It's trivial to make a program performing well if all that is displayed is text and one image at a time
Can't you just realize that lots of people choose their software solutions with the intent of making certain tasks done;
Can't you just realize that lots of people choose their software solutions with the intent of making certain tasks done; not as a weapon in an ideological war?
I don't push anything. I just explain why I find iTunes to be the best choice for my needs, and defend those who don't want to use time doing things manually, if they're easily managed by software in the background.
Other applications can do some of what iTunes do, but then I need several applications to do it all. Which would mean I have to waste time switching between apps, choosing what apps to use for each task,
and generally waste time on tasks that could have been managed automatically in the background.
What is wrong with using many single purpose apps? With this setup, one can choose the best of the breed for each task. I firmly believe in the KISS principle and the Unix philosophy:
These principles are indeed worthy of respect, but I wonder (this is a genuine question) to what extent and in what way they are applicable now.
Would we do that now? We might, but we'd probably prefer a graphical front end controlling the different small programs, at least.
Flat text files would be wonderful; but some of the data we manipulate on the desktop (or, indeed, on the pocket device) just wouldn't work, would it? Would flat text files for music or photographs be possible (probably yes) or efficient (presumably not).
I think that both the kind of things we do with computers and the population of users have expanded so much that the classic Unix mode is really now a part of the past that we can admire and enjoy, like Gregorian chant, but not live with everyday.
And perhaps the problem with iTunes on Windows is a result of something like the application of the Unix philosophy. iTunes, I'm told, is a front end for various services, rather than a monolithic app.
And then, of course, as a counter-example from the classical age, there is Emacs.
Apple updater still tries to trojan-horse Safari and MobileMe by checking them by default when running an update.
FWIW Google includes Chrome when one tries to download Google Earth. The option can be disabled, but is enabled by default.
True, O Sage
but I was thinking more of the people on the street than the wizard in his lair.
Edit: I was replying to #158, not #161. But I can remember the first time I telnetted to the catalogue of the Library of the English Faculty at Oxford--never had such a thrill since, I could imagine myself reaching out through the cables. Ah me, those WERE the days.
To mimic grid view (or whatever it is called in iTunes) with album covers you can try EsPlaylist
...to me it's so bloated media management system with shiny kids features that I can't imagine anyone using it except if confined with other Apple products.......I buy CDs or purchase at artists portals...
I don't think so - to me it's so bloated media management system with shiny kids features that I can't imagine anyone using it except if confined with other Apple products. But even then I can imagine other solutions
While discussing replication: Can you replicate Facets concept in iTunes?
After your edit you could also delete your post, instead showing your useless bitterness upon my opinion on iTunesI did not insult anybody, nor selling anything, nor care if you use it and fail in providing example functionality I asked
So if Amazon decided to make a media player then it would be ok. Last time I checked you had to install software from Apple if you wanted to buy something from the iTunes store, or have I been dreaming all this time
Before you respond, take a moment and consider that iTunes is a massive program. For those using Windows it installs system-level drivers. Its installation includes at least 4 separate programs (beating your Amazon comparison by one). Speaking of Amazon, what are the other two programs, your web browser and what else?
As far as tracks only available on iTunes, one thing is for certain, they weren't performed by the Beatles.