots.
Sorry, it's not a decimal number. Period. End of story. If someone can't wrap their brain around that, they really should back away from the keyboard and sell the overly complex piece of electronics they bought.
Mediocrity is never a good reason to change a rational system.
Comments
Originally posted by Arnel
I mentioned earlier the photoshop mockup that I'd made a few months ago of iTunes using the Mail.app look... Well, I've uploaded it to my iDisk and you can have a look at it here. It's quite a bit different now I look at them side by side. I'd missed a few controls out, and the grey gradient in iTunes is much darker than the unified toolbar look in Tiger, for instance. Interesting, nonetheless.
I've been using the Windows version at work today, and it looks quite a bit more cluttered than the Mac one thanks to the menu cramping the toolbar area.
A few items on my wishlist for v5.1:On the search bar, only show me filter options for things I have in my library. I don't have any videos or booklets, so don't show those options!!!
Move the volume control back where it was - it was so much tidier!
Have an option for whether Podcasts show up in the main Library or not. That way we can leave Podcasts in their own section.
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
I think I prefer you're look- you're buttons are quite cool.
You can still burn CDs with no gaps between songs.
And the reason the search bar doesn't resize is because it would become too small to write in.
Originally posted by Kickaha
iTunes uses QuickTime for all of its encoding and decoding.
QuickTime is, despite what some people will try and tell you, open to expansion by anybody willing to write a plug-in. All apps that use QuickTime will then be able to import and export in that format. Including iTunes.
The OSS community that keeps touting the wonders of open source needs to get off their arses and write the plug-ins, instead of waiting for Apple to do it. All the tools, documentation, and APIs are free.
So, like, get to it.
There was an OGG component going around as I had a few OGG files that I converted using iTunes. My belief is that it stopped working with the release of QT7, but the component was years old with no more work being done on it.
edit: Not the component I had, but seemingly one that is now in open beta, so is being worked on is Ogg Drop, which contains an ogg QT component.
edit 2: Well I can't find the ogg QT component in that app. And although iTunes adds the track, upon playing it crashes.
Originally posted by MacCrazy And the reason the search bar doesn't resize is because it would become too small to write in.
I meant the actual bar, not the search field. Initiate a search, and then resize the window: options in the fancy new bar exit stage right. If you already have a small iTunes window (12" screen, don't need window at maximum size, whatever) and try to search, you are never going to see all the available variables. Finder displays the same behaviour in search windows; there is nothing to indicate that stretching the window reveals more options. No scroll-bar, no slider, no arrow, nothing.
Originally posted by leethomson
I meant the actual bar, not the search field. Initiate a search, and then resize the window: options in the fancy new bar exit stage right. If you already have a small iTunes window (12" screen, don't need window at maximum size, whatever) and try to search, you are never going to see all the available variables. Finder displays the same behaviour in search windows; there is nothing to indicate that stretching the window reveals more options. No scroll-bar, no slider, no arrow, nothing.
oh, that's awful - they really do need to work on these things. The same happens in the Finder.
There's no excuse for this as far as I'm concerned. Its like putting gaps between each different shot of a movie and having audio drop out between. Can someone PLEASE explain to why gapless encoding a playback is such a difficult thing to achive?!? you can make look of intunes pink polka dot for all I care, just sort this out!!!
Grr...
Originally posted by fosman
Re the DJ mix thing, I was actually talking about gapless encoding and playback. Ripping a mix CD, and then burning it to a CD to listening to it gapless? not really ideal! Surely this is taking the micky, how you you justify not having this as part of the programme? around 30% of the music I have is on mix CD's, and thus 30% of my music ruined by itunes.
There's no excuse for this as far as I'm concerned. Its like putting gaps between each different shot of a movie and having audio drop out between. Can someone PLEASE explain to why gapless encoding a playback is such a difficult thing to achive?!? you can make look of intunes pink polka dot for all I care, just sort this out!!!
Grr...
in itunes you can use crossfade - or import as one track, they do need to fix it for the iPod.
Importing as one track is, well, dumb!
How hard is it to clone and playback an album as is?!?!?!?!
I reccomend using crossfade playback AND putting the crossfade playback to 0 seconds.
This then loads the next tune before the tune playing has finished and therefore has no gaps. This wll also make sure that the tunes do not get clipped.
Ipods are different. however. my 2nd generation ipod couldn't do this sadly. neither can my suffle...
hope that helps,
niall
Originally posted by Fox Hound
can anyone put a screen shot on of itunes 5 of window. to show us mac userly how much better ours looks.
thanks
As you wish.
See how tight the top margin is? That's just wrong, IMHO. And the window controls are dinky.
And the titlebarless paradigm falls apart the second you enter a dialog box - like preferences - those are standard Windows UI components.
- Jasen.
Originally posted by jasenj1
See how tight the top margin is? That's just wrong, IMHO.
I agree. Just too damn ugly.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
in itunes you can use crossfade - or import as one track, they do need to fix it for the iPod.
That is not what he is talking about.. everything is perfect when you playback within itunes but burning is the problem. That is what he is talking about.. not playing withing itunes, but burning. Even if you set a crossfade within itunes, it does not burn your songs that way.
Originally posted by fosman
crossfade clips tracks.
Importing as one track is, well, dumb!
How hard is it to clone and playback an album as is?!?!?!?!
Another problem, with no really good solution, is that many CDs have audio between tracks which really aren't part of the tracks themselves. This get's dropped when you import a CD into iTunes.
Originally posted by jasenj1
As you wish.
See how tight the top margin is? That's just wrong, IMHO. And the window controls are dinky.
And the titlebarless paradigm falls apart the second you enter a dialog box - like preferences - those are standard Windows UI components.
- Jasen.
Windows breaks their own UI rules with MSN messenger and Media Player, if you were using the default font and size you would notice a big improvement - it takes up less space and gives users more information so I'm sure the majority will appreciate the change.
Anyway iTunes looks gorgeous on the Mac
Originally posted by melgross
Nice update. Not sure it deserves being given a "5" designation.
They sell iTunes 4.x.x in a box called iLife5.
Kinda applelogic;-)
Finally changing the version number of one of its
iLife members to match all others makes plenty sense.
It is da logic, dude
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
They sell iTunes 4.x.x in a box called iLife5.
Kinda applelogic;-)
Finally changing the version number of one of its
iLife members to match all others makes plenty sense.
It is da logic, dude
Also what were they going to call it - iTunes 4.9.1? or 4.95? 5 makes more sense as you can also distinguish between versions - 5 represents the end of brushed metal.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Also what were they going to call it - iTunes 4.9.1? or 4.95? 5 makes more sense as you can also distinguish between versions - 5 represents the end of brushed metal.
4.10, duh. It's not a decimal number. You can have 4.427 if you want, and it's the 427th minor version of major build 4.
Why does everyone get so confused about this?? I mean, obviously 10.4.2 isn't a decimal number, since it has *TWO* decimal points. So why does anyone assume that it follows the rules of decimal math??
*shakes head*
Again, for the those just joining the class...
Build numbers are given in the form X.Y.Z.
X is major build: major changes to the UI or under the hood code base
Y is minor build: new features
Z is bugfix: fixes bugs, *might* include minor new features
The three numbers are independent of one another.
It's iTunes 5 because a) the UI changed. Not a lot though, and it's more because of b) it uses QuickTime 7, which is a pretty big bump. iTunes 5 on Windows == QT7 on Windows == H.264 on Windows. Prepping the masses for the video revolution. Muahahahaha.
Originally posted by jasenj1
On Windows, my iTunes title bar doesn't have the name "iTunes" squished up against the very top edge of the window like you show in your screen shot. Perhaps iTunes simply isn't dealing very well with your chosen desktop theme, or personal variations thereof in Display Properties/Appearance? Your window title seems to be in a larger font size than mine.
Originally posted by Kickaha
4.10, duh. It's not a decimal number. You can have 4.427 if you want, and it's the 427th minor version of major build 4.
Why does everyone get so confused about this?? I mean, obviously 10.4.2 isn't a decimal number, since it has *TWO* decimal points. So why does anyone assume that it follows the rules of decimal math??
*shakes head*
Again, for the those just joining the class...
Build numbers are given in the form X.Y.Z.
X is major build: major changes to the UI or under the hood code base
Y is minor build: new features
Z is bugfix: fixes bugs, *might* include minor new features
The three numbers are independent of one another.
right, but if you called it 4.10 it would seem to most people like a downgrade and confuse people - because of the way decimals work. It makes more sense to call it iTunes 5 - anyway it has a new look so a major revision number makes more sense.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
right, but if you called it 4.10 it would seem to most people like a downgrade and confuse people - because of the way decimals work.
Then they're idiots.
Sorry, it's not a decimal number. Period. End of story. If someone can't wrap their brain around that, they really should back away from the keyboard and sell the overly complex piece of electronics they bought.
Mediocrity is never a good reason to change a rational system.