Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iTunes coming to PC sooner (Read 20481 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #50
Quote
In other words - my 'Superdrive' has never performed a faulty rip on a CD.

You're obviously too trusting to use cdparanoia 

How do you know it has never performed a faulty rip? Could you rip the same song twice and get a bit for bit identical copy? If not, why not?

People who swear by secure-rippers are looking for something more than just "no immediately audible flaws". Personally that's good enough for me as I'm happy to rerip anything I notice a glitch in as long as it only happens once in a blue moon.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #51
Quote
Quote
My speculation on the upcoming iTunes release is that the software will be bloated.

It's obvious that you haven't tried iTunes - if you had, you would know that the last thing you could call it is bloated. It's closer to "overly simplistic" and "lacking features". The entire design philosophy behind Apple's iApps are that they don't do much, but what they do, they do well. And they do what 95% of the people need.

The cool thing about iTunes is that it's idiot-proof. No-one ever reads the help - if you want to do something, you usually click on a few buttons, and it happens. Ripping a CD is as simple as inserting it and clicking the "Import" button. It can organise you music library for you. Creating traditional playlists is done by drag and drop (or selecting them and choosing a menu item), and smart playlist work quite well too. One thing that Apple got right is the Rating system. Using it is almost trivial, and when combined with smart playlist, you end up with a combination that does for music listening what tabs did for browsing. (Changes it )

None of these features are truly revolutionising, but when they are done properly and in an intuitive way, you end up with an application that people like. What iTunes does not have is customisation: You cannot change the skin. You cannot change the way files are organised, only disable the organisation. The features are limited and the customisation is limited. If you want more, there are other applications that will suite your needs better.

danchr and bawjaws hit the nail on the head, as far as the pros and cons of iTunes and what they are trying to accomplish.  iTunes for Windows is all about enhancing the usability of the iPod and the Music Store for Windows users.  All Apple has to prove with iTunes for Windows is that they can transfer something of the usability experience of a Mac to Windows software.  The iPod itself is all about the experience - the interface, the style and coolness, but with substance behind it too.  So they need extend that experience into iTunes for Windows.

No small thing, but if they do, that will be a coup.  They will have created a hardware + software beachhead in the Windows world.  That's the key to what works for them.

Their target is the average or even new user, in terms of technical sophistication, who may not even know what  codec is being used - to them, a CD goes into the drive, and the music gets onto their portable.  Magic.

Most of the rest of this thread is staring at the bark of the trees and not seeing that there is forest around.  This isn't about AAC, except incidentally.  Apple deserves some slight credit for using the leverage they have, in a proprietary arena, to move the encoding standards forward.  But that's the least of their worries.  The real benefits to them of AAC are:
- It gives them a proprietary distinction, to keep a boundary around their market.  That they can argue it's an advantage vs. mp3s and Windows is a bonus.
- Enough DRM (partly just de facto, because AAC isn't as easily shared among average users) to get the Music Store off the ground with the record companies, without having too much DRM, like WMA, to get in the way of usability.

Their timing is great, too.  The real Achilles heel, as always, is the prices.

Secure ripping would be nice, but most people don't know what that is and couldn't care less.  More importantly, it would probably degrade the usability for most, as it would slow down the rip and generate errors - they'd perceive it negatively.  And in a DRM-aware corporate environment, bit-perfect ripping is hardly a priority.  Both reasons it seems unlikely they'll pursue that.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #52
Quote
AAC is at least as good as Ogg Vorbis, MPEG-4 Video is at least as good as Ogg Theora, and the Ogg Speex developer himself once claimed that it couldn't compete with CELP.

What are you talking about???  Speex *IS* a CELP codec.    All I said is acknowledge that I know Speex doesn't beat all proprietary speech codecs...

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #53
Quote
True, but an "Advanced" section is the easy way out. Sure, virtually all applications have one, but sometimes, everything which has no obvious place is advanced. So you add a new option, and put it in the advanced section.

You can't add a new feature without altering the user interface. So you have to make some changes - for better or worse - to add a feature. Which is why extra features aren't inevitably good.


  B)  Well I'm not suggesting that extra features are inevitably a good thing, I'm suggesting that extra features are not inevitably a bad thing. Particularly if the user who is sensitive to changes in the usability of the GUI doesn't even know it's there.

  If the default mp3 encode option in iTunes was, say --a-p-s (using LAME 3.90.3 of course), and resulted in the most 'clueless' users getting a better quality audio file per total file size, I'd think most people around here would say that was a good thing. Would it impact the usability of iTunes in any negative way? I would tend to think not.   

  Whether another option in the 'advanced' tab is an easy way out or not, I'm probably not qualified to say.  The last thing I coded was probably in VRML, for crying out loud 

Quote
Actually, I'd find native Ogg and FLAC support in iTunes highly unlikely.


    I wasn't suggesting that Apple was particularly likely to incorporate FLAC support into iTunes, just that the more vocal Macintosh advocates/fanboys/whatever would find in the decision (by Apple to add these features in a way that didnt really impact the usability of the GUI) more proof of the inherent superiority of their preferred platform.
      edit: APS-> --a-p-s

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #54
Quote
B)  Well I'm not suggesting that extra features are inevitably a good thing, I'm suggesting that extra features are not inevitably a bad thing. Particularly if the user who is sensitive to changes in the usability of the GUI doesn't even know it's there.

The trick is, hiding something is quite difficult. Users are curious and might see an advanced preferences tab and do silly things with it. An example would be the lame advanced switches: People shouldn't be using them, since they have no clue what they do, but they use them anyway...

Quote
If the default mp3 encode option in iTunes was, say --a-p-s (using LAME 3.90.3 of course), and resulted in the most 'clueless' users getting a better quality audio file per total file size, I'd think most people around here would say that was a good thing. Would it impact the usability of iTunes in any negative way? I would tend to think not.   

Mmmmm, LAME ripping in iTunes...
I don't see it happening, but I would say that LAME needed a ~128kbps VBR preset for it to suit all needs.

Quote
Whether another option in the 'advanced' tab is an easy way out or not, I'm probably not qualified to say.  The last thing I coded was probably in VRML, for crying out loud 

I'm not a GUI coder either, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating a good GUI

Quote
    I wasn't suggesting that Apple was particularly likely to incorporate FLAC support into iTunes, just that the more vocal Macintosh advocates/fanboys/whatever would find in the decision (by Apple to add these features in a way that didnt really impact the usability of the GUI) more proof of the inherent superiority of their preferred platform.

Of course mac users are more positive to what Apple does than the rest of the world. Mac users are part of a minority, and most knowingly chose to be. In contrast, many Windows users aren't all that fond of Microsoft. You're right though, there are lots of zealots out there. But once in a while, they're right...

Quote
What are you talking about???   Speex *IS* a CELP codec.    All I said is acknowledge that I know Speex doesn't beat all proprietary speech codecs...

Oops, didn't know that. Would it have been any better if I said AMR instead?

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #55
LAME is unlikely to the default MP3 encoder in iTunes because it's so much slower than the FhG one used and for most users that sacrifice isn't worth the gains. We're not talking you or I or most members here. Also the AAC QT/iTunes encoding is very fast.

As I mentioned before, iTunes on the Mac has gained lots of third party support. One app that I use all the time is the iTunes-LAME plugin.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #56
Quote
As I mentioned before, iTunes on the Mac has gained lots of third party support. One app that I use all the time is the iTunes-LAME plugin.

One of the neat features of iTunes is that if you rip something already ripped, it'll prompt you if you're sure you want to do that. You can then choose whether to replace the existing entries. You can't do that with the iTunes-LAME plugin.

Other than that, LAME encodes at 0,6-0,7 times speed on my mac where iTunes AAC encodes at 2,5-3,0. That's the main reason I use it.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #57
Quote
I would say that LAME needed a ~128kbps VBR preset for it to suit all needs.

--alt-preset xxx gives you the ABR presets = the VBR preset you want.  Though I'd say 160 is a better bet than 128, given the way capacity of portables is headed.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #58
Quote
LAME encodes at 0,6-0,7 times speed on my mac where iTunes AAC encodes at 2,5-3,0. That's the main reason I use it.

Definitely a big speed difference (from my dual 450 G4 1.7-2.0 for --apfs/--apfe, 6.0-8.0 for AAC). Interestingly if you use a third party plugin (AACelerator, AAChoo, Doug's Make Mine MPEG-4) to tap QT's higher "Best" encoding, the speed is about the same (on my system) as the fast Lame settings (probably around 2.0 - difficult to tell since it has to encode twice - movie then audio).

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #59
Quote
Interestingly if you use a third party plugin (AACelerator, AAChoo, Doug's Make Mine MPEG-4) to tap QT's higher "Best" encoding...

What's so impressive about the "Best" setting is that it's slower, but does absolutely nothing in the added time. Whatever your issues are about using subtraction to compare audio, it's pretty darn good at proving to streams to be bitwise identitical. Which Marc Heijligers found them to be.

According to Roberto - who has it from Apple - "Best" is tuned for 24-bit audio. It seems it would be rather foolish to use it for anything else

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #60
Quote
What's so impressive about the "Best" setting is that it's slower, but does absolutely nothing in the added time.

I can confirm that "Best" setting do nothing on 16bit CD rip. the files encode with "Best" and "Better" settings are bit indentical.

But I time my encode several times to make sure that there is no added time for "Best" setting compare to "Better" setting (on 16bit CD rip).

P.S. I use Windows version of Quicktime Pro 6.3.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #61
This is all very interesting. Although I haven't tested QT's good/better/best settings against either other, I did iTunes versus QT best (using AACelerator) and they are not bit identical. Well not file size length identical. Did several tests at 160 and 192 kbps and most albums were .1-.3 megs difference (some larger) between the two methods. I know kbps are kbps, so I'm not sure where the size difference is from, but just wanted to point it out.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #62
Here's the scoop with iTunes.
I recently switched from Windows XP Pro to Mac OS X when I bought a PowerBook G4.  When I was in the PC world, I used EAC + LAME 3.90.3 (alt-preset-extreme), so needless to say, I was a bit worried about using a program that reminded me of MusicMatch.  But honestly, within ten minutes I didn't care anymore.  128kbps AAC files sound as good enough for government work, the iTunes store, while not flawless, is an amazing feature and really a step in the right direction (CDs are not going to last; the MP3/AAC digital forms will replace them).  The encoding is fast, it's pretty much fool-proof, sounds great.  But the most important aspect of iTunes (and this is what I'm waiting to see on Windows) is how well everything works together.  iTunes and QuickTime work flawlessly with each other; transfering music from iTunes to the iPod is also seamless, bugless, and wickedly fast.
I guess the hype with iTunes isn't that it's so revolutionary in technology, but that it's so effective while being insanely easy to use.  Unless EAC which has millions settings and open variables, iTunes is relatively idiot-safe, and because of this works 99% of the time without a problem.  It's feature packed, yet never feels bloated.  It's fast, but stable.  It's just a nice piece of software, and if Apple can get it work with the same level of perfection on the PC, you'll find using the iPod with Windows will get a LOT easier.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #63
iTunes for windows ETA October 16th

[edit]Oops, didn't notice another thread started w/ this info it didn't immediately show up in the recent discussions...[/edit]

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #64
Quote
Quote
As I mentioned before, iTunes on the Mac has gained lots of third party support. One app that I use all the time is the iTunes-LAME plugin.

One of the neat features of iTunes is that if you rip something already ripped, it'll prompt you if you're sure you want to do that. You can then choose whether to replace the existing entries. You can't do that with the iTunes-LAME plugin.

Other than that, LAME encodes at 0,6-0,7 times speed on my mac where iTunes AAC encodes at 2,5-3,0. That's the main reason I use it.

See the LAME optimizing thread I posted.  Some guys on Ars added altivec and other stuff.  Its a work in progress, but my roommate got a pretty big speed up (like >2x IIRC).

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #65
There's been a lot of good posts on iTunes, so I hope some of you are getting the message.  In some ways, it's something that can't be put into words - like most good computer experiences, be it Mac OS, BeOS, Amiga or whatever really gets (got) you off, you just have to *TRY* it for yourself.

Background:  I have been a long time Mac user, but currently just own PC's and my audio system is based around a Windows XP machine.  My parents however own scads of Macs including a new G4 which I get to use when I'm home.

Without rehashing too much hopefully, here's my impressions of iTunes vs. Windows
(and I say "Windows" as a whole to include all the various options out there)

iTunes is THE kitchen sink and like people have said, it does a great job, 99% of the time for 99% of the people out there.  It is also quite straight-forward to use, like even your grandma could figure it out.  The closest thing on Windows seems to be WMP, or maybe MJ. 


The BIGGEST annoyance about WMP for me
Music searches are SLOW... like if I hit search "U2" in WMP9, it seems to crawl my hard drive for ages (and these are state of the art 200GB ATA133 jobs)

iTunes, you just start typing "U" and it cuts down everything to what starts with U, then you type "2" and boom, everything by U2... instantly, like all this happened in the space of the time it takes to type u-2 on the keyboard.  Even if you just used iTunes as a player (which I plan to do), it should hopefully kick major ass.

iTunes is scriptable (lots available already if you don't know AppleScript - this is for the Mac at least) which makes tag editing a bit easier.  It can easily do "swap <artist> <title>" for those mp3's that some idiot messed up.  Only with Mpeg Audio Collection (MAC) have I been able to find something that was able to help sort out my tags as nicely.  Oh but that means yet *another* application that has to scan like over 30,000 songs.  </rant>

iTunes can organize your music on the filesystem just as nicely as it does in its interface if you so choose.  I know WMP offers this too, but I have been loath to try it for fear it screws up my collection.  I get the feeling you can't specify WHERE you want your collection, whereas at least with iTunes and a quick Alias (like Shortcut or symlink), I can put my iTunes music collection anywhere.

iTunes database is easily to find, and move/copy/throw out... to date I have had little luck trying to find the WMP one... though granted I could probably try harder.  Foobar2000 has database options but in like 10 minutes I wasn't able to figure it out to any satisfaction and so far have ignored it... maybe it just can't do any database stuff with my CUE files, dunno.

Windows apps are generally over-complicated and butt-ugly.  I have been dying for a nice clean app in Windows (I'd even pay for it!) that does what iTunes does, and as nicely.  It does not exist - well at least not until Oct 19th!  ;-)

For refernce, my current set of Audio tools in XP includes:

EAC - ripping audio CD's to raw WAV's with CUE sheets (might encode later)
FLAC - did some preliminary testing with lossless vs everything else
            (raw/LAME/old iTunes - from Mac - rips)
MAC - tag editing of my mp3 collection (MPEG Audio Collection)
WMP - playback/editing of collection
Foobar2000 - using for playback of the CUE files
DVDdecrypter - ripping DVD images raw (might encode later)
Daemon Tools - mounting those raw DVD images for playback
PowerDVD - DVD playback (Cyberlink)
played with burnatonce, nero, MJ (not 9.1 yet), Winamp (2&3), Alcohol
And other stuff that I forget right now...

Now I grant you iTunes will *not* do a fraction of what the above combination can do.  So rather than say "iTunes whips the laama's ass off that stuff", let's say that iTunes does what it does, much better than the stuff above does what they do.

Basically if the people writing Foobar200 take some lessons from the iTunes GUI (and hopefully it will be as good as the Mac one)... then I should be happy. 

I actually dreamed up a media framework for Windows, where *everything* was a plugin, and further dreaming that all these "best of breed'" applications above, would work with it... best CD ripping, use EAC plugin, so on and so forth.  This would all have a nice clean consistent interface, skinnable (with proper skins, not something someone's little brother threw together in Paint) and would just *work*.  You'd just launch, "Media Interface" or whatever the main application that ties this interface together would be called and boom, there it all is.  Encoders would be a plugin, and like most software, some would be free, some would be payware of sorts, some would be commericalized - like want a THX plugin, $29.95 to LucasArts or whoever.  DTS, AAC - $15.  Sigh, dream on eh?

Oh, and by the way the Apple music store built into iTunes is pretty sweet.
It also doesn't jump out a you or ignore the shit out of you, like microsoft would certainly implement it.  I am *STILL* trying to find a way to have WMP *NOT* go to their default webpage on startup... you know the "Check out lousy artist you will never like and watch this sad music video made by teens on speed, and buy that horrible rap album page"... yah that one.

It would also be nice that when you selected music in WMP to upload to say your PDA/mp3 player, that it wouldn't jump from the Media Library to the "Upload to device" page automatically.  This is annoying because when you are selecting one song from this artist, and one song from that artist, it means you have to keep going BACK to Media Library... and since my Library is HUGE, it takes a fairly long time each time to refresh that listing. 

I could go on all day about WMP... java script:emoticon('<_<')
java script:emoticon('<_<')

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #66
Quote
See the LAME optimizing thread I posted.  Some guys on Ars added altivec and other stuff.  Its a work in progress, but my roommate got a pretty big speed up (like >2x IIRC).

Cool. Now all I need is a vector unit!

Anyway, if I had to some up why I like iTunes:
- It's well designed.
- It's intuitive.
- It works.
- It's fast.
- It's foolproof.
- It's well designed.

Some Windows users are used to compare features between A and B, and based on that conclude which is best. IMO software is something you try; use it if you like it, scrap it if you don't. Not all features are strictly necessary.

Anyway, rumor has it iTunes for Windows will be out on the 16th B)

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #67
I am now convinced that Mac users/advocates rate interface much higher than Windows users. This is most likely the reason that I don't get very excited with the idea of a very intuitve interface.  I CAN appreciate a clean interface, and in that regard, there are plenty of products in the Windows world that have a very clean interface.  Media Player Classic, Internet Explorer, and the most recent Foobar 2000 (the latter needs to be custom tweaked still, IMHO).

Anyways, I'm a messy person in general, but I'd also like to think myself smart and pliable so learning a new interface isn't that big an issue to me just as long as there is a fast and efficient (note: using a mouse for very common functions is NEITHER fast or efficient, IMHO).
Quote
iTunes is scriptable (lots available already if you don't know AppleScript - this is for the Mac at least) which makes tag editing a bit easier.  It can easily do "swap <artist> <title>" for those mp3's that some idiot messed up.

iTunes can organize your music on the filesystem just as nicely as it does in its interface if you so choose.  I know WMP offers this too, but I have been loath to try it for fear it screws up my collection.  I get the feeling you can't specify WHERE you want your collection, whereas at least with iTunes and a quick Alias (like Shortcut or symlink), I can put my iTunes music collection anywhere.

iTunes database is easily to find, and move/copy/throw out... to date I have had little luck trying to find the WMP one... though granted I could probably try harder.  Foobar2000 has database options but in like 10 minutes I wasn't able to figure it out to any satisfaction and so far have ignored it... maybe it just can't do any database stuff with my CUE files, dunno.

Windows apps are generally over-complicated and butt-ugly.  I have been dying for a nice clean app in Windows (I'd even pay for it!) that does what iTunes does, and as nicely.  It does not exist - well at least not until Oct 19th!  ;-)
...
Basically if the people writing Foobar200 take some lessons from the iTunes GUI (and hopefully it will be as good as the Mac one)... then I should be happy. 

I actually dreamed up a media framework for Windows, where *everything* was a plugin, and further dreaming that all these "best of breed'" applications above, would work with it... best CD ripping, use EAC plugin, so on and so forth.  This would all have a nice clean consistent interface, skinnable (with proper skins, not something someone's little brother threw together in Paint) and would just *work*.  You'd just launch, "Media Interface" or whatever the main application that ties this interface together would be called and boom, there it all is.  Encoders would be a plugin, and like most software, some would be free, some would be payware of sorts, some would be commericalized - like want a THX plugin, $29.95 to LucasArts or whoever.  DTS, AAC - $15.  Sigh, dream on eh?

First, I'll assume that you're familiar with scripting in Foobar 2000 for the interface. If not, then you SHOULD, because it can change the interface quite drastically.  The masstagger, IMHO, is one of the most powerful tagging utilities there is.

You're not the first in this thread to bring up the database capabilities of iTunes. This is something that puzzles me.  I guess I don't fully understand what's so special about the database that can't already be expressed in terms of playlists and directory structures.

Anyways, now you're ripping into WMP, which is like me ripping into Quicktime.  Most knowledgeable Windows users (should) NEVER use WMP, simply because it's a bloated POS software.  Those who know about it, use a program like Media Player Classic, which is a media player that looks a lot like Microsoft's OLD Media Player, but it's MUCH more powerful (certainly kicks the s*** outta Quicktime on EITHER platform, IMHO).  Others use things like TCMP, ZoomPlayer, and/or BSPlayer.

I'm going to state a point here that is probably the fundamental reason that most windows users look down upon Mac users.  In Windows, the best multimedia things DON'T come from Microsoft.  AFAIK, on the Mac, the best multimedia toys DO come from Apple.  Thus, Windows users look at Apple users as "needing to be spoon fed from Apple," when in fact, that's just how things are (which is ESPECIALLY annoying when there are WINDOWS users that are being spoon fed from MS, using nothing but WMP, WMA & WMV :x).  I know that Mac users aren't simply idiots being spoonfed (well, some of you, anyways  ), but I suspect that's how the view is.

As for the Foobar 2000 GUI, that's the probably the biggest complaint I've heard about it.  The latest release (0.7) is a huge improvement, so if you're not using it already, you should switch to it.  An alternative to using Foobar 2000 (or WMP) for music would be Winamp 2.91, which is an excellent alternative for those who absolutely can't stand the extensibility of Foobar 2000).

One last thing.  I would daresay that your idea for such a massive multimedia setup would be humongously bloated.  Also, it weirds me out that it's not that dissimilar to .... WINDOWS.  If you viewed the programs as plugins, then there are quite a few similarities.

Please don't flame me for this post.  I'm genuinely trying to understand the excitement for iTunes, while at the same time, trying to strip away as much of the subjective comments as I can.  So far, most of your posts have actually been helpful to me.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #68
Quote
I guess I don't fully understand what's so special about the database that can't already be expressed in terms of playlists and directory structures.


A couple of reasons, first speed - try having a program to scan through 20,000 tracks spread out in folders and playlists. Databases are the way to go for any media player, I know in dBpowerAMP Audio Player with 10,000 tracks loaded you can search on any text - artist track name or album and it will find it in under 1 second, it can also search part strings so in the search box type  'mad vir' and it will find 'Madonna Like a Virgin' whilst you type!!

Second, I am assuming you like certain pieces of audio more than others, why not rate them and have a program that can play back based on rating - seems pretty much all the database programs do that, some of us had this feature for a good 4 years.

Thirdly a database allows multiple Genres to be assigned to a single track, as well as including information such as times played, etc. Basically databases bring players to the next level.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #69
Quote
A couple of reasons, first speed - try having a program to scan through 20,000 tracks spread out in folders and playlists. Databases are the way to go for any media player, I know in dBpowerAMP Audio Player with 10,000 tracks loaded you can search on any text - artist track name or album and it will find it in under 1 second, it can also search part strings so in the search box type  'mad vir' and it will find 'Madonna Like a Virgin' whilst you type!!

Second, I am assuming you like certain pieces of audio more than others, why not rate them and have a program that can play back based on rating - seems pretty much all the database programs do that, some of us had this feature for a good 4 years.

Thirdly a database allows multiple Genres to be assigned to a single track, as well as including information such as times played, etc. Basically databases bring players to the next level.

Hmm.  I always associated the database as the internal playlist (which I don't think is inaccurate).  I've never needed to search for songs on my own playlist/database/whatnot.

The smart rating system, though a very nice concept, hasn't fully appealed to me yet.  If I don't want to listen to it, I won't queue it up. Also never needed multiple genres attached to a single song, nor other usage information.

I dunno, I guess I have been using foobar's database without even knowing it (sorry, Spoon  ).

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #70
For me, as an 99.9% Windows user, my excitement about iTunes for Windows only becuase I own iPod. With iTunes I can do something (rating/smart playlist and other ipod related features) that can't be found on free Windows softwares available right now.

I do like most of windows softwares you mentions (Media Player Classic / foobar etc.) and I also agree that Windows have a lot of powerful multimedia softwares, the most of it you can get for free. (AVISynth, BeSweet, VirtualDub)

But sometime I do appreciate the pretty face of some softwares you called it bloated.

People just have different needs and preferences.


iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #71
Regarding databases, I think it just depends on how you tend to listen to your music. If you're really more of an album-oriented listener, then you probably don't have much use for a database-oriented player.

I used to be an album-oriented listener, but now I rarely listen to full albums. Using Media Center 9.1, I can easily create and save complex, dynamic playlists based on tag info and all sorts of statistical criteria. It has really re-sparked my interest in my music collection and listening to music in general.

Rob

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #72
Quote
I am now convinced that Mac users/advocates rate interface much higher than Windows users. This is most likely the reason that I don't get very excited with the idea of a very intuitve interface.  I CAN appreciate a clean interface, and in that regard, there are plenty of products in the Windows world that have a very clean interface.  Media Player Classic, Internet Explorer, and the most recent Foobar 2000 (the latter needs to be custom tweaked still, IMHO).

The thing you have to understand is the beauty of Macs is that they work cleanly and easily.  Interface is the primary reason people switch to Apples; they don't want to have to get into the nitty-gritty details like you have to on many PC programs.  The thing with iTunes is that in the end it doesn't do as much as say EAC or have the potential to be as perfect.  The major difference is that you don't have to worry about LAME presets, polyphase filters or any of the other stuff.  The interface is so clean and well planned that it's all taken care of for you. The fact is at the end of the day we're willing to sacrifice potential performance in details for rock-solid stability and visually-pleasing design.  It's the fundamental difference between Apple and Windows users.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #73
Quote
The thing you have to understand is the beauty of Macs is that they work cleanly and easily.  Interface is the primary reason people switch to Apples; they don't want to have to get into the nitty-gritty details like you have to on many PC programs.  The thing with iTunes is that in the end it doesn't do as much as say EAC or have the potential to be as perfect.  The major difference is that you don't have to worry about LAME presets, polyphase filters or any of the other stuff.  The interface is so clean and well planned that it's all taken care of for you. The fact is at the end of the day we're willing to sacrifice potential performance in details for rock-solid stability and visually-pleasing design.  It's the fundamental difference between Apple and Windows users.

I agree with your comments about traditional Mac users, but since OSX, some of us have "switched" for the opposite reason. In fact that's often why OS9 and before users sometimes complain about OSX and recent "switchers". We want the interface, the design, the elegance, but we want under the hood also, even more so than Windows, and as mentioned with greater stability. We also want to run some of our favorite Unix apps (XMMS, Evolution, etc.) and favorite Mac/Windows apps (Photoshop, Suitcase or Font Agent, etc.). After 19 years on the PC and lately running separate Linux boxes, OSX gave me what I want in one machine.

But back to iTunes. Unknown how accurate this is, but at least WMA playback is rumored.

 

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #74
Hello.  I am a Mac user and I've come across this thread, kind of randomly.

Quote
I am now convinced that Mac users/advocates rate interface much higher than Windows users. This is most likely the reason that I don't get very excited with the idea of a very intuitve interface.  I CAN appreciate a clean interface, and in that regard, there are plenty of products in the Windows world that have a very clean interface.  Media Player Classic, Internet Explorer, and the most recent Foobar 2000 (the latter needs to be custom tweaked still, IMHO).

Anyways, I'm a messy person in general, but I'd also like to think myself smart and pliable so learning a new interface isn't that big an issue to me just as long as there is a fast and efficient (note: using a mouse for very common functions is NEITHER fast or efficient, IMHO).


I consider myself smart and pliable as well.  A clean, intuitive interface that is consistent allows me to not have to waste time learning an interface.  I can get right into the action.  That is why Mac users appreciate the interface as well as the raw functionality.  I can understand feeling like this is not necessary. 

But you are thinking in terms of the computer savy.  A clean, easy to use, intuitive interface would be well appreciated by someone who is not so savy or even intimidated by the computer.  This is where iTunes for Windows can shine.  It could very well become the best most easy to use interface for music management and playback.

Quote
You're not the first in this thread to bring up the database capabilities of iTunes. This is something that puzzles me.  I guess I don't fully understand what's so special about the database that can't already be expressed in terms of playlists and directory structures.

I'm not sure what you mean by playlist and directory structures.  Perhaps because I don't use Windows that much I don't understand.  When I think of a directory structure, I think of a nested set of folders.  To locate a song, one must navigate: artist > album > song.  That is great for playing back an album or such.  This iTunes database allows for sorting using any ID3 tag.  Thus I could find all songs with the title "Heavy Metal Drummer" or all songs played in the last week or all my top rated songs or all songs from 1965.  I don't see how a directory structure can do that.  Basically think of all the songs in iTunes one big playlist, that can be searched/sorted by any ID3 tag and more.  All playlists that one creates are subsets of this main playlist. 

The physical files' location is meaningless to iTunes, although iTunes can organize your physical files into an artist/album file structure.

Quote
I'm going to state a point here that is probably the fundamental reason that most windows users look down upon Mac users.  In Windows, the best multimedia things DON'T come from Microsoft.  AFAIK, on the Mac, the best multimedia toys DO come from Apple.  Thus, Windows users look at Apple users as "needing to be spoon fed from Apple," when in fact, that's just how things are (which is ESPECIALLY annoying when there are WINDOWS users that are being spoon fed from MS, using nothing but WMP, WMA & WMV :x).  I know that Mac users aren't simply idiots being spoonfed (well, some of you, anyways  ), but I suspect that's how the view is.

Funny you should say this.  I think most Mac users look down on Windows users because they have to search so hard and use so many different software programs in order to get the best.  We feel bad for Windows users because, as you say, only the computer savy ones will have the wherewithal to spend the time and energy to scour for the best software.  The average user gets the raw end of the deal if they use the default programs.  Apple empowers the average user by providing the very best in one integrated package, and for free on top of that!  MS seems to punish the average user by providing mediocre software by default.

To clear up a couple things I've read in the beginning of this thread: 

Firstly, iTunes existed first on Mac OS 9.  It wasn't ported to OS 9 after the fact.  iTunes was written first for OS 9 in the Carbon API, which then allowed it to be transfered to OS X.  Apps written as Carbon can pretty much be ported directly to OS X without much rewrite.  The existence of Carbon is what allowed Apple to transition from OS 9 to a unix based OS X so smoothly.

Secondly.  On the Mac side, iTunes 4 allowed for the encoding of AAC files.  Regardless of whether one had Quicktime Pro installed.  You don't need Quicktime PRO to use AAC encoding on iTunes 4.  You only need Quicktime 6+ (the free version).  Quicktime PRO allows for editing and encoding of AAC at the Better / Best quality.  But as noted above that seems to be more of a high end feature (for 24bit audio).