HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Validated News => Topic started by: Sylph on 2010-09-02 13:37:53

Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Sylph on 2010-09-02 13:37:53
Quote
· Introducing Ping. Use Ping to follow your favorite artists and friends or connect with the world's most passionate music fans. Discover the music everyone is talking about, listening to, and downloading.
· Rent HD TV episodes for just 99¢ each. Watch them on your Mac or PC, on-the-go with iPhone or iPod touch, or in your living room with the all new Apple TV.
· Play your favorites on the all new iPod touch, iPod nano, iPod shuffle, and Apple TV.
· Play music wirelessly with AirPlay on AirPlay-enabled speakers, home theater receivers, and iPod accessories.
· Explore many look-and-feel improvements throughout iTunes.
· Enjoy performance improvements which make iTunes faster and more responsive.
· Additional voice support with VoiceOver Kit for iPod.


DDL: http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/ (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/)

Home: http://www.apple.com/itunes/ (http://www.apple.com/itunes/)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-03 11:20:51
Yay!  I always wanted to integrate Twitter, Facebook, and the iTunes Store...  Oh wait, no I didn't.  The only improvement that I am liking is that iTunes 10 seems to run a little faster than the previous version on my system, that is it.  I could care less about all of that other stuff.  The iPod announcements were disappointing (though I like the hardware) in that the capacities I wanted weren't announced and the current max capacity for the iPod touch is way too expensive.  No iOS 4 for my iPad until November.  So, all-in-all, the only "new" feature that iTunes 10 brings, that I am using, is the increase in performance speed.  It isn't much (at least not like iTunes 4 or 6) but it is a whole lot better than what it was.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: probedb on 2010-09-03 13:18:58
Most of the stuff only applies to the US as well. You can't rent most of the content in the UK or even buy some of it.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: romor on 2010-09-03 13:43:52
Please don't take me wrong, but why is iTunes announced on main HA portal?
Aren't out there enough forums covering it, or may we expect WMP etc announcements?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-03 13:52:17
Well, it is "validated news", many people are enthusiastic about it, and it concern's audio technology. Only the hydrogen part doesn't seem to fit in just yet. The latter impression I have quite often...
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-03 14:57:02
Maybe the most important change (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/iTunes-10-addresses-13-security-vulnerabilities-1071135.html) in that new version hasn't been quoted above.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-03 15:10:15
Please don't take me wrong, but why is iTunes announced on main HA portal?

I admit that I am neither an Apple nor iTunes fan, but it is somehow disconcerting for me, that a new iTunes version is announced here but not the new foobar2000 1.1 ...
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-03 15:41:04
Please don't take me wrong, but why is iTunes announced on main HA portal?
So people can complain about how much they don't like it or don't like that it's in validated news?

Aren't out there enough forums covering it, or may we expect WMP etc announcements?
If a moderator or administrator feels it's worthy, then yes, absolutely.

I admit that I am neither an Apple nor iTunes fan, but it is somehow disconcerting for me, that a new iTunes version is announced here but not the new foobar2000 1.1 ...
No one is stopping you from making a submission, though I believe foobar2000 v1 is already here.

For those who are here to complain, look over what is in this forum.  If it is a major release and deemed of interest to our members it can go in validated news.

Further posts of this nature will be binned.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Whelkman on 2010-09-03 16:09:16
I'm fine with it. It's not like this is a high traffic area. Whether you personally prefer it or not, iTunes is a big deal in the audio realm.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: jimmy69 on 2010-09-08 01:55:03
Can't say I care about any of the new features, however I do welcome the performance improvements and iTunes renders fonts a little better as well as using same Windows fonts used throughout the rest of the OS, makes iTunes look that little bit more like a native Windows app.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Notat on 2010-09-08 02:47:14
I had ditch iTunes due to poor performance on Windows. Is it worth me having another look?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Light-Fire on 2010-09-08 04:21:55
It is not possible to enlarge album artwork in list view in iTunes 10, as it was possible in previous versions.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: jimmy69 on 2010-09-08 06:37:46
I had ditch iTunes due to poor performance on Windows. Is it worth me having another look?

iTunes 10 is faster then 9 but not by much.  Still if you want to just install it and give it a try, go nuts
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-08 06:41:33
Running it on a Mac for me it performance has improved 10 fold. I couldn't be happier with iTunes.

It's still by far the best app to organise your music.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-08 11:08:47
It's still by far the best app to organise your music.


That would be your preference. Me, I'm a man of humble needs, and get by with a bit of folder structure and a fairly light installation of FB2K.

Nonetheless, since it's been brought to my attention again, I might be willing to have a go. After all, going out to try new stuff is what landed me into the welcoming arms of Foobar in the first place.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Jens Rex on 2010-09-08 13:06:56
How to get rid of the stupid "traffic lights" on Mac, and restore normal title bar behaviour:

Code: [Select]
defaults write com.apple.iTunes full-window -int -1
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-08 16:22:08
I like iTunes and Foobar. In fact, I have both installed on my primary computer (a "high-end" PC notebook.) Actually my Foobar is the portable version and I use it a lot. Just not to organize my library for that computer.

Reading a few of the above comments: I don't understand the hatred for iTunes. It is bloated, but is this even a problem, even for Windows-users anymore?? What, are people still rocking 2 gigs of RAM for a Windows installation? I'm sure it will work great on even a Mac Mini Snow Leopard server with 2 Gb of RAM and base specs. (I'll find out soon enough.)

Apple is currently the only manufacturer offering a 160 Gb DAP (that is not huge) that I know of. That alone is enough for me. This mentality that "it's popular and all of the idiots are using it" isn't helpful or relevant. I won't be downloading music from the iTunes store, but that's my personal preference. I archive actual CDs as FLAC and convert them to ALAC for my DAP. I'm happy.

I'm also happy to see posts about new versions of iTunes. Thank you for that.

Do people actually think that F2k "sounds" better than iTunes or vice versa?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: JunkieXL on 2010-09-08 17:54:02
It's simply a matter of personal preferences.  Each of those apps has it's pros and cons for various people.

I use both FB2K and iTunes depending on what I'm doing.
JXL
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kiit on 2010-09-08 18:49:31
I like iTunes and Foobar. In fact, I have both installed on my primary computer (a "high-end" PC notebook.) Actually my Foobar is the portable version and I use it a lot. Just not to organize my library for that computer.

Reading a few of the above comments: I don't understand the hatred for iTunes. It is bloated, but is this even a problem, even for Windows-users anymore?? What, are people still rocking 2 gigs of RAM for a Windows installation? I'm sure it will work great on even a Mac Mini Snow Leopard server with 2 Gb of RAM and base specs. (I'll find out soon enough.)

'bloated'... more like stupidly immense, now your audio player becomes your 'social' service. That is over the top and deserves a whole new word for bloatedness.

It used to not even work right (rips+encodes), and honestly i still don't get the need some people have for 'libraries' of music, but hey, some developer wanted to be different so they included that 'feature' and the stupid music player is now your file manager and social service too apparently. Even foobar has that dumb 'file-manager masquerading as a 'library'' as an option. But it is optional in foobar, not on-all-the-time like iTunes and Windows Media Player.

That those things work and some people believe they are essential is another kudos to marketing.

Opinions tend to be opinionated *shrugs*. I hope my 'mini-rant' answered your question.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-08 18:53:05
People complaining iTunes is bloated just disable what you don't use. You can even do a custom install and select what you only use.

It can be as heavy oras light as you like.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: itisljar on 2010-09-08 19:10:23
Well, I use it a lot for copying music on iPod - I know there are other programs for that, but I am not really willing to run programs as administrator just to be able to copy album art.
The most significant change is that iTunes after copying my mp3s on iPod doesn't search for gapless information anymore in files on iPod.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-08 19:13:57
@Billytheonion's last reply:

Nonsense!

iTunes will still install all that crap even if you don't use it.  What's more it also installs its own drivers and other system files which have interfered with the operation of other programs on my system.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: itisljar on 2010-09-08 19:17:03
Greynol, it is possible, but it's not really legal, as you need to extract already compiled installation file.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dv1989 on 2010-09-08 19:18:59
Billy, you don’t have to defend Apple at every opportunity.

iTunes does come with a lot of crap enabled as default, which although able to be disabled in some cases, can just be annoying. Must we have to disable it all? And it doesn't allow simple drag'n'drop to the iPod (instead storing all media files on the device as seemingly randomly-chosen and cryptically named hidden folders*), doesn't support playing files unless they're added to the library (as just said), still stores personal information in purchased files (and DRM-encrypts videos), and features other restrictions, of which other users could probably provide much better examples.

And of said “crap”, a lot is this irritating stuff that chooses music or creates playlists for you automatically--because Apple assume people are too daft to think for themselves, perhaps?--and/or allows you to share your listening habits or follow those of others.

But colourful adverts with white-headphoned folk dancing around sell better than functionality and thinking for yourself. (I think it'll be Linux for me next time, in case anyone's not sure. )

* It does offer sane automatic “Media type/Artist/Album/nn. Title.ext” organisation of files on your computer, but drag'n'drop to device would be nice.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-08 19:25:22
I'm not just talking about Bonjour and the like, but the iTunes store, and the rest of the stuff used to make iTunes do "cool" things.  It's amazing how foobar2000 can do just about anything iTunes can do (and a whole lot more) at an order of magnitude less space.  That iTunes takes what seems like 20 seconds to start is beyond absurd.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-08 19:49:58
Okay, I don't think I'm going to try iTunes anymore.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-09 00:14:54
Twenty years ago, I hated the Mac and Mac users with a passionate intensity (I used to be involved in the administration of a mixed fleet of computers, in the early days of the personal computer). My first DAP was an iRiver H120. Now I find myself totally involved in the Mac/iPod/iPhone world.

I think iTunes on a Windows machine used just for managing music, especially for people who are used to computers, sounds like a doubtful idea. On a by now aging iMac, the performance is fine. I don't use the Genius feature, but I guess it's good for people wanting to explore popular music. Social networking is of zero value for me, but it doesn't seem to get in the way. The iTunes store works for me: I have only bought a very few tracks, but in New Zealand there aren't too many alternatives; it's great for managing the applications on my iPhone, and I bought an iPhone for the sake of a couple of dictionaries, only available electronically for that device.

For managing and transferring music, there is a new way of thinking involved. At first I found simple file and directory drag and drop more convenient and intuitive (though drag and drop has its problems when your hands are shaky); having got used to the iTunes way, it's all right. Not better, but all right. I would still prefer to organize my music on a properly designed folder structure, but I let iTunes organize my library when I first changed over, and it's so big now I'm too lazy to change it. It seems the iTunes way is OK for popular music, for which I do think of the Artist as first specifier, but not for other music, where Composer normally comes first. But no tagging system is really well organized for classical music.

I've never used iTunes on a Windows box, but from what I hear there have got to be better alternatives for just handling music. On a Mac, I have no intention of changing; I can't say I've noticed any gains with v. 10, and I actually prefer the old look, but the big win for me was in v. 9 with its option for transcoding on the fly when transferring to a mobile device (and I do know that that is available elsewhere).

One last comment: from time to time people have reported difficulty in getting to terms with the fb2k interface: reliably they are shouted down and told that the foobar interface is the easiest thing in the world, and you just have to <insert Linux-like technical directions here>. This suggest to me, who admire fb2k but have to go hunting for things, that there is a bit of a reality distortion field around some non-Apple stuff, too.

Given the dominance of the iPod in the DAP market, and the integration of iPods with iTunes to make life easy for civilians who are just interested in, you know, music, I'd have thought a major version release of iTunes rated a notice. The nerd may not use it, but is likely to be asked for help by a non-nerd.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-09 02:55:34
@Billytheonion's last reply:

Nonsense!

iTunes will still install all that crap even if you don't use it.  What's more it also installs it's own drivers and other system files which have interfered with the operation of other programs on my system.


When i install iTunes i can select custom install and deselect everything i don't want.

Only thing i can think of is the Windows version does not have this option ?

20 seconds to start up must be something wrong at your end. OS X or Windows 7 is very fast here.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-09 03:36:50
Those iTunes users who organize their media libraries on a NAS should be aware that iTunes 10 might make it impossible to access their audio files, possibly due to a lesser error tolerance in handling Apple's Digital Audio Access Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Access_Protocol) by that new version.

It seems that there are several manufacturers affected, e.g.Proposals (which I can't jugde) on how to get the accessibility back:
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-09 08:30:10
I would still prefer to organize my music on a properly designed folder structure, but I let iTunes organize my library when I first changed over


Could you be a bit more specific on what iTunes does to your files? You seem to suggest that iTunes and a folder structure are mutually exclusive; that iTunes moves and copies your files to wherever it sees fit.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-09 08:32:02
Billy, you don’t have to defend Apple at every opportunity.

iTunes does come with a lot of crap enabled as default, which although able to be disabled in some cases, can just be annoying. Must we have to disable it all? And it doesn't allow simple drag'n'drop to the iPod (instead storing all media files on the device as seemingly randomly-chosen and cryptically named hidden folders*), doesn't support playing files unless they're added to the library (as just said), still stores personal information in purchased files (and DRM-encrypts videos), and features other restrictions, of which other users could probably provide much better examples.

And of said “crap”, a lot is this irritating stuff that chooses music or creates playlists for you automatically--because Apple assume people are too daft to think for themselves, perhaps?--and/or allows you to share your listening habits or follow those of others.

But colourful adverts with white-headphoned folk dancing around sell better than functionality and thinking for yourself. (I think it'll be Linux for me next time, in case anyone's not sure. )

* It does offer sane automatic “Media type/Artist/Album/nn. Title.ext” organisation of files on your computer, but drag'n'drop to device would be nice.


I'm not trying to be a wise-ass or argumentative, but what DAP supports dragging and dropping? Are you loading a good DAP with Foobar? I don't know about Rockbox, but it doesn't seem worth throwing away compatibility with docks, car stereo, etc. You are talking about the Genius-Mix feature. I'd agree: that's unnecessary for me personally. It just doesn't pain me that it's there for others who may like it. I'm an "album-listener." I don't ever spend time creating playlists or care about mixes. Perhaps if I was a DJ it could be useful. IDK. But the "irritating" Genius-Mix is turned off on mine. I never even see it. My folder structure is very much the same as that of Windows. In fact, I've dragged & dropped folders from there into F2K to listen to them (it has the ALAC codec installed.)

@kiit: I truly appreciate your opinion. but I'm pretty certain Zune started the social-service. They are now (feebly IMO) trying to integrate it more with X-Box Live. Doesn't matter to me either. I'm not using it. (Actually I do use the iTunes store for those free 30-sec samples. I hardly ever by an album I find sucks anymore.) As you've pointed out, Libraries are the thing of most media-players. It seems to me that it's just an interface (like an OS) that connects the user to music files and such. I don't think it's evil Apple (or MS) marketing, just an idea that sits well with everyone but you and a few others presumably.


...If all of the apps on my computers were exactly how I wanted them, I'd have written them all. Since I can't write squat and wouldn't have the time to anyway, I'm going to take what works for me and do my best to ignore minor annoyances.

I like to think that my non-conformity is best expressed by my musical preferences. Not by opposing a large corporations attempts to make capital, sell products, and pay employees. I could care less about "glowing fruit" and "colorful adverts" trying to accomplish what companies must to avoid bankruptcy. It all just reeks of fan-boyism; such mantras. Like the slogans shouted by political parties on the extreme-left and extreme-right, it doesn't speak to the rest of us in the middle.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dv1989 on 2010-09-09 11:03:28
I would still prefer to organize my music on a properly designed folder structure, but I let iTunes organize my library when I first changed over
Could you be a bit more specific on what iTunes does to your files? You seem to suggest that iTunes and a folder structure are mutually exclusive; that iTunes moves and copies your files to wherever it sees fit.
I realise now that my statement that “[iTunes] doesn't support playing files unless they're added to the library” is ambiguous. This is true in terms of the media library itself, but not its file/folder structure. The user can choose whether to have iTunes leave added files where they are, or to automatically copy them to its own folder, which is organised as:
User folder/
[My] Music/
iTunes Media [previously and sometimes still named iTunes Music]/ *
Music/
Artist (or the dedicated Compilations folder)/
Album/
nn. Title
It also allows manual consolidation, i.e. copying everything to this structure.
* The location/name of this folder can be changed, but note that if iTunes names it iTunes Music, one has three “Music” folders in a row!

iTunes…doesn't allow simple drag'n'drop to the iPod (instead storing all media files on the device as seemingly randomly-chosen and cryptically named hidden folders*)
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass or argumentative, but what DAP supports dragging and dropping?
Admittedly, I don't know how common it is, at least nowadays, but it seems a good feature to me. To elaborate, IIRC a DAP that I previously owned allowed me to just drop folders of audio files in and it would show them in its library.

Quote
Are you loading a good DAP with Foobar? I don't know about Rockbox, but it doesn't seem worth throwing away compatibility with docks, car stereo, etc.
Actually, I manage my iPod (gen 5.5) with iTunes! I may well have moved to foo_dop if I was on Windows (and no doubt I could on OS X, but I'm taking the path of least resistance in this case). I've had no major problems with the device; actually, I'm surprised it still works considering its age.

Quote
I like to think that my non-conformity is best expressed by my musical preferences. Not by opposing a large corporations attempts to make capital, sell products, and pay employees. I could care less about "glowing fruit" and "colorful adverts" trying to accomplish what companies must to avoid bankruptcy. It all just reeks of fan-boyism; such mantras. Like the slogans shouted by political parties on the extreme-left and extreme-right, it doesn't speak to the rest of us in the middle.
I would say that the “fan-boyism” tends to be concentrated on Apple's side! If they've earned themselves some strong opinions on the wrong side, I imagine it's largely because they're increasingly moving from functionality and innovation, to gimmickry and reliance on the shiny factor.

Certainly this is one facet of my recent disinterest (to say the least) in Apple. I quite like my iPod and MacBook (failed battery notwithstanding), but I have no desire to upgrade to any of their new products when the time comes. Nowadays I read of the original iPhone initially being unable to copy and paste or record video, the new iPhone dropping calls if you hold it by the side and Jobs being a genius for ‘fixing’ this with a carry case), the iPad not having a USB port and not being able to multi-task on launch (now able to run a mammoth 2 apps at once IIRC). Yet despite these and perhaps worse flaws I've not thought of, the two are marketed and accepted by many as revolutionary and/or the best thing since sliced bread. If I was going to buy either type of device, I think I'd buy one of the other companies’ imitations/clones; they tend to include some of the features that Apple missed out.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-09 11:47:01
I would still prefer to organize my music on a properly designed folder structure, but I let iTunes organize my library when I first changed over


Could you be a bit more specific on what iTunes does to your files? You seem to suggest that iTunes and a folder structure are mutually exclusive; that iTunes moves and copies your files to wherever it sees fit.


dv1989 has partly answered this, but basically iTunes organizes music into a tree Artist/Album. You can get at the stuff all sorts of ways through the tags and the database, but if you want to fiddle with the files, you need to get at the directories. As I mostly have classical, my directory structure was Broad Category/Century/Composer/Work/?Performer?. I was also lazy/ignorant about tagging at the time, being new to digital music. iTunes folder organization is reasonably predictable, but it can split an album into two or more folders if there are different performers (as, for instance, an album that contains a symphony and a concerto, since Orchestra + Conductor counts as a different artist from Soloist + Same Orchestra + Same Conductor), if the Part of a Compilation box isn't checked.

This is one of those things that largely grows from the way players and tagging schemes are organized for popular music and its categories (micro-fine genre classes for dance music, for example), but it gets a lot less of a problem as I get used to tags, and the iTunes way.

You can, by the way, find where your files are in the directory structure quite easily: on a single track, do Get Information, then look at the File Location field. Then follow up with your preferred file mangler. It's a hassle if you want to do any editing on your files, like custom (dynamic range) compression for playing in the car, but it works fine for ordinary listening, especially to the most widely enjoyed music. Apple seem to be getting it reasonably right for a fair-sized market segment, which is larger than the fan-boi faction; at the least, it includes, at least as far as I can see round here, a lot of young women who don't look as though they're under the influence of Mr Jobs.

Sorry, that's a bit long--but you did ask for "more specific"
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Notat on 2010-09-09 16:02:07
Reading a few of the above comments: I don't understand the hatred for iTunes. It is bloated, but is this even a problem, even for Windows-users anymore?? What, are people still rocking 2 gigs of RAM for a Windows installation? I'm sure it will work great on even a Mac Mini Snow Leopard server with 2 Gb of RAM and base specs. (I'll find out soon enough.)

I don't hate iTunes. I used it for years and really liked it. When the program and my library got to a certain size, performance started to degrade. I tried running it on a faster computer still with unsatisfactory results. Some performance problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_algorithms) must be fixed by better algorithms, not faster processors.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-09 17:01:34
Only thing i can think of is the Windows version does not have this option ?

There you go.

20 seconds to start up must be something wrong at your end. OS X or Windows 7 is very fast here.

Brand spanking new XP installation on a 2.8GHz P4 HT w/ 1GB or RAM.  That I would need something more powerful doesn't speak well for the media player.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: JunkieXL on 2010-09-09 17:11:13
The load time for iTunes on a Windows OS is rather slow.  20-30 secs as Greynol mentioned.

I've used it on several machines and several different Windows OS.

People are also forgetting that iTunes has 2-3 programs that run in the background at all times.  Even after you disable them from the startup list, they will open and remain running after opening iTunes;  AppleMobileDevice.exe and iPodService.exe are two that I remember.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-09 19:05:49
It's strange some people are experiencing very slow start up times.Just booted into Windows 7 here on my MacMini core duo 2.5ghz 4 gb's ram. Launching iTunes 10 is no more than 2-3 seconds.

20 seconds is not acceptable id be mega frustrated.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-09 19:14:09
Time for some investigation with Process Explorer, it seems.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Miramis on 2010-09-09 19:21:44
[font= "Georgia"]iTunes for Windows: Background processes installed on Windows XP, Vista, and 7 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3960?viewlocale=en_US)[/font]
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-09 20:12:45
I can confirm the 20 second start up time on my nettop.  It has a dual-core, hyper-threaded 1.6GHz Atom 330 processor with 4GB of RAM (all 4GB is used by the processor as the Nvidia ION in my nettop has 256MB of on-board dedicated RAM) and running a 2 month old install of the 64-bit edition of Windows 7 Home Premium.  I can essentially start iTunes up, go get something to drink, sit back down, and it opens.  Is this a killer deal for me?  Not really.  My time isn't precious enough where going from 2 to 20 seconds is going to ruin my year.  That and I have to rely on iTunes as I have an iPad.  I knew that going into the iProduct universe would mean that I have to deal with iTunes here and there.  I really don't care.  It still starts up faster than iTunes 9 did on my system (by about 15 seconds) and I recently discovered that I can stream audio to more than one device.  I currently have a 802.11G AirPort Express base station as the 802.11N version.  The N is in the living room and the G is in my bedroom.  Their sole purposes were so that I could stream music to either my main audio system or the one in my bedroom all while controlling my PC with my iPad.  Now I can actually stream audio (whether it is music or part of a video file, finally) to multiple speakers at once and I will be able to stream audio to either base station with my iPad once iOS 4.2 comes out this November.

So yeah, I am willing to bit the bullet here and there if it means I can fully sync videos, audio files, photos, and apps with both my iPod and my iPad along with the above features.  Is iTunes perfect?  No, but I don't think there is any perfect audio library manager out there.  I can make a list of everything wrong with iTunes, foobar2000, Windows Media Player, Zune PC software, or whatever other "jukebox" that is out there.  It doesn't matter.  It just seems that, due to the popularity of Apple's iProducts, iTunes tends to get hammered on probably more than it should.  Yeah, I just said that, kill me.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-09 20:30:41
All I can say is that I hope you don't have iTunes configured as your default app for opening mp3 files.

My friend just emailed me a the latest mix-down of his demo in mp3.  I'd like to hear it without having to go grab a cup of joe while iTune starts and then proceeds to import it into my it's library for me to have to turn around and remove it, thank you very much.

Once Apple decides that they will stream music to your iPhone or iPod Touch I'll consider it once again, but maybe not considering that I'll likely purchase a competitor's solution because I got tired of waiting for hell to freeze.  What's that Apple, you expect me to spend another $100 for a less than mediocre wi-fi product in addition to an over-priced touch-screen DAP which has the very same HW capability to receive streamed music?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Notat on 2010-09-09 21:35:33
iTunes for Windows: Background processes installed on Windows XP, Vista, and 7 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3960?viewlocale=en_US)

They've documented their bloat. That's classy!
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-10 00:17:56
an over-priced touch-screen DAP


Which Apple DAP products are over-priced, in comparison to what, in which market?

Pricing of Apple computers is a debatable point, but when I was looking for a large capacity DAP in New Zealand, the iPod Classic was the inescapable choice, even though, at the time, I was looking for an alternative because I didn't want to get tied into the iSystem. But for the price and the capacity, there was nothing close. And at least Apple uses silken bonds, unlike Sony.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: aclo on 2010-09-10 01:37:14
It's a hassle if you want to do any editing on your files, like custom (dynamic range) compression for playing in the car, but it works fine for ordinary listening, especially to the most widely enjoyed music.


I imagine that this won't work on windows but, on OS X, one can write an applescript (which may be invoked by a key chord) to open the selected files in an audio editor, or perform arbitrary operations on them via eg sox etc.

Still, iTunes does seem ridiculously bloated...
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-10 02:24:20
I can confirm the 20 second start up time on my nettop.  It has a dual-core, hyper-threaded 1.6GHz Atom 330 processor with 4GB of RAM (all 4GB is used by the processor as the Nvidia ION in my nettop has 256MB of on-board dedicated RAM) and running a 2 month old install of the 64-bit edition of Windows 7 Home Premium.  I can essentially start iTunes up, go get something to drink, sit back down, and it opens.  Is this a killer deal for me?  Not really.  My time isn't precious enough where going from 2 to 20 seconds is going to ruin my year.  That and I have to rely on iTunes as I have an iPad.  I knew that going into the iProduct universe would mean that I have to deal with iTunes here and there.  I really don't care.  It still starts up faster than iTunes 9 did on my system (by about 15 seconds) and I recently discovered that I can stream audio to more than one device.  I currently have a 802.11G AirPort Express base station as the 802.11N version.  The N is in the living room and the G is in my bedroom.  Their sole purposes were so that I could stream music to either my main audio system or the one in my bedroom all while controlling my PC with my iPad.  Now I can actually stream audio (whether it is music or part of a video file, finally) to multiple speakers at once and I will be able to stream audio to either base station with my iPad once iOS 4.2 comes out this November.

So yeah, I am willing to bit the bullet here and there if it means I can fully sync videos, audio files, photos, and apps with both my iPod and my iPad along with the above features.  Is iTunes perfect?  No, but I don't think there is any perfect audio library manager out there.  I can make a list of everything wrong with iTunes, foobar2000, Windows Media Player, Zune PC software, or whatever other "jukebox" that is out there.  It doesn't matter.  It just seems that, due to the popularity of Apple's iProducts, iTunes tends to get hammered on probably more than it should.  Yeah, I just said that, kill me.


3 seconds here. I just timed it. Win 7 64bit i7 4Gb dual channel DDR3 RAM.

If it makes a difference that was off of a cold-boot. I also have around 139 Gb of music in it currently.

I am completely sympathetic to nearly everything people have said against it. It IS bloated. It's just not a problem for me and those with similar stuff, I suspect. If I had a different set-up going on, and I will not disparage what others are using to suit their wants and needs, I'd likely feel as they do. Justifiably so.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Axon on 2010-09-10 07:07:56
foobar2000 takes 21 seconds to load on my machine, and uses 115MB on startup, so I have no f*cking clue what y'all are whining about.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: klonuo on 2010-09-10 07:51:29
foobar2000 takes 21 seconds to load on my machine, and uses 115MB on startup, so I have no f*cking clue what y'all are whining about.

That doesn't say much, as posters are talking about regular iTunes setup on specified machines. I guess you should expect this-like reply, but I have 200GB ~15K library and it starts in 5s on rather old machine with 1GB RAM on Window 7 32b. Difference is that you can bloat foobar if you want, and then you don't have to if you don't want/need and have it as lightning notepad doing just whatever you might imagine, that's not possible with similar products

Personally I dislike overdesigned Apple products, their store, making own standards over standards, limited format support, messing with my files and tags without my blessing, closed possibilities, and much much more... That's general and could say fueled with funny features from new iTunes version. Thou I guess it's fine for my girlfriend
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-10 09:42:52
foobar2000 takes 21 seconds to load on my machine, and uses 115MB on startup, so I have no f*cking clue what y'all are whining about.

How about re-reading this thread then?

Imagine e. g. Amazon would announce a new software on HA to play and organize your music. Installer size = 71,4 MB (foobar = 3,1 MB). After an installation several services would run permanently in the background, even when the software isn't used. Amazon would tell you: we are selling portable media players too, but you can't use them without installing our software. Imagine the main purpose of this software would be to analyze your taste in music and to animate you to buy new music in Amazon's online music store. I am pretty sure that this software wouldn't meet anybody's 'enthusiastic' approval.

Indeed you seem to have "no f*cking clue" what the criticism here is about (you call it disparagingly "whining").

Apple's (and others) music stores are gigantic licences to print money, money which the music industry gets while the artists are fobbed off with a few cents (http://www.jessicawilliams.com/why.html).

iTunes is Apple's entrance into this world of organized intent to commit theft, coming with numerous user restrictions to protect their (you would say: "f*cking") business.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Northpack on 2010-09-10 09:56:45
foobar2000 takes 21 seconds to load on my machine, and uses 115MB on startup, so I have no f*cking clue what y'all are whining about.

I don't quite believe that. You surely must have a library in the TB-range!?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-10 10:44:08
So, to chime in and provide moar dataz on iTunes performance, I installed it yesterday evening.

The machine is an XP-SP3 AMD dualcore 2.6 5050e with 4GB*.
Cold start of iTunes is about 15-20 seconds. Relaunches within the same session is a few seconds.
Compare to Photoshop CS3, which launches in a little above 20 seconds.
Compare to Fallout 3, which launches in 10-15 seconds and does 60FPs on average.

Above times are cold launches. Subsequent launches are an order of magnitude faster, obviously.

I have Zao's waveform seekbar in Foobar, and it really slows down foobar's startup, probably due to all the .Net DX stuff it loads, making it launch in a breathtaking 7 seconds instead of the usual 1.

I discovered the option in Preferences to disable all these extra modules, but as a relaunch takes only seconds, I can't reliably test whether turning them off has any real effect. I didn't feel like rebooting all the time just for a quick media player test.

During installation, it asks to organize your files, and explicitly mentions that it will move and copy as it sees fit. I opted out of that one.


Overall impression: probably functional and useful to many people. I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction videos on first launch. Theye were really helpful in killing any trace of anti-iTunes bias I might have had. Nonetheless, I find it too bright and has that typical clunky OSX-to-Windows port feel. So far doesn't offer anything revolutionary that would make me want to switch, the way Foobar made me switch form Winamp. Haven't checked out Genius yet. Appreciated the automatic Album art download even though I don't use album art**.


-------------------------------
*) for future compatibility when I decide to move to a newer OS.
**) It's sometimes really, really ugly, and usually doesn't match what I envision with the music, so, no thanks.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-10 15:51:25
I'm not sure why my start-up times are so low. I don't doubt everyone else's though. I remember it taking a similarly long time on an old AMD dual-core notebook I had a few years back.

I remember (about the same time) fooling around with a MacBook Pro in a retail store and being amazed at how fast it launched off of the dock. (Perhaps because there was really no content in its "library?") I made the comment to a girl with a base-model white MacBook about how maybe it would just run better if I had it on a Mac. She told me "mine's slow to start up too." IDK.

I honestly don't think just having an Intel i7 and serious DDR3 RAM is making it act more like Foobar now for me. I really don't have an explanation for it. I opened it again today and counted off just under four seconds off the cold-boot.

Robertina's comment above about Apple's business model was not a bad point. I couldn't possibly disagree with that. It's usually not the artists complaining about piracy. (Metallica being one of the exceptions, of course.) It's the greedy execs. I don't believe the artists are getting crap for what's sold as digital downloads.

I read recently (I can get a link or find the source I'm quoting if anyone really cares) that the RIAA is demanding that iTunes and Amazon pay royalties for the thirty-second samples. These people stop at nothing and are just as responsible for any supposed "demise" of their industry as anyone illicitly downloading copies of their product, IMO. Now they don't want us to "hear a bit before we buy?!" What, are they afraid we'll hear how poorly produced so much of it is and pass? LMAO.

...that's one of my favorite things about having iTunes installed; I can listen to samples from almost any existent album prior to buying it.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-10 19:45:05
iTunes is Apple's entrance into this world of organized intent to commit theft, coming with numerous user restrictions to protect their (you would say: "f*cking") business.


Well, maybe you should follow your own statement and read the posts in this thread again as no one is here to debate the digital distribution of music.  The point of this thread was to discuss the release of iTunes 10, not point to the corporate money hungry butt-holes runing the music industry.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-10 21:07:28
Performance of iTunes is definitely better on OS X. On my MacMini, iMac and Macbook start up times are almost instant and the exact same machines running Windows 7  start up times are slower but no where near the 15 - 20 second some people are reporting.

Must be something that some people have installed or some preference that is causing iTunes to be slow.



Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-10 21:29:21
What part of
Brand spanking new XP installation
did you not read?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-10 23:04:08
I understand there are several valid reasons for not liking iTunes, esp. on Windows, but why is start-up time a big issue? I fire up iTunes every time I reboot (about once a week), and would do the same with any other music player. The only significant delays I have come from the fact that my music is on an external USB drive, which has to wake up sometimes.

Bloat, also, seems more of an aesthetic consideration than a technical one, now that 1 TB of disk costs about the same as a dinner for two, and 1 GB of RAM about the same as hamburgers for two. Starting a lot of extraneous processes would be a downer, if you were doing a lot of stuff and didn't have many cores, to be sure; which is one of the reasons why it ain't the best on Windows. But how much of the antipathy is criticism of the application of a verifiable kind (TOS 8 and all that), and how much is ideological objection?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Axon on 2010-09-11 02:58:32
How about re-reading this thread then?

Imagine e. g. Amazon would announce a new software on HA to play and organize your music. Installer size = 71,4 MB (foobar = 3,1 MB). After an installation several services would run permanently in the background, even when the software isn't used. Amazon would tell you: we are selling portable media players too, but you can't use them without installing our software. Imagine the main purpose of this software would be to analyze your taste in music and to animate you to buy new music in Amazon's online music store. I am pretty sure that this software wouldn't meet anybody's 'enthusiastic' approval.

Indeed you seem to have "no f*cking clue" what the criticism here is about (you call it disparagingly "whining").

Wow, tough crowd. I'll be here all night. Be sure to tip the wait staff, they're terrific.

I wasn't really commenting about the financial/ethical side of this discussion, only about performance, and the notion that iTunes is ridiculously slower than foobar2000. Kinda thought that was implicit in my (bombastic) statement.

Quote
Apple's (and others) music stores are gigantic licences to print money, money which the music industry gets while the artists are fobbed off with a few cents (http://www.jessicawilliams.com/why.html).

iTunes is Apple's entrance into this world of organized intent to commit theft, coming with numerous user restrictions to protect their (you would say: "f*cking") business.

"licenses to print money"? Duh! That explains the *incredible financial success* of Rhapsody, Napster v2, Zune Marketplace, BuyMusic, imeem, and, last but not least, EVERY MAJOR LABEL.

I'm not disputing that major labels are responsible for many really horrible miscarriages of justice, or that in many cases artists are getting a raw deal from paid digital music downloads and are better off ignoring Apple (although that usually involves label issues). But every independent analysis I have read (and Apple has stated) that iTMS made little if any money for quite some time after it started, and if they are making the 10-20% margins some people claim they're making, it's due to considerable resources expended on their part to reduce transaction costs.

If Apple is printing money with the iTMS, it is because they have been among the very few to solve a tremendously difficult financial problem - of how to make money on what is now DRM-free digital intellectual property while respecting IP rights up to the letter of the law - and they deserve every penny for doing so.

And FWIW, I haven't willingly played music in iTunes for what must be going on 5-6 years now, and my iPod has been Rockboxed for years.

I don't quite believe that. You surely must have a library in the TB-range!?

Nope, 300GB total, 20,000 individual tracks. Running on a P4 2.4ghz with 3GB RAM on XP Pro. As far as fb2k configs are concerned, I'm running Media Library across all of this, with lots of Facets configuration, and a UI config that includes several different configurations in different tabs, amounting to 5 playlist instances and two different Facets instances, with varying configurations for each instance.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-11 10:26:02
Bloat, also, seems more of an aesthetic consideration than a technical one, now that 1 TB of disk costs about the same as a dinner for two, and 1 GB of RAM about the same as hamburgers for two. Starting a lot of extraneous processes would be a downer, if you were doing a lot of stuff and didn't have many cores, to be sure; which is one of the reasons why it ain't the best on Windows. But how much of the antipathy is criticism of the application of a verifiable kind (TOS 8 and all that), and how much is ideological objection?

Start up time is not an issue for me, but bloat and many unneeded startup processes is. iTunes may not by itself slow down the computer considerably, but there are countless other startup processes that are more useful and even necessary for the PC to run. Antivirus, the sound card and keyboard/mouse control panels, graphics, virtual drives,  Firewalls... iTunes is way down in the priorities. Imagine if all other programs you install wrecking the same havoc on your startup. It accumulates.

Also, quicktime has this nasty habit of hijacking the browsers' options for opening mp3s and possibly other file types. And Apple update will still try to catch you distracted and con you into installing Safari and whatnot. There is no real reason for Apple software to be so invasive in Windows. It almost seems to me Jobs does it out of spite.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-11 23:20:26
andy o

All those seem to be entirely reasonable objections to iTunes on Windows, and they are not at all the objections I was objecting to. I seem to recollect that iTunes uses some components in common with Safari, so Apple *might* think iTunes users could get a browser superior to IE for little extra weight, while they were at it. IME, every time you install something on Windows, it tries to hijack all the filetypes that it can possibly handle, and I have spent a lot of time unchecking checkboxes for that reason.

I agree that this behaviour is objectionable to people who are into computers. But computers aren't special any more. The notion of the "information appliance" is at least 25 years old, and was big at Apple before they introduced the Mac. Maybe the point is that iTunes, and iPhoto and the other iThings, are designed for people who want information appliances. Automatic behaviours that are a PITA to those of us who customize our computing environments may be close to magical in their cleverness to people who just want to listen to music and do simple (ordinary) things with photos while browsing the web and twitterfacing and whatever. And the extra processes are a real problem to someone who might be compiling code or processing video while listening to music, but the typical notebook now has more computrons than the average user will ever need, so they might as well be doing something marginally useful (like background formatting and spellchecking in a wordprocessor, which is great if you're writing but is, presumably, anathema to people who make a point of using only a simple text editor).

My point is that there are valid objections to iTunes, and even more sensible reasons why people wouldn't choose it for themselves, but that there is also a level of vilification of this poor harmless product that seem to miss the point of what it's intended to do, and smack of the kind of snobbery you tend to find in audiophile land (where, incidentally, some people believe that foobar2k sounds better than other players). Or, as one poster put it, iTunes is doubtless good enough for his girlfriend.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-12 11:39:16
Sorry for mentioning an unmentionable. I was just checking out my system tray and listing all the things there.

Anyway, when I mentioned quicktime hijacking the browser it wasn't just a simple file type hijack. It's been happening with Firefox and the hijack didn't even listen to FF's options for opening files. This had been happening for years (from googling). It seems to have been fixed with a recent build of quicktime though, or maybe with FF 3.6.9.

Yeah, I don't like iTunes that much, but I can put up with using it. I do disable most startup processes that get installed though. Getting around to manage my iPod with foobar2000 is a bit of a pain, or I'm just lazy enough not to wanna delve into re-learning it. I also think that Robertina has it backwards. ITunes doesn't compel you buy an iPod, it's the opposite.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-13 00:11:26
ITunes doesn't compel you buy an iPod, it's the opposite.


That is indeed true, IME, and is presumably the reason why Apple bothered to port it to Windows, with all the bloat (or dependencies, depending on whether you're thinking of Apple as today's example of the Big Evil Corporation, or of OS X as a *nixish OS).
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-15 16:47:59
I wasn't really commenting about the financial/ethical side of this discussion, only about performance, and the notion that iTunes is ridiculously slower than foobar2000. Kinda thought that was implicit in my (bombastic) statement.
Other members reported that iTunes 10 would start significantly slower than foobar on their systems and you blamed them for their clueless whining only because you couldn't see that difference on your computer. Implicit in that statement is your contemptuousness of experiences if they differ from your own: you call "whining" what doesn't happen to you or can't be confirmed by you. I think with that attitude you shouldn't look up surprised if you get a frank reply.

Quote
"licenses to print money"? Duh! That explains the *incredible financial success* of Rhapsody, Napster v2, Zune Marketplace, BuyMusic, imeem, and, last but not least, EVERY MAJOR LABEL.
Major labels and distributors made essential mistakes in their business strategies, widely discussed all over the world. Are musicians supposed to pay for them?

Quote
If Apple is printing money with the iTMS, it is because they have been among the very few to solve a tremendously difficult financial problem - of how to make money on what is now DRM-free digital intellectual property while respecting IP rights up to the letter of the law - and they deserve every penny for doing so.
I can't share your romantic transfiguration, Axon. Have you read the web page I linked to? That laws are the scandal that needs to be dealt with. Laws, which are influenced or controlled by lobbyists, from former RIAA and MPAA attorneys holding now key positions in the US Department of Justice - with absurd and sometimes cruel consequences: The FBI considers copyright issues to be more important than human fates (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/17262010563.shtml). Don't expect me to applaud. Don't expect musicians to say something other than Jessica Williams said on her web page.

Anyway, when I mentioned quicktime hijacking the browser it wasn't just a simple file type hijack. It's been happening with Firefox and the hijack didn't even listen to FF's options for opening files. This had been happening for years (from googling). It seems to have been fixed with a recent build of quicktime though, or maybe with FF 3.6.9.
On Windows XP with Internet Explorer, QuickTime manipulated the registry branch [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Media\MimeTypes]. A deinstallation didn't restore the original entries.

This is my last post in this thread. I am glad that it has been possible to throw light on iTunes 10 and the philosophy behind it from very different point of views.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: nonreality on 2010-09-16 03:27:47
I had ditch iTunes due to poor performance on Windows. Is it worth me having another look?

No  Unless you need it for an Ipod.  I really don't see any other need for it.  I use it only for that.  I don't let it touch my files.  Just load my non rockbox ipods.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: shakey_snake on 2010-09-16 04:56:30
I honestly haven't used iTunes in a number of years, but I know from helping other people that iTunes is definitely something I won't be using any time soon. And startup times and whatever is pretty much missing the point.
Using iTunes involves installing an entire suite of software that Apple wishes to install on Window's users computers for almost any circumstance one would need Apple software. Why I'm required to do so just to play a few mp3s is obvious: Apple wishes to make themselves a part of almost everything I would wish to do.  This is certainly more than I'm asking for.

And it's this attitude they have, that they're so upfront about, that is a turn off because it's so obvious that the only reason they have to be so nice is so that they can monetize whatever it is I'm doing. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but when members here at HA provides information and solutions that are being given away, why not do it the free way?

iTunes being the way it is, I'd certainly never buy Apple hardware. Heck, I'm not sure I'd ever buy a Mac/book, given the few alternatives to iTunes for OSX.

Ping is just, "Now with itunes all up in your scrobbling!" Not really the kind of feature that attracts me any more to the whole suite. Kinda like iTunes LPs or Genius. In fact, each new version just seems to add a new gimmick that exists just to let me see how emaciated Jobs looks on stage.

Time for a poorly thought out analogy: I can take my car apart down to the engine block and figure out how things work, or I can take it to a mechanic and hope he isn't screwing me. HA is largely the former, iTunes is largely the latter.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-16 09:48:41
I couldn't agree more.

I think we went around about the start-up time because someone wasn't willing to concede that iTunes is bloated and that this bloat couldn't possibly be the reason for the delay.

We were told that we can "just disable what you don't use" and that we "can even do a custom install" by omitting stuff we don't use.  The fact is that during installation we can't omit the portions that choose our tracks, show us eye-candy or sell us something.  Windows users (perhaps Mac users too, IDK) are also treated to a layer of system-level garbage so that the program can provide us with marginal ripping capability.  Am I missing something?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-16 09:52:58
Am I missing something?


No, that pretty much sums it up.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-16 10:25:53
Windows users (perhaps Mac users too, IDK) are also treated to a layer of system-level garbage so that the program can provide us with marginal ripping capability.  Am I missing something?


No bloat on a Mac, because the stuff iTunes insists on installing on Windows is part of the OS X system.

On "marginal ripping capability," what is on average the increase in audible errors that result from using iTunes doubtless simple ripping ability with CD Paranoia, compared with the state of the art abilities of EAC or DBPoweramp? I'm assuming not much with disks in excellent condition, because I don't hear any problems with new CDs, but I guess it's different with disks that have been around a bit.

I have no brief for iTunes--I just use it because it goes well with my iPod, and came free with my puter, but I am a little surprised at the vehemence of the objections. Anybody yet caught on to the way it uses the laser in the optical drive to beam the Distortion Reality Field of Chairman Steve straight into your brain? That's  what really worries me, and it probably explains why I don't hate the thing. I'm already a zombie.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-16 17:49:17
iTunes uses CD Paranoia?  I don't think so.  Where did you learn this?

When it comes to discs in excellent condition there will likely be little difference except for rare instances which have occasionally been reported (that a brand new disc gives errors, not whether iTunes did a good job).  The situation goes beyond audibility, however.  Secure rippers (XLD, Rip, EAC, dBpoweramp, etc.) will tell you if there was a problem, iTunes will not.  How often this happens depends on your discs.  One can't assume that everyone has the same portion of discs in their collection that rip perfectly with an insecure ripper.

As I alluded in my last post, the apparent vehemence stems from the fact that legitimate criticisms are being dismissed as if they don't exist, or that the people expressing them are somehow to blame.

No bloat on a mac? Are you saying that the code that gives you extra bells and whistles are already part of OS/X?  I doubt it.  Go back and read my reply, I'm talking about more than GEAR.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: JunkieXL on 2010-09-16 17:59:14
There is a supposed secure ripping check box when using iTunes.  I am not sure how secure or accurate it is, but there is an option for it since iTunes 9 came out, if my memory is correct.
JXL

Note: They call it "error correction".  I've used it a few times and I think it just performs some re-reads.  Anyone know more on this?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-16 18:05:12
You mean the mysterious box that says says something about "error correction?".  It's been around for a very long time but doesn't inform someone if their rip has problems.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-16 22:32:37
I think that the iTunes "error correction" CD ripping mode is nothing more than jitter protection.  I am not 100% sure on that though and I do know that, as greynol pointed out, it does not tell the user anything regarding the quality of the ripped file.  I can pop a damaged CD in EAC or dBpowerAMP and it will inform me that one track ripped with problems.  I can then take the same CD, rip it with iTunes, and it acts like everything is just peachy only for me to hear audible errors in the problematic track.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-17 01:45:34
As strange as this sounds  i have ad more successes ripping cd's with iTunes than XLD on my Mac, I have some cd's XLD just refuses to rip with any settings were iTunes does them fine. As for being bloated on a Mac, no way. It's fast and smooth as, even with a massive library.

Regarding "error correction" from my experience it's done more harm than good when turned on lots of times the cd just gets stuck in a certain spot and just loops over and over forever. Turning it off the cd will rip fine.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-17 08:07:23
One simple question:

How large is the installation file for iTunes 10 on a Mac?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Miramis on 2010-09-17 08:35:11
Apple iTunes 10.0 Build 67 (Softpedia (http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Apple-iTunes.shtml)): 82.2 MB. Here is the file: http://appldnld.apple.com/iTunes10/061-824...yt/iTunes10.dmg (http://appldnld.apple.com/iTunes10/061-8247.20100901.Ktjyt/iTunes10.dmg)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-17 09:18:10
yes way.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Miramis on 2010-09-17 09:40:11
I installed iTunes 10 in a sandbox (Sandboxie) on Windows XP SP3.

In the folder user, it created 91,9 MB (96 459 457 byte)

In the folder drive, it created 274 MB (287 473 684 byte) in Program, and 36,2 MB (38 003 677 byte) in Windows.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-17 09:53:16
On OS X it's 83 Mb to download once installed with everything its  161 Mb
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-17 10:32:31
With its aggressive iTunes installation policy 'Get it all or nothing' for Windows users, Apple imposes its will upon them. One of the nasty side effects is, that Windows users from now on for security reasons are urged to update elements coming with that software suite they never wanted to have present on their systems.

QuickTime 7.6.8 for Windows closes two critical security vulnerabilities (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Apple-closes-back-door-in-QuickTime-7-1080472.html); bundled with iTunes 10 however is the insecure predecessor QuickTimes 7.6.7

Happy updating (33 MB).

[!--sizeo:1--][span style=\"font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\"][!--/sizeo--]"This is my last post in this thread [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=722924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]"[/color][/size]
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: spoon on 2010-09-17 10:41:34
Indeed as time trickles by iTunes seems less and less an audio player and more a selling platform (Tv shows, audio tracks, movies, books)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-17 10:52:01
At least Steam is totally upfront about its intentions.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: spoon on 2010-09-17 11:21:44
...wait until iTunes makes video-phone calls (not inconceivable as iPhone does), iTunes-Skype?

It has to work against Apple at some point, someone who gets an iPod and wants to copy some (existing) tracks on to it, it feels more like installing an operating system, rather than a ipod management program.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-17 11:23:34
Indeed as time trickles by iTunes seems less and less an audio player and more a selling platform (Tv shows, audio tracks, movies, books)


Very true. I don't, actually, mind that, what with occasionally finding iPhone apps that are useful (and one or two that are a total must have--Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon and Lewis and Shorts Latin Dictionary, since you ask) and sometimes buying the odd track of some old album, or indeed a couple of Lady Gaga numbers to see what the fuss is about (has real talent, not my style of music). I guess I would rather have the record shop that can give me advice, so I will keep on buying new CDs at least some of the time from the classical music shop that does that. But, you know, people are going to buy somewhere, and digital downloads will increase in market share, and some people aren't within cooee of a decent bricks and mortar. Since it is unlikely that music will be disentangled from the market economy in the foreseeable, I don't see that it is actually evil for Apple to come up with an integrated system, for the people who find it convenient.

I do, however, totally understand that it's not the way for people who want a set of small, specialist tools. But why the Apple Store might seem to be thought more evil than Amazon escapes me. And the odd 100 megs of program is not a big issue these days when a music library can be 100 gigs, easy. As I say, I'm not arguing with people who don't like iTunes; but I can't see it as the work of the devil from which more casual users are, by implication, to be protected.

Perhaps people hate having it foul up the austere minimalist elegance of a Windows installation?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dhromed on 2010-09-17 11:51:55
I would just like to know where all that data is going. Winamp is closest to all that iTunes represents, but it's no more than a 10MB installer.


foul up the austere minimalist elegance of a Windows installation?


Surely you jest!

Likely the only austere minimalist Windows installation extant is my own, dear sir!
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-17 11:53:10
iTunes uses CD Paranoia?  I don't think so.  Where did you learn this?

No bloat on a mac? Are you saying that the code that gives you extra bells and whistles are already part of OS/X?  I doubt it.  Go back and read my reply, I'm talking about more than GEAR.


My comment about CD Paranoia was a total mistake, and a misremembering of one options screen on Max and misplacing it in my mind. Totally wrong. Only excuse is that my iMac just died, and I'm in the process of restoring everything to the new machine, and rather less mentally present than normal. Leaves only the question of the distinction between "marginal" and "basic."

As for bloat, what I was thinking of was Quick Time and Safari; my understanding is that iTunes needs these on Windows, so you have to install them, giving you redundant (and probably not optimally efficient) functionality on Windows. Bloat indeed. But stuff like the Store and visualizers and the Genius are features I don't want but come in the package, anyway. Once, that was indeed bloat. As with word processors, and most people only using 10% of the capabilities, but different users wanting a different 10%. That used to be bloat, but now all that stuff in Microsoft Word can just sit there undisturbed on the disk not affecting anything, and it's a long time since I saw anyone cursing bloated word processors.

OK, iTunes is only a good choice for a minority of HA members, no problems about that. But HA members are the sort of people who advise civilians who just want to buy and listen to music; who maybe wouldn't mind some automated process that would tell them that if they like Band A, they might want to listen to Band B. The impression I get is that there's a strong feeling that people wouldn't wish iTunes on the worst audiophile, and that it's bad for listeners, bad for computers, and bad for the music-making profession (see, I deliberately did not say "industry", though maybe one could talk about the indiestry). This surprises me, and I'm trying to find what there is that's kind of objectively objectionable for all users.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-17 12:59:59
iTunes doesn't need Safari on Windows though Apple's upgrade software will still recommend that you download it whenever a new/updated version is released.  Additionally, I wouldn't say that iTunes also installing QuickTime gives one redundant features since iTunes has, and will likely always be, essentially a graphical front-end for QuickTime.  iTunes uses QuickTime for encoding and decoding content.  I think it is similar to Windows 7 and Windows Media Player in that the OS cannot natively playback content from within Windows Explorer without using WMP.  That still isn't going to stop some people from not liking it.

In all honesty, I could really care less.  Yes, there is a lot of bloat in iTunes and it is gaining features that I will never use (Ping, Genius playlists, iTunes Store recommendations, etc.) but my system has 4GB of RAM and even my paltry dual-core Atom powered nettop can run iTunes 10 with ease.  The 20 second start up time would annoy me but I normally have FireFox running in the background so I can at least start accessing my Gmail account by the time iTunes starts up.  Others in the audio community may find this appalling as they just want a 10MB installation with a simple interface that plays back audio, only.  That is fine and that is why there are alternatives for them.  I really believe now that iTunes should only be used for people who want to sync content to their iPod.  I hate to say it but iTunes is the only program that can sync videos, audio files, photos, and other information to iPods (even the iPod classic).  I have an iPad and now a 4G iPod touch (which I might be selling for an iPhone 4 as my Alltel area was recently purchased by at&t) so I have long given up the ghost when it comes to using other programs to sync content to my iDevices.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: spoon on 2010-09-17 14:28:54
> I hate to say it but iTunes is the only program that can sync videos, audio files, photos, and other information to iPods

Only because Apple went out of their way to make it this way, other programs would love to be in the loop.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-17 14:53:36
I would give up iTunes if there was a device that could stream my music to my Apple Tv is fantastic as the Apple Tv does.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Zarggg on 2010-09-17 16:06:05
If you use 7zip or a similar archiving utility that can unpack executables, you can extract the just AppleApplicationSupport, Quicktime, and iTunes installers, then run each one in that order. Those are the only components necessary to install and run iTunes with iPod (not iPhone/iPad) support.

Also, auja Online has created a switchless installer (http://www.ajuaonline.com/custom-installers/) that is just the iTunes application. (I don't think it includes AAS.)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: JunkieXL on 2010-09-17 18:22:40
Wouldn't that cause problems for updating though?  Would you need to uninstall and then do a manual install each time a new version came out?  I'm just curious...
JXL
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Zarggg on 2010-09-18 04:49:18
Nope. Just install right over the old version. That's what I do, at least. Granted, you'll have to extract those three files (or use the custom-made switchless installer) each time, otherwise you'll get all the bloat.

Basically, the iTunes installer is just an "umbrella program" (for lack of a better term) that runs all the different installers.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-18 14:11:10
> I hate to say it but iTunes is the only program that can sync videos, audio files, photos, and other information to iPods

Only because Apple went out of their way to make it this way, other programs would love to be in the loop.


They aren't the only ones though.  Microsoft has followed in their footsteps with the Zune.  Even going back to 1999/2000 when I had my Rio 600, it would sync only with software written by the company who made it (SONICBlue, formerly known as Diamond Multimedia).  So the idea of using exclusive, first party software to sync to a player is nothing new and dates back to the days when players had an amazing 32MB of on-board storage.  Even other mainstream companies (Sony) may support simple drag-and-drop but they often recommend that consumers use software for syncing content such as Windows Media Player or maybe their first party solution.  Either way, in this day and age, I really don't think there is much to scoff at in terms of making a private ecosystem, both in software and hardware, for a portable player.  Apple has always been about that with their iPod line, Microsoft is that way with the Zune, my 10 year old Rio 600 was that way, and there are others.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: shakey_snake on 2010-09-18 14:23:55
Microsoft only created the Zune and Zune software after their PlaysForSure and Media Transfer Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol) failed to leverage marketshare away from Apple.
(Of course, Zune really hasn't either)

It all comes down to implementing different types of DRM.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-18 16:16:20
Well, I normally also hate on Apple, but in the case of the iPod, I gotta give it to them. I've had a 3rd gen, a "Photo", and now a Classic, and waiting for the new Touch to be delivered. When I was first shopping around for an MP3 player, the only alternatives that I could find were the Creative Something, and maybe some other RCA crap. Even stupid Sony wasn't in the market yet (or maybe they were, but still insisting to not support MP3 natively and con people into transcoding to ATRAC). So it was basically Creative vs. Apple. I didn't hate Creative as much as I do now, but what convinced me was simply the dock, and all the accessories. Wireless remote! Who'd have thunk? Even now the wireless remote options for other players are limited, if existent at all.

So, yeah, you need iTunes to fully control your iPod, but I think the popularity of iTunes, which is an effect of the popularity of the iPod, is pretty well deserved. Not saying that iTunes is a good player, but the competition made it very easy for Apple to invade of our machines before anyone noticed.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-18 18:10:56
So, yeah, you need iTunes to fully control your iPod, but I think the popularity of iTunes, which is an effect of the popularity of the iPod, is pretty well deserved. Not saying that iTunes is a good player, but the competition made it very easy for Apple to invade of our machines before anyone noticed.


That is, I think, the Way of Jobs, from the first Mac (when I hated Apple and most of its works) to now, when my iMac just died so I went out and bought a 27" to replace it. You get to do some things more easily and smoothly than on any other system. The price of that is that you buy into the Apple world. It's very hard to distinguish when the proprietary bits are the necessary condition for the ease of use, and when they are customer lock-in. If the ease is in areas that are important to the individual, they're inclined to regard it as an acceptable trade-off; other people see it as a Faustian pact. (And, of course, there are the fans who invest personal identity in Apple, and wear them as a badge; but there aren't enough of those to account for Apple's success.)

Anecdote: in an another life, I had some responsibility for computer admin in a university. A number of us were trying to get rid of Macs, because at that time they were much more expensive than PCs (which were all running MS-DOS), and caused administration problems. One department threatened to make it a human rights issue    But we never questioned the Music people, because they had a bunch of specialist gear that was Mac dependent. Oddly enough, in that case, it was because Apple were the first to implement easily and affordably a standard, SCSI, not a proprietary solution at all.

Another anecdote: I have worked, briefly, in retail, and have come to appreciate that there are good ways of selling stuff to people, as well as bad ways. If it's non-manipulative it can serve a genuine human good, so that the punter buys something that meets their desires, and the seller makes a buck. Sometimes now I come away thinking "I was just sold that in a really good way"; and of course, sometimes I come away feeling angry and manipulated. So, Apple is trying to sell stuff; it's a business, and someone there is smart enough to see that computers are mostly commodities now, with tiny margins, and DAPs are going to go away some time fairly soon as phones get bigger memories, and so it's best to find other things to sell. Download of content is an obvious area to move into. In my judgement, if Apple were to get serious control over the terms of media creation and publication, you could get a really damaging monopoly, of a kind that, arguably, the AOL-Warner merger was trying to create, and which Sony, from time to time, tries to set up all on its own. But at the moment, Apple seems to be no more responsible for the shafting of musicians than Amazon is, and to be selling by making it easy for people to find and purchase stuff they want. We don't complain when the people in a record store look at what we're buying and suggest something else we might like.

My point is that we truly do need to make judgements, both technical and ethical/political, but that Apple presents rather more complex problems that the Ford/GM war, or a Ford/GM/bicycle war, either.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dcumpian on 2010-09-21 21:23:40
I'm sure it will work great on even a Mac Mini Snow Leopard server with 2 Gb of RAM and base specs. (I'll find out soon enough.)


Any update on this? I'm interested in doing the same to get iTunes off my PC.

Thanks,
Dan
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: mixminus1 on 2010-09-21 22:33:30
I'm running a first-gen Intel Mac Mini (1.66 GHz Core Duo) w/2 GB RAM and iTunes 10 flies right along (w/at least Firefox and usually OpenOffice and GIMP running, as well).

I'm not in front of it right now to clock the startup time, but then I never do:  I have it set to launch on startup, and I rarely reboot my Mac (software updates are pretty much it).

Now, my library is only 50 GB or so (mostly LAME MP3s, some purchased AACs), but really, it runs as smooth as can be - even scrolling through in the grid view is instantly responsive and smooth, and remember, first-gen Intel Macs had the mighty Intel GMA 950 graphics decelerator as the "graphics chipset".
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-21 23:07:36
I switched to Windows 7 on my desktop recently and I'm very satisfied. Windows has really come a very long way since I left XP behind for Macs only. Foobar is a great joy since then. It's fast, reads all formats, Replay Gain in album mode (much appreciated!), the convolver, the converter, integrated AccurateRip checking, the UI editor, and more - all really great stuff!

There's only one thing I miss very badly from iTunes: Scrolling smoothly through a huge grid of album covers! I do not always know what I want to hear before I load up my music player. And that view of my collection has always been very inspiring. Foobar's text based album list really can't keep up with that. I always have the feeling that I overlook stuff, that I'd otherwise noticed. Is there anything
like this for Foobar?

And BTW, the term "bloat" shouldn't be used just for formal reasons. Yes, iTunes has been extended with a lot of features I do not need over the years. But they haven't hurt performance at all and that's what matters*. iTunes on the Mac was faster than anything but Foobar on my PC (loadup times, UI response). Sadly that's not true for the PC version.
* It even became faster with almost every release.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-21 23:14:02
I'm sure it will work great on even a Mac Mini Snow Leopard server with 2 Gb of RAM and base specs. (I'll find out soon enough.)


Any update on this? I'm interested in doing the same to get iTunes off my PC.

Thanks,
Dan


It's going to be some time...probably February. Tax-return time is really the only time I can afford new toys. (I guess "soon enough" really means "eventually" for poor people with kids  )

I did, however, talk my older brother into getting a Mac Mini. His is the barebones current generation (no more putty-knife trick to change the RAM) with only 2 gigs of memory. When I get over there I'll dink around with it and get back to you. Not sure how helpful it will be as his files are small (AAC @256) and I don't know if he's gotten around to "populating" his iTunes library with music from his VERY old PC. (I seriously don't know if a huge library makes it any slower to open.) He was using Zune before, and I'm not sure he's in a big hurry to buy a new DAP.

FWIW, my "open" time with F2K is around one to two seconds. My iTunes load time is 3 to 5. I understand that this isn't the norm for most users. And no one should be expected to custom-order a 2,300 USD laptop PC just to get iTunes to open faster than Photoshop. IMO, everyone's gripes here about iTunes are perfectly legitimate. It's just not my current experience.

I'll bookmark this thread and get back to you with my brother's results if you think it may be helpful.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-22 08:18:16
I just installed an OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD and my load time on Windows 7-64 went down from about 15 seconds (7200RPM 2.5" HDD) to 7 seconds the first time after reboot, and 5 seconds thereafter.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: aclo on 2010-09-23 00:57:12
> I hate to say it but iTunes is the only program that can sync videos, audio files, photos, and other information to iPods

Only because Apple went out of their way to make it this way, other programs would love to be in the loop.


They aren't the only ones though.  Microsoft has followed in their footsteps with the Zune.  Even going back to 1999/2000 when I had my Rio 600, it would sync only with software written by the company who made it (SONICBlue, formerly known as Diamond Multimedia).  So the idea of using exclusive, first party software to sync to a player is nothing new and dates back to the days when players had an amazing 32MB of on-board storage.  Even other mainstream companies (Sony) may support simple drag-and-drop but they often recommend that consumers use software for syncing content such as Windows Media Player or maybe their first party solution.  Either way, in this day and age, I really don't think there is much to scoff at in terms of making a private ecosystem, both in software and hardware, for a portable player.  Apple has always been about that with their iPod line, Microsoft is that way with the Zune, my 10 year old Rio 600 was that way, and there are others.


But I never understood what the advantage is of this sort of thing. Why can't I just replicate my file system hierarchy in my ipod? or ipad? or whatever? there's no reason I can think of for Apple to obfuscate the file names and store the details in sqlite format (or whatever it is they use on ipod touches and ipads). And they don't do anything like that anywhere on OS X (modulo details such as dtrace and itunes and similar things). Partly it must be a leftover of DRMed music, but mostly it has to be a deliberate effort to make us use iTunes. I don't know how Zunes etc operate, but why should I care? I understand that it's just another easy way for people to attack apple, but, again, why should I care? it still is irritating!
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-23 01:17:23
Apple just thinks that file system style organization is a thing, to which a small part of the population might be accustomed to, but which is not the most intuitive approach to organize music. Which is: Artists -> make Albums -> which can be categorized by Genres -> optionally with specific user selections in form of Playlists. To me this makes sense. Why carry along thought patterns of the past?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: aclo on 2010-09-23 01:35:42
Apple just thinks that file system style organization is a thing, to which a small part of the population might be accustomed to, but which is not the most intuitive approach to organize music. Which is: Artists -> make Albums -> which can be categorized by Genres -> optionally with specific user selections in form of Playlists. To me this makes sense. Why carry along thought patterns of the past?

It makes sense to have a layer of organization higher than the file system, yes. It does not, however, necessitate obfuscating the file names. For instance, iTunes doesn't do that on my hard disk: everything is organized into a human-readable filesystem hierarchy. I do use iTunes and its extra metadata most of the time, that's true, and I have no particular desire to switch to using the filesystem only. But what I am saying is: since this mode of operation works, why change it for the ipods, if not to force the user to use iTunes to sync?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: jimmy69 on 2010-09-23 04:03:32
I was under the assumption that the reason apple stores music on the ipods in such a weird way (screwed up filenames, etc) was to help improve performance.
AS much as I hate itunes the two killer features that keep me using it would be the music store although bandit.fm looks interesting and Apple remote app.  Oh and I hate to say it but as slow and big and heavy as itunes is, it just works
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-23 05:17:53
You make a good point, "It just works"  out of the box. Very little if any setting up is required. For 99% of us on here tinkering isn't an issue, in the scheme of things we are just a very small portion of people.

Most people can't set up EAC, Foobar ect... they just don't have the knowledge. iYunes is very simple to use, for that reason it's always going to be used by most.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Peter1050 on 2010-09-23 18:51:06
How to get rid of the stupid "traffic lights" on Mac, and restore normal title bar behaviour:

Code: [Select]
defaults write com.apple.iTunes full-window -int -1



Brilliant! Thanks. I hated the new look main window.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Zarggg on 2010-09-23 21:47:49
I may be misremembering, but I believe the the ipod file organization scheme is akin to a hashtable. It tracks everything in an internal database, rather than searching directories. (I.e., look up a track in the database, where the directory and filename is stored, which is faster than searching through directories for a certain artist/album/etc.)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-23 21:58:21
As far as I know it has always been this way, except that iTunes used to keep the track numbers and titles in the file names when writing to your iPod.  I'm pretty certain their changing the file names to something cryptic had to do with keeping people from easily copying their iPod's contents.  I am even more certain that the encrypted names do not make any difference in performance.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-23 22:14:10
I also don't think that it would make a difference performance wise. Apple started its iPod business with quite large investments and the music industry was very suspicious at first. They couldn't afford to let the iPods become known as the new preferred and very convenient tool for "drive-by" piracy. Like filling up and sharing your iPod contents wherever you go. Flash drives were basically able to do the same, but back then it was much more likely that a 32 GB iPod was at hand when required than a comparably sized flash drive in your pocket. I think for todays 160 GB iPods this is still true.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-24 06:18:20
...Apple started its iPod business with quite large investments and the music industry was very suspicious at first. They couldn't afford to let the iPods become known as the new preferred and very convenient tool for "drive-by" piracy. Like filling up and sharing your iPod contents wherever you go. Flash drives were basically able to do the same, but back then it was much more likely that a 32 GB iPod was at hand when required than a comparably sized flash drive in your pocket. I think for todays 160 GB iPods this is still true.


iPods have that "use as hard disk" feature that leaves unused space which can be utilized as an HDD via USB. That should be helpful for those who want to snag their friends music collections on the go! 

j/k I like the feature for other reasons though. I used to have the Zune: it was locked down so you couldn't sync anything to it unless it went through the Zune software. Minor annoyance, IMO.

I wonder how the "music industry" loves it now that iTunes is the number one distributor of legal music? Selling lossy versions of product for nearly the same price as the CD is irritating to me. Bet they're loving it though. Even less effort in manufacture (and arguably quality control.) Probably less revenue for the artists as well from what I keep hearing.

IMO the music industry is, more often than not, ranting maniacally from its collective arse nearly every time they decry some new technology. They don't want to conform to technological advance and evoulution. I find it ironic that a computer company like Apple has to take up the slack and innovation for a lazy, non-inventive, and sue-happy industry whose very business is music distribution.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Larson on 2010-09-24 06:29:52
Engel I agree with you and I don't know if this situation is going to  change when digital will be  the only chance to get music once cds are gone. Maybe they'll go lossless but it's not going to happen anytime soon since broadband infrastructure and bandwidth are still weak to handle all that amount of data. Look at bluray, Microsoft and Apple are against it in favor or lower rips defined "HD" streamed or bought digitally. There is also another thing to keep in mind, record companies as far as I've always read use master tapes for most of the stuff in order to encode for iTunes Store. I don't know if a master tape->AAC is too different than a CD->AAC conversion, but how they want to let believe it is.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-24 09:02:17
Copying from the iPod to the computer once placed back in iTunes the file names will all be restored.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-24 09:16:48
@ Larson: Yes, you make a valid point about the amount of data transferred via MP3/AAC vs. lossless compression. (I know there's plenty of people still using dial-up connections that don't have alternatives where they live.)

If, hypothetically, CDs cease to exist at some point I believe that iTunes and their competitors will stay lossy for other reasons. Most people just won't care about lossless. A well encoded lossy format will likely be transparent to them (again: in theory.)

My problem with buying lossy is I just don't want it as source-material. Anybody can encode lossless to lossy for use on personal players and such. It's extremely ikely that lossy codecs will advance and/or change in years to come. I'd like to have CDDA to encode to them from, should I choose to use them.

I've never bought music from iTunes for those reasons. I'm in a really no objective position to criticize the quality of their files. (I did download a few a while back from Zune and had some quality issues with clicks/pops and dropouts.)  I'm not certain if they use masters or if they just rip CDs sent by the respective record companies.

...I hope that one day they will offer lossless at least as an option. I hope they don't charge a "premium" price for CDDA quality as they do now for "iTunes Plus." That bugs me even more: iTunes Plus AAC @256 costs already more than a CD where I live.

Edited to reference to whom I replied.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-24 16:52:08
In terms of recording and sending the information to the iTunes Store; I believe it is almost all digital now.  From what I have gathered, most artists/bands will record their music digitally, mess with it in the computer, and output a lossless file.  You then start up Apple's software that gives you two options: encode to the iTunes Plus standard or encode to ALAC.  The files are then electronically sent to Apple where they are hosted on Apple's servers (though they might have to encode down to the iTunes Plus setting).  Record companies might still own the digital masters recorded to tapes but I think the whole online music system setup, at least with Apple, is digital.  In other words, the record companies aren't sending Apple CDs or tapes to put the songs up on the iTunes Store.  Instead they are going straight from the digital master files, on a computer system, and enccoding them to ALAC or AAC.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-24 18:52:57
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass or argumentative, but what DAP supports dragging and dropping?


Any players that can be switched to MSC (UMS) mode such as all Cowon and Sansa (Sandisk) players. I am currently using a Cowon J3.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-24 20:08:26
iPods have that "use as hard disk" feature that leaves unused space which can be utilized as an HDD via USB. That should be helpful for those who want to snag their friends music collections on the go! 


It has two inconveniences. You still cannot selectively pull music from the iPod, since file names are scrambled. Music you copy to the iPod in hard disk mode cannot be listened to on you iPod before an additional iTunes round trip at home. For both annoyances there are solutions. Still the iPod is not known as file sharing container nowadays.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Larson on 2010-09-24 20:35:43
@Kornchild

yes record companies are the ones to encode music, they don't send any master tape to Apple, it's all digital nowadays; i guess Apple has control over "approval" or something like that before albums appear on the iTunes Store.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: dcumpian on 2010-09-24 21:05:21
I'll bookmark this thread and get back to you with my brother's results if you think it may be helpful.


Sure, I'd still be interested. I'm still on the fence with regards to jumping to Mac Mini or getting something like a Dell Zino HD instead. I would think either would meet these goals:

1) Run iTunes and be a music server
2) Play movies stored on HDD

Everything would go through my HDTV/Surround system.

Regards,
Dan
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-25 05:56:29
It has two inconveniences. You still cannot selectively pull music from the iPod, since file names are scrambled. Music you copy to the iPod in hard disk mode cannot be listened to on you iPod before an additional iTunes round trip at home. For both annoyances there are solutions. Still the iPod is not known as file sharing container nowadays.


Wow, this is annoying. I have no such problems on my J3.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: C.R.Helmrich on 2010-09-25 12:02:11
iTunes 10.0.1 has been released: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1103 (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1103)

Has anyone checked if this version contains QuickTime 7.6.8 and if encodings are different from iTunes 9.2.x?

Chris
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-25 18:33:38
I am not sure if it comes with QuickTime 7.6.8 or not as Apple's updater software already downloaded and installed that on my computer back when I had iTunes 10.0.0.68.  I also don't know if Apple has updated their AAC encoder since iTunes 9.2 as I don't have any machines not running iTunes 10.  It appears that the only change with this updated version of iTunes is more integration with Ping.  There was a Ping sidebar when I first loaded iTunes and now, whenever you highlight a single song, you see a Ping option.  It is a little pull down menu where you can like a song, not like a song, comment on it, and it gives you some iTunes Store options such as visiting the page for the artist, performing a search for the song title, and viewing the genre page that the song falls into.  They essentially took something pretty simple (ie the little arrow symbols next to the song title, album title, and artist that took you to the iTunes Store to see the appropriate results) and complicated it by integrating Ping.

I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes turns into its own OS down the line.  One which integrates FaceBook, a music store, a movie store, and is able to run apps that you download.  Apple will focus on iTunes OS 1.0 Jungle Lion instead of Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: javajeff on 2010-09-25 19:30:59
iTunes actually makes the best mp3 CDs for my car.  It automatically changes double albums into one by renumbering, creates shorter filenames and shortens song titles and tags.  It automatically makes mp3s perfect and compatible for all car audio.  Furthermore, if you click on the playlist Album header, it will create a separate folder for each album on the CD.  Also, it creates an XML with information in case you reinsert the CD into your iTunes running computer.

I use dbpoweramp for ripping, and foobar for most of my listening these days.  However, the itunes store and CD burning make it worthwhile.  One more thing, winamp costs $20 to have equal burning capabilities of WMP or iTunes.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-25 19:34:25
Ping

More bloat, yay!
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-25 20:24:26
Every time there's a new iTunes update, I just go "sigh" and install it anyway, and spend the next few minutes unchecking new startup additions and restarting the computer.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Robertina on 2010-09-25 21:07:33
iTunes 10.01.22 for Windows contains QuickTime v7.6.8.75.0 according to the included QuickTime.msi

Several sources report concurrently that, besides the new Ping Sidebar, iTunes 10.01.22 fixes some bugs:
Quote
  • Addresses an issue where the picture quality of a video changes depending on whether the on-screen controls are visible.
  • Resolves an issue where iTunes may unexpectedly quit while interacting with album artwork viewed in a separate window.
  • Fixes a problem that affects the performance of some third-party visualizers.
  • Addresses an issue where the iTunes library and playlists appear empty.
  • Resolves an issue that created an incompatibility with some third-party shared libraries.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: DigitalMan on 2010-09-26 06:36:01
I suppose at 5+ pages of posts we now know that iTunes is a worthy topic for posting on HA.  Not an iTunes fanboi here, just watching the entertainment.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Peter1050 on 2010-09-26 09:36:06
Indeed as time trickles by iTunes seems less and less an audio player and more a selling platform (Tv shows, audio tracks, movies, books)


Couldn't agree more. But are there any real alternative to using iTunes (on a Mac).
I suppose I could downgrade to iTunes 9.2.1 to get rid of ping etc.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-26 09:50:16
Indeed as time trickles by iTunes seems less and less an audio player and more a selling platform (Tv shows, audio tracks, movies, books)

The marketing functions are very easily ignored.

Besides, the iTunes Store, with it's easy access to music, books etc, is one of the big assets for iTunes. The awkwardness of other online music stores is a problem.

And, as Peter 1050 says: At least on the Mac, there's no real competition for iTunes, even as a music player only.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Billytheonion on 2010-09-26 15:21:08
For audio only on  a Mac there are a couple or excellent alternatives.  Vox and Play.

Vox is my personal fav amazing little light weight player.  http://www.voxapp.uni.cc/ (http://www.voxapp.uni.cc/)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 15:43:01
Besides, the iTunes Store, with it's easy access to music, books etc, is one of the big assets for iTunes. The awkwardness of other online music stores is a problem.


I personally prefer buying CD's, but what is so hard and awkward about clicking a couple of links in a browser (plus there are a few music managers with plugins for online stores)? No offense to anyone, I really dislike "walled garden" ecosystems- I will not pay money to a company  with an overlord who wants to dictate every aspect of my digital life. I have no intentions of becoming an iSurf.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-26 15:59:41
For audio only on  a Mac there are a couple or excellent alternatives.  Vox and Play.

Well, these are only music players. You'll need to manage your music collection. With payers like tis, it's like dealing with digital photography in the days before Aperture and Lightroom. It easily takes more time than the music playing...

Quote from: cpchan link=msg=0 date=
I will not pay money to a company with an overlord who wants to dictate every aspect of my digital life.

If you knew anything about Apple products and policy, you'd know that those kind of tabloid picture don't reflect reality. As a Mac user in private life and occasional Windows user in professional contexts, I can assure you that Microsoft force more limitations on Windows users than Apple do on Mac users.

(As any discussion on these things tends to end in accusations of 'fanboyism' and references to at least 3 conspiracy theories, I suggest that we don't continue on this off-topic.)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 16:35:09
If you knew anything about Apple products and policy, you'd know that those kind of tabloid picture don't reflect reality.


I don't read tabloids- however, I have been reading tech news for over 30 years (I started computing in my preteen years). Have you ever read their "app store" policy?

As a Mac user in private life and occasional Windows user in professional contexts, I can assure you that Microsoft force more limitations on Windows users than Apple do on Mac users.


I have no problems with Apple on their policy concerning desktops. However, I have major problems with their policies when it comes to their devices. I do not advocate for any company- I have used and switched Operating Systems many times and will do so again. I use what is technically best for me at any given time which currently is a Linux based system. I have no problems with Apple's underlying technology- I do know how to program in Objective-C and use NeXTStep based frameworks such as GNUStep.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-26 17:11:25
I don't read tabloids- however, I have been reading tech news for over 30 years. Have you ever read their "app store" policy?

I suggested not to continue this discussion, but OK:

The AppStore policy is typically Apple:

They do not support stuff that might cause problems for their customers.

What the 'tech news' don't mention, is that with the same degree of technical skills and amount of labour that's needed to make many non-Apple solutions work at all, you can surpass the standard functionality of any Apple product. What might restrict you, is that some developers specializing on other platforms don't care to make Mac versions of their stuff.

Apple will tell you that unauthorized use of their products is illegal. But so will any large US corporation. And very much unlike Microsoft (which is the corporation most computer users have to rely on), Apple will tell you this once, in a general statement — not with pop-up boxes that will have to be unchecked every time you try to do something that's not officially supported on your computer.

Of course Linux don't have these sort of things. But Linux is a platform that's really not an alternative for other than computer engineers, or people with skilled support ready at hand.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 17:36:38
This is my last word on this topic.

Apple will tell you that unauthorized use of their products is illegal. But so will any large US corporation. And very much unlike Microsoft (which is the corporation most computer users have to rely on), Apple will tell you this once, in a general statement — not with pop-up boxes that will have to be unchecked every time you try to do something that's not officially supported on your computer.


Each to their own. I personally will not buy a device from any company that restrict my freedom with what I can do with the device that I have purchased and/or doesn't support open standards.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-09-26 17:58:53
I personally prefer buying CD's, but what is so hard and awkward about clicking a couple of links in a browser (plus there are a few music managers with plugins for online stores)? No offense to anyone, I really dislike "walled garden" ecosystems- I will not pay money to a company  with an overlord who wants to dictate every aspect of my digital life. I have no intentions of becoming an iSurf.


I think I can give you some of my insight as to why I turn to the iTunes Store on the rare occasion and stopped using other services.  I used to rely on Amazon.com's mp3 store as much as I did the iTunes Store.  I too will always prefer buying the physical CDs but there are some instances when I want just one song and don't feel like spending $10 to hear it (though $1 is no problem) or there are some exclusive songs that aren't offered on CD yet are available in the iTunes Store (and rarely the Amazon mp3 store).  I didn't have an issue using Amazon's mp3 store until I wanted to buy an album they had on sale.  It was only $2.99 and the physical copy I have has long been destroyed.  Amazon said that I could purchase individual songs directly through my web browser but I had to download their software in order to download the album as a whole thus receiving the discounted price.  I installed their software which then downloaded the files in the background and added them to my iTunes library.

Essentially, there were three programs open and running just so I could use Amazon's mp3 store.  Their browser interface was fast but I fail to see why I need yet another program just to download songs from their service that consumes more resources than it should (and iTunes is already a resource hog as-is) just so it can duplicate my songs when copying to my iTunes library.  So not only do I have to do something with the original mp3 files but I have yet another program running in the background and a third just to view the content on their store.  If I am going to download music, I would rather just have one program running.  I can have iTunes running and that gives me access to their store, my music library, my downloads, etc. and everything is handled.  I don't need to have three main programs open to use the iTunes Store, I just need one.

Granted, I don't use the iTunes Store much.  I think I have plopped down about $300 and that has been since I started using it in 2003 (~$43 a year).  I will download some singles if the albums are still 6+ months away from being released but I mostly stick to b-sides and "rare" songs that aren't available on CD (either that or the CD is $50 through eBay).  Some people may scoff at the idea of spending $300 on the iTunes Store but it has become difficult to obtain content from many of the artists/bands I listen to without relying on it in some way, shape, or form.  Other than that, I mostly rely on Amazon or Best Buy for obtaining the actual CDs.

As for your other comment.  I guess that means that you don't buy CDs at all, never buy games, and never watch movies or subscribe to cable, internet, phone, and cellphone services.  I am not trying to be an ass but there are many companies out there who want to control your digital life whether it be a cable company, ISP, cellphone provider, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Mozilla, etc.  Every single record company out there, even the ones for independent artists, want to control the media you consume and thus your digital life.  Refusing to give money to companies who want to control your digital life essentially means that you sit in a dark corner every single day doing nothing.  In this day and age, you have to give money to a company who wants to control the content you consume as there is just no way around it.  The difference is that you can let that company take control or you can move on and purchase media (and consume digital media) from many different sources.  Either way, it is impossible to avoid giving money to a company who wants to control your digital life whether they have become as wide spread as Apple or not.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Squeller on 2010-09-26 17:59:59
No need for itunes. I need the flexibility of fb2k (e.g, today I finished my fb2k layout for my 46" living room television - IT ROCKS -fb2k and plugins display exactly the information how and where I want them) - I cannot expect this from an "everybodies darling" toy. Also I don't need to talk about the tech/metadata side of fb2k. I mean, itunes is a thing also for people who have no idea what metadata is.
Last time I installed itunes, a few years ago, it installed a service, wanted quicktime, and was slow.
Also don't need the shopping side of it. I buy lossless classical stuff as close to the source as possible, i.e. I use the labels web shop, if exist. Apple won't get my money, because their stuff is too closed, too limited, no api's etc. I will never support them.

The awkwardness of other online music stores is a problem.

No problems e.g. with bleep.com or www.theclassicalshop.net - Should only be a problem for people who cannot handle download dialogs and who don't know what files, directories and folders are. A widely spread problem! But this really is another problem.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 18:16:27
I am not trying to be an ass but there are many companies out there who want to control your digital life whether it be a cable company, ISP, cellphone provider, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Mozilla, etc.  Every single record company out there, even the ones for independent artists, want to control the media you consume and thus your digital life.


True. Intellectual Property is the new battle front. This is why I support the EFF (http://www.eff.org/).
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-26 18:25:27
It's trivial to make a program performing well if all that is displayed is text and one image at a time (e.g. Foobar). Tell me any application that is able to browse through huge walls of album art as quickly & smoothly as iTunes can.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-26 19:31:31
Should only be a problem for people who cannot handle download dialogs and who don't know what files, directories and folders are.

I certainly know what that is — I've used computers for 25 years, and have written about them for 10.

I simply don't care to use half an hour on downloading, un-zipping, perhaps converting, and in any case organizing — when buying, organizing and playing music from the iTunes Store is a matter of one mouse click, and a few seconds.

I use my computer as a tool to get things done, whether it's writing an article or listen to music. If I write an article about computers (which I dod for some years), understanding how the computer works is necessary. If I write about literature or cultural matters (which I prefer to do), and I want to play music while writing, how the computer works is completely irrelevant. I just want it to do the job without bothering me.

It's decades since you needed to be, or employ a mechanic to own a car. With computers we're still not quite there. But with software like iTunes, we're approaching that ideal.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 20:17:26
I simply don't care to use half an hour on downloading, un-zipping, perhaps converting, and in any case organizing — when buying, organizing and playing music from the iTunes Store is a matter of one mouse click, and a few seconds.


Huh, most online stores sell tracks in a format that is part of a standard-

(1) MP3 (mpeg1/2 standard)
(2) AAC (mpeg4 standard)

Why would people have to transcode anything? Most software organize things with metadata- one does not have to organize anything on a file system level if one doesn't want to (plus they don't rename things to some obscure name like iTune does). Also, there are music managers out there with plugins to online stores, so they are one click also.

It's decades since you needed to be, or employ a mechanic to own a car. With computers we're still not quite there. But with software like iTunes, we're approaching that ideal.


Isn't learning basic computer operations akin to learning how to drive? Also what have letting people, with no basic computing knowledge, loose on the internet led to, but the spreading of viruses and trojans. comprimising systems everywhere?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-26 20:38:08
@kornchild2002
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.

I find it quite hard to take your comparisons seriously.  This is without paying any attention to your avatar.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 20:53:13
For those using Windows it installs system-level drivers.  Its installation includes at least 4 separate programs (beating your Amazon comparison by one).


@greynol: Interesting, I didn't know that (I have never installed iTunes on Windows before). Can you tell me what these 4 programs are?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-26 20:58:08
iTunes
Quicktime
Bonjour
Apple Update
Then there are at least two others that deal with hardware devices such as the iPods and iPhones.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-26 21:34:36
iTunes
Quicktime
Bonjour
Apple Update
Then there are at least two others that deal with hardware devices such as the iPods and iPhones.


Thanks for the info.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-26 23:39:38
Just in case there is anybody reading who wonders whether or not to use iTunes:

1. Do you have a Mac? If Yes, why would you not?

2. Do you run Windows? If Yes, why would you? Well, I have an iPhone/iPod Touch, and the Apps are important. OK, you're stuck with it, so you might as well use it for other things.

3. Do you want to be superior to people who, like, buy amplifiers in a furniture store? Shun it like the plague.

4. Do you run Linux? See if you can get iTunes running under WINE, and then complain about what a resource hog it is.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-27 00:18:24
3. Do you want to be superior to people who, like, buy amplifiers in a furniture store? Shun it like the plague.

4. Do you run Linux? See if you can get iTunes running under WINE, and then complain about what a resource hog it is.


ROTFL.

5. Definitely, if you are a Pod people:

http://awhimsicalbohemian.typepad.com/.a/6...4a2f428a4-320wi (http://awhimsicalbohemian.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5538b84f38833011278e4a2f428a4-320wi)



Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Squeller on 2010-09-27 05:24:43
I certainly know what that is — I've used computers for 25 years, and have written about them for 10.
I wasn't writing about you

Quote
It's decades since you needed to be, or employ a mechanic to own a car. With computers we're still not quite there. But with software like iTunes, we're approaching that ideal.
I see your point. This topic is always matter of discussion. For the same job some people say it's necessary to know it, others say it's a computer experts job.

I think, knowing where files and folders are, knowing about where personally important data reside: it's a good thing. I'm having all those people (amongst my relatives) in mind, losing all their stuff accidentally at once, because they don't know anything. Or they don't find their stuff, because after a program reinstall it points to another place.

And come on, we are at HA
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-09-27 08:46:51
I'm no iTunes/Apple fanboy but...

I love my iPod 160Gb Classic. I don't care who made it, it's a great DAP, IMO. Bought mine as a refurb over two years ago on the Apple Store website...still runs like a tank with incredible battery-life. I think it sounds great, it's stupid-loud, and I can cram all of the albums I can stand for on it...even @ Apple Lossless. To me, that's what a great personal audio player should be.

I guess the reason I'm sharing this with everyone is that I just can't hate iTunes. I think most of you are right about the "bloat" (though it doesn't affect me on my PC,) but I feel it's one of the better "commercial" media players out there. (There's far more granular control than with Zune. Zune software is very user-friendly but, for me, that plays against it. The Zune 80Gb that I used to have was decent and a good iPod competitor, IMO.)

...that said, I would NOT recommend it for those with simple or older PCs. It will run well on Macs (of course) and modern "higher-end" PCs. The startup/background processes have no effect on my laptop. iTunes opens faster than Firefox most of the time. 3 seconds avg. / 5 seconds tops. I remember not being quite so fond of iTunes on my Gateway laptop a few years back (AMD Turion x2 / 3 Gb RAM.) The laptop had decent specs (even for now) and I had the 20 second startup times as many of you do.

I think it's great that we have choice though. Foobar 2K is a great player. I use a portable version and have nothing bad to say about it. If I plug in my external HDD wherein all of my FLAC-archived CDs are stored, I'm certainly not going to convert them to ALAC just to listen to them    I agree with Michael W: Mac users have it made with this software. Windows users have to be a bit more selective weighing many of the things said in this thread against their PC and how it will perform. I sympathize with greynol as well in that one should not have to use a computer that is equipped well above their needs to run this program satisfactorily. It doesn't make iTunes look cool in any sense.

googlebot said: "Tell me any application that is able to browse through huge walls of album art as quickly & smoothly as iTunes can." If that's important to the user, I believe he's right. I love the coverflow.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-27 09:41:46
I really wasn't interested in yet another round but the thought that Amazon's requirement that you install some software is comparable to installing a 100MB software suite is laughable.  For some reason I don't think Mozilla is determined to use something like Firefox to leverage people into buying stuff from them like Apple, either.  Maybe I'm just naive.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-27 10:02:36
As I expected, this discussion turned ideological, and several conspiracy theories were launched...

Just to make it clear:

Yes, iTunes installs QuickTime and some other pieces of Apple technology on your computer. But so does Photoshop and other graphic apps, video editing software etc. These pieces of Apple technology are simply 'industry standards' in multimedia.

Yes, iTunes installs a software updater. But so does most software.

And no, iTunes does not change filenames to gibberish. The music is stored inside a folder named 'iTunes Music', in a simple and logical folder/file structure: 'Artist's Name' > 'Album Name' > 'Tune's Name.m4a' (or whatever extension fits the file format).

If you don't have an ideological grudge against this one IT company, it comes down to this:

iTunes offers one seamless solution for buying sound and AV files, ripping and importing sound and AV files, organizing sound and AV files, playing sound and AV files, sharing these files on a home network with remote control by smartphones etc, and copying them between devices such as portable players.

The functions of iTunes and related solutions are widely expandable through third party add-ons. Solutions that allows easy import from other on-line stores than the iTunes Store is lacking, at least on the Mac — but as such import options are included in several sound recording apps, this is obviously caused by a lack of interest among the owners of these online stores.

iTunes don't force you to use Apple hardware or proprietary file formats. Any music or AV files organized by iTunes are accessible from Squeezebox, Sonos etc. Several NASes runs software that plays music stored by iTunes. Copy protection on iTunes material is history, and was not Apple's idea anyway, but an attempt from the record companies to protect their own interests in a situation when Apple were way ahead of the established music industry in developing online music distribution.

iTunes lacks support for FLAC and MKV. This might be because these formats are not properly standarized (that's the official explanation) — or because they're primarily used for illegal copying. After all, unlike small, independent and often non-commercial developers, Apple have to please the media corporations. Apple had a hard fight to get them to cooperate in the first place, and still the business puts some restrictions on iTunes material.

That iTunes is demanding on computer resources is a myth. Most Mac users run iTunes in the background while doing their job, which often includes heavy tasks like image processing.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: greynol on 2010-09-27 10:09:54
But so does Photoshop and other graphic apps, video editing software etc.

We aren't discussing graphic apps, video editing software, etc.

And no, iTunes does not change filenames to gibberish.

I see you're taking this out of context.  Feel free to re-read the passages you've mischaracterized.

That iTunes is demanding on computer resources is a myth.

There are plenty of us here that can demonstrate how you are so very wrong.  Do you think we're all liars?

So what were those "conspiracy theories" again?

EDIT: Noting cpchan's response below, BS indeed!
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-27 10:37:57
These pieces of Apple technology are simply 'industry standards' in multimedia.


Huh, AAC and H.264 are industrial standards, but Quicktime is not-  it is a proprietary multimedia framework.

iTunes offers one seamless solution for buying sound and AV files,


Yes, from a closed ecosystem.

and copying them between devices such as portable players.


So can any program and device that support an industrial standard called MTP.

iTunes lacks support for FLAC and MKV. This might be because these formats are not properly standarized (that's the official explanation)


BS, the specs are published, standardized, open and royalty free:

FLAC (also part of the Xiph (http://www.xiph.org/) family): http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html (http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html)

Matroska: http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html (http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html)

— or because they're primarily used for illegal copying.


More BS.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: klonuo on 2010-09-27 10:52:40
It's trivial to make a program performing well if all that is displayed is text and one image at a time

Saying that such imaginary program is trivial to make is just too pretentious (even if you use java)

(e.g. Foobar)

AFAIK it uses native windows controls in HQ code which may be the reason for it unbeatable performance

I don't know about what kind of images are you talking about, because you can have as many images as you like in your layout, but let's say that you want images in playlist view (like in you previous post in this thread) - any other playlist view, except default one, has it as option. To mimic grid view (or whatever it is called in iTunes) with album covers you can try EsPlaylist
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hansen on 2010-09-27 10:58:24
I see no use in continuing a discussion on this level.

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?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-27 11:50:55
Can't you just realize that lots of people choose their software solutions with the intent of making certain tasks done;


And people do, using programs of their own choosing. I can care less what people use, plus choice is good. I only have problems when someone push a certain device and program as the "Jesus" combo.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-27 12:14:03
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?


As far as I've seen, you've been the least realistic in this whole thread. Even other "supporters" can see the flaws. Who's being ideological? And no, not even Photoshop installs the same amount of crap iTunes does at startup in Windows. And the other annoying "big" company's updater, google updater, doesn't try to con you into installing other software that you already haven't installed. And Apple even had to tone it down cause when they started weaseling in the "Apple Updater" software, they were trojan-horsing Safari by enabling it by default. Which unsurprisingly resulted in many users installing (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/01/safari-market-share-tripled-on-windows-after-apple-gambit/) it on their Windows machine when they may not even have wanted it. I personally have had to uninstall it for people who didn't know what the hell it was doing there, nor what it even was used for.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-27 15:14:26
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.


Because you are exaggerating things. Using other programs are no way as hard and time consuming as you make it out to be.

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,


"Jack of all trades, master of none."

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:

  1. Small is beautiful.
  2. Make each program do one thing well.
  3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
  4. Choose portability over efficiency.
  5. Store data in flat text files.
  6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
  7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
  8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
  9. Make every program a filter.

and generally waste time on tasks that could have been managed automatically in the background.


How is using different programs less automated? Please give me an example.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-28 05:58:38
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.

I remember reading, as an early example of the power of Unix (when it was just beginning to appear on the desktop with this new 68000 chip), an account of how you could use classic two-letter commands to produce a list of Chinese restaurants in the neighbourhood (assuming, of course, that you had a lot of relevant data in a correctly-formatted text file). 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. For decent commercial reasons Apple wanted it on the majority desktop OS. I guess they could have rewritten it to use the equivalent Windows services, or they could have ported Quicktime and so on. Presumably the latter route was easier (and they also wouldn't have to wonder whether changes to Windows services would break iTunes--purely inadvertently, of course). The result is what is seen as bloat.

The granularity of the iTunes lump is a lot coarser than the granularity of the Unix programs, of course, but you can't imagine Photoshop functionality being broken down into something managed by a shell script, either, I think.

And then, of course, as a counter-example from the classical age, there is Emacs.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: andy o on 2010-09-28 08:16:46
Oh, joy. I thought Apple had stopped doing this after they caught flak for it, but they still do. Apple updater still tries to trojan-horse Safari and MobileMe by checking them by default when running an update.

BTW I stumbled upon this (http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/core-dump/17296-on-apple-software-update-safari-and-the-blogosphere) earlier. This is the sort of rationalizations someone must invent to justify in his mind this kind of weasely behavior. The guy is even more obtuse in the comments.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-28 09:33:38
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.


It is still used everyday or else people won't be using pipes, redirections, sed and awk from the commandline and shell scripts on a daily basics. Also, what do you think is gluing your Linux system together? Just look at your /etc hierarchy- they are plain text files and try grepping for sed and awk in the files in /sbin sometime. Also, everything is a file in Unix- every aspect of your system appears as plain text files (look at /proc, /sys). Example, try this:

Code: [Select]
cat /proc/cpuinfo


on your system.

Would we do that now? We might, but we'd probably prefer a graphical front end controlling the different small programs, at least.


You uses what is appropriate for the task at hand- sometimes it is a graphically frontend, some times it is the shell. A typical design pattern in Unix/Linux is to write a backend as a commandline program/programs (what can be used from the commandline and in shell scripts) and have multiple frontends (which these days is most likely GTK2, QT4 and maybe ncurses). With shell scripts, we can also automate and repeat tasks with cron and at. Also, there is a return to plain text data in computer science these days is the form of xml (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xml). Even Open Office and MS Office is going the xml route.

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).


Of course not everything can be express as text, you only use plain text files when possible and appropriate. For music, the appropriate use of plain text file will be playlists (such as the m3u format) and perhaps the media library database (flat file or xml). For example, the database of mpd (http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Music_Player_Daemon_Wiki).

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.


Not for everyone, but most programmers, system admins and power users still prefer the flexibility and power of the commandline and use it everyday in conjunction with GUI apps. And yes, I do listen to Gregorian chants.

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.


I doubt it is that modular since, IIRC, it is still mainly a carbon app. However, if it is written in Cocoa and if it uses bundles  heavily, that can be loaded/unloaded on demand by the user- then it is a different matter. 

And then, of course, as a counter-example from the classical age, there is Emacs.


Only if you misunderstand what Emacs is- it is huge if you think of it just as a text editor. However, Emacs is really a virtual LISP machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine) that specializes in manipulating text streams. It consist of a core LISP interpreter (and functions where speed is essential) written in C, the rest is actually implemented in Emacs LISP. Each major-mode in Emacs can be consider a separate program. I invite you to browse through EmacsWiki (http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki) to see what Emacs can do.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2010-09-28 09:51:50
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.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-28 10:18:55
FWIW Google includes Chrome when one tries to download Google Earth. The option can be disabled, but is enabled by default.


Sigh... so much for "do no evil". It pains me to see great sites going to shit once they become more and more commercialized. It reminds me of Yahoo- it used to be a great site during the NCSA Mosaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_%28web_browser%29) and early Netscape days.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: MichaelW on 2010-09-28 10:21:27
@cpchan

True, O Sage (at least, I presume true--I am not a sysadmin, except in the sense that my wife sometimes asks me to fix her laptop), 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.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: cpchan on 2010-09-28 10:43:18
True, O Sage


Please don't call me that. I am just a humble seeker/user- we learn new things everyday. However, SAGE is the acronym for the System Administrators Guild (http://www.sage.org/) sponsored by USENIX. You might be interested in The Linux System Aministrator's Guide (http://tldp.org/LDP/sag/html/index.html).

but I was thinking more of the people on the street than the wizard in his lair.


You don't need to be a wizard to use the commandline- most people learn it piece meal. A great intro is Rute (http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz).

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.


Ah, those were the day. Or use gopher.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-09-29 17:47:42
To mimic grid view (or whatever it is called in iTunes) with album covers you can try EsPlaylist


EsPlaylist cannot show album art greater than stamp size. It also wastes a lot of screen estate for large spaces between covers. It comes nowhere close to iTunes' capabilities for graphically scrolling through collections. Even if you exclude cover flow, which I don't use.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: klonuo on 2010-09-30 05:15:57
What is stamp size? It can display artwork (or any other grouping image like genre, artist...) in size you set (adjust first empty column title) without space between images too, if you disable right-side info. It can treat playlists or whole library or both.
I don't think author made the component to replicate iTunes behavior, but to provide new features possible in foobar as it is lot more than just grid display of images. But can mimic some similar concepts like that one in iTunes, or similar in Winamp or other media managers.

There is abandoned component that I think was inspired by that grid view: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=636883 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=61412&view=findpost&p=636883)
Although I guess it won't provide some smooth effects like the ones you are used to in iTunes, but it looks like decent rip
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: romor on 2010-09-30 05:52:44
While discussing replication: Can you replicate Facets concept in iTunes?

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

I buy CDs or purchase at artists portals (please consider this idea instead directing you money to some off-road collectors which does not provide you artistic product, well unless you want to listent to some Gaga of course)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Engelsstaub on 2010-10-01 00:53:15
...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...


To me that's a bit condescending to those who may like and use iTunes for whatever reasons. I'm not certain why everyone has to get all evangelical about all of this. I'll sleep just as well whether people use iTunes or not. (In fact if everyone has a divine epiphany of sorts and switches to F2K or some other media player, and Apple goes out of business tomorrow, I have reasonable faith that my life will continue as before.    )

I like to buy the CDs too (if possible.) I far prefer the physical media to digital content of the lossy type. I know I've said this before, but I'm more than capable of creating my own MP3s or AACs if the need arises.)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: aclo on 2010-10-01 01:12:14
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


It's not entirely shiny kid's features though. On OS X, itunes can be scripted via applescript (or if that's a kid's language, which it is, via python with appscript). So for instance you can write a quick script to autorate tracks based on eg frequency of playing or whatever. It's an extra interface via which you can programmatically control itunes to do all sorts of things (I use it only for simple things such as autorating, exporting the names of all the album titles in my collection into a text file, automatically setting the track number to be the first number in the filename and so on, but that's just because I do nothing complicated with my music collection).

But perhaps then it's OS X itself is the kid's toy?
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hengest on 2010-10-01 14:08:51
While discussing replication: Can you replicate Facets concept in iTunes?


I suspect that it isn't worth my time to make a response -- esp. considering the assumptions you seem to make about anyone who uses iTunes (kiddie features, Gaga and the rest of the rubbish you came up with). Here it goes anyway .

[a href="http://img299.imageshack.us/i/23723262.png/" target="_blank"].
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: romor on 2010-10-01 14:20:54
After your edit you could also delete your post, instead showing your useless bitterness upon my opinion on iTunes
I did not insult anybody, nor selling anything, nor care if you use it and fail in providing example functionality I asked
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Hengest on 2010-10-01 15:04:41
After your edit you could also delete your post, instead showing your useless bitterness upon my opinion on iTunes
I did not insult anybody, nor selling anything, nor care if you use it and fail in providing example functionality I asked


Well, I thought the screenshot showed the facets quite clearly. Sorry if you didn't see them, or if you were looking for something more.

Also, I found it a bit insulting that you made the assumption that iTunes features' are simply 'shiny kid's features'. I find many -- obviously, not all -- features to be quite useful. But I am not a 'kid'. I find it insulting to be thought of as one simply because I may use those features.

In addition to this, I object to the idea that buying from iTunes does not provide one with an 'artistic' product, and that one should only purchase from the iTunes store if buying Lady Gaga's music. To me, the tone of your post seemed to carry with it the assumption that music bought from such a medium does not have much value. Forgive me if this was not your point.

Simply put, I felt that your post carried with it certain generalisations that touch a nerve of mine. Namely, the assumption iTunes users, Lady Gaga, and so-called 'kids' are all part of one homogeneous group. That idea, I believe, is rubbish.

NB: I do not listen to Lady Gaga's music, but I do not disrespect her, anyone who listens to her music, nor, for that matter, anyone who considers themself to be a kid.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: googlebot on 2010-10-01 21:06:52
Example of simply installing iTunes and its piggyback system driver suite causes completely unrelated programs (for mounting disk images) to break on 64 bit systems:

http://forum.sysprogs.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=532 (http://forum.sysprogs.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=532)

It is really annoying. WinCDEmu is one of the few one-click CD image mounters, that works flawlessly on 64 bit Windows, since it has got signed drivers.

I thought I'd share that. It's not just hypothetical, that installing all sorts of system drivers for a simple music player is not desirable. iTunes has too leave my system now. For some features I will miss it.
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2010-10-02 00:07:34
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 


I know I am late in responding (been busy at work, damn night shifts will be the death of me) but I guess I didn't explain my thoughts clearly enough.

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?


I have no doubt that downloading the iTunes+QuickTime bundle installs 345X10^30 programs, drivers, etc.  I am not denying that or giving Apple an excuse to take over my computer with a million different background processes going on at once.  My take on it was this: I have already purchased an iDevce and thus have given into Apple's software world.  Now, in order to use the Amazon mp3 store, I have to run FireFox and the Amazon mp3 downloader on top of all of that.  You must install Amazon's mp3 downloading program if you want to buy full albums without purchasing the songs individually, there is no stepping around that.  So, for someone like myself that is already balls deep into the iDevice universe, it is just easier to use a service built into software I have already been forced to install instead of running two more things on top of that (FireFox and Amazon's downloader).  All Amazon's program does is work with Amazon's .amz (or something along those lines) files that point the software to Amazon's servers for proper download.  It will then download a file and add it to my iTunes library, download another file and add it to my iTunes library, and repeat the process until an entire album is downloaded.  I don't have to do this if I am purchasing individual songs.  However, they often have whole album purchases at lower prices than purchasing the individual songs.  For example, Amazon had a $5.00 album on sale that I wanted.  Buying the whole album (thus being required to use Amazon's software) was $5.00 total, it would have cost me $11 had I purchased each song individually through FireFox without going the "buy album" route.  Since my system is already being taxed enough, I would rather just stick to using iTunes instead of FireFox and Amazon's program (which simply imports into iTunes anyway) along with iTunes and all of Apple's background programs.

As far as tracks only available on iTunes, one thing is for certain, they weren't performed by the Beatles.


Maybe it has something to do with the time period I grew up in but I just don't see the Beatles as being the end all of music. 
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Aznboy1993 on 2010-10-02 18:19:15
sweet! i love itunes 10! (foobar too!)
Title: iTunes 10
Post by: Noble Tiger on 2010-10-30 05:00:28
When iTunes 10.0.1.22 was released in late September and I upgraded, to the dismay of many including myself, it seemed that Apple did away with the Genius Sidebar (The sidebar that suggested songs on the iTunes Store similar to music you currently have selected (highlighted) in your iTunes library) in favour of their new Ping Sidebar.

It looks like Apple is working on restoring the Genius Sidebar in iTunes 10.0.1.22 (Now called the iTunes Sidebar):

[a href="http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m277/tigsworld/web/?action=view&current=itunes.jpg" target="_blank"]