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 10 (Read 77421 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

iTunes 10

Reply #75 –
On OS X it's 83 Mb to download once installed with everything its  161 Mb

iTunes 10

Reply #76 –
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; 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]
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

iTunes 10

Reply #77 –
Indeed as time trickles by iTunes seems less and less an audio player and more a selling platform (Tv shows, audio tracks, movies, books)

iTunes 10

Reply #78 –
At least Steam is totally upfront about its intentions.

iTunes 10

Reply #79 –
...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.

iTunes 10

Reply #80 –
Quote from: spoon on
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?

iTunes 10

Reply #81 –
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.


Quote from: MichaelW on
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!

iTunes 10

Reply #82 –
Quote from: greynol on
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #83 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #84 –
> 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.

iTunes 10

Reply #85 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #86 –
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 that is just the iTunes application. (I don't think it includes AAS.)

iTunes 10

Reply #87 –
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

iTunes 10

Reply #88 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #89 –
Quote from: spoon on
> 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.

iTunes 10

Reply #90 –
Microsoft only created the Zune and Zune software after their PlaysForSure and 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.
elevatorladylevitateme

iTunes 10

Reply #91 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #92 –
Quote from: andy o on
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #93 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
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

iTunes 10

Reply #94 –
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".
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

iTunes 10

Reply #95 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #96 –
Quote from: dcumpian on
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
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.
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

iTunes 10

Reply #97 –
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.

iTunes 10

Reply #98 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: spoon on
> 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!

iTunes 10

Reply #99 –
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?