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 20593 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #25 –
Quote
That said, didn't the Rio Nitrus portable just start shipping at $299 with tranfer and encoding (Ogg) software, but requires a $9.99 upgrade to encode MP3's?

Upgrade?  I'd consider that "trading down", personally!  (Just kidding!)  But seriously...ahhh...the fruits of being patent-free.   

Concerning the addition of new legal online music exchanges...I'm still waiting for the Control Freak's Music Service.  No 128 cbr.  No 192 full-stereo.  All music would be downloadable in a compressed lossless format (any will do).  After that, the end-user can encode into any other format they choose, with full control over encoder version, quality setting/bitrate, stereo/JS, lowpass, tagging format, etc.

Also, there seems to be a lot of argument over the UI of an iTunes ported to Windows.  As David R. pointed out, there's a lot more to an application.  As an example consider another player / encoder front-end :  Winamp.  I use W/A mostly with a hotkey controller plug-in (which I love), and therefore rarely even see the UI, yet still use all the functions I need the most.  Speed, functionality, speed, compatibility, speed, ease-of-use and speed are all accounted for.   

And when it comes to successful GUI implementations, Apple has a strong history in this area, as their original concept of a computer was designed with a graphical interface front-end.  Windows, up to 3.x, was nothing more than a DOS "wrapper"...a pretty picture to look at while batch commands ran behind it.  Win95 and Win98 were marginal, and still employed many aspects of DOS functionality in the background.  WinNT, AFAIK, was the first "ground-up" Windows rewrite that was designed as a graphical environment (hence, termed "New Technology", though developed around the same time as Win95, if not a little earlier).  And since it's release, we have Win2000 and WinXP, both of which are seperated from the DOS dependency that marked the first Windows iterations as well.  Windows gradually "grew" into an independant GUI.  Apple OS was designed as one from it's birth.

So I wouldn't be so quick to dog the ability of Apple to create a solid app with a solid GUI, no matter what kind of problems they may have had in the past.  I agree with Roberto...we shouldn't speculate...the proof will come release-day.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #26 –
Quote
That said, didn't the Rio Nitrus portable just start shipping at $299 with tranfer and encoding (Ogg) software, but requires a $9.99 upgrade to encode MP3's?

Erm... all the info I find about the Rio Nitrus only claims it plays MP3 and WMA. :B

And no info about MP3 encoding upgrades or whatever.

E.G, at their page:
http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_tem...odel=219&cat=53

Quote
1.5GB* HDD plays back over 25 hours of MP3 or 50 hours of WMA music (over 375 MP3 or 750 WMA songs)**

**At 128kbps MP3, 64kbps WMA.


Did you get that info at #vorbis?

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #27 –
Maybe this is a bit late in the game to inquire (and off-topic to boot), but what exactly is the big deal with iTunes?

I hear Mac Zealots rave about it, but I haven't heard anything that sounds particularly innovative (over say... dbPowerAmp or fb2k) and the features on the webpage sound suspiciously bloatful.  Check that, Smart Playlists sounds pretty innovative, but the rest doesn't seem all that special.  Even the UI appears clean, but still, nothing special (at least to me as a non-user).  Anyone wanna clue me in?

My speculation on the upcoming iTunes release is that the software will be bloated. Period.  It may be powerful, but it'll still be bloated. I base this on my feelings that Photoshop, Acrobat, and Quicktime, at the very least, FEEL bloated to me, as though it doesn't run as efficiently on the PC as it does on the Mac.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #28 –
Quote
Erm... all the info I find about the Rio Nitrus only claims it plays MP3 and WMA. :B

And no info about MP3 encoding upgrades or whatever.

IGN Review.

Advance then go to second page.

Unfortunately, you can only rip to MP3 with a $9.95 upgrade that installs an encoder. You can rip to WMA or Ogg Vorbis with the standard version, but MP3 requires a few more bucks.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #29 –
Quote
My speculation on the upcoming iTunes release is that the software will be bloated. Period.  It may be powerful, but it'll still be bloated. I base this on my feelings that Photoshop, Acrobat, and Quicktime, at the very least, FEEL bloated to me, as though it doesn't run as efficiently on the PC as it does on the Mac.

I may be missing something here, but are you reviewing Apple software based on Adobe?

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #30 –
Quote
I hear Mac Zealots rave about it, but I haven't heard anything that sounds particularly innovative (over say... dbPowerAmp or fb2k) and the features on the webpage sound suspiciously bloatful.  Check that, Smart Playlists sounds pretty innovative, but the rest doesn't seem all that special.  Even the UI appears clean, but still, nothing special (at least to me as a non-user).  Anyone wanna clue me in?

That smart playlist is the tip of the iceberg. All files are consistently organised and classified. And there is a built-in database in the software that makes every weird research possible in your collection.

It's really more than just an audio player.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #31 –
Quote
I hear Mac Zealots rave about it, but I haven't heard anything that sounds particularly innovative (over say... dbPowerAmp or fb2k) and the features on the webpage sound suspiciously bloatful.  Check that, Smart Playlists sounds pretty innovative, but the rest doesn't seem all that special.  Even the UI appears clean, but still, nothing special (at least to me as a non-user).  Anyone wanna clue me in?

It's arguable that the whole Mac advantage (and possibly Apple philosophy) is less, but better. I have Audion, XMMS, and MP3Rage and a couple other Mac sound apps that can often do more, but usually end up preferring iTunes clearer "holistic" approach.

BTW, without Applescript support, there may not be the same third party support on the PC side, but to give an idea of what is out there on the Mac side so far, check out Doug's incredible scripts or all the apps at VersionTracker.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #32 –
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.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #33 –
iTunes is not bloated.
Photoshop is not bloated (if it seems that way you need a new computer ).

Winamp3 is bloated.
Mozilla is bloated (mac build has no browser-only version).

Basically, iTunes has an average feature set, but most importantly the features would be useful to many users.

Some features
- Encode AAC
- The music store
- Auto organize your music folder based on tags (this means MusicFolder/Artist/Album/Song.mp3, those with a 'compilation' flag are put in MusicFolder/Compilations/Album/Song.mp3)
- Dynamic playlists
- Customizable visualizations (check out the volcanokit visualizer)
- Apple's 'sound enhancer' effect (makes the sound more 'edgy' with some increased midrange)
- Xfader
- 'Sound Check' feature makes perceived playback volume the same.
- EQ
- Streaming support
and some others...

However even with all these features it remains extremely responsive and just feels a lot better than using WMP and in some cases even winamp.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #34 –
I apologize for being somewhat OT, but:

What do you people mean by bloat? Code bloat or Feature bloat?

  I've heard winamp 2.9X called "bloated" because it now has video playback features, but given it's 2.2MB (Full, zipped) download size, it seems pretty svelte to me nonetheless.
  If you're willing to ditch WMA support the download is 1.6MB.
 
  My Winamp 2.91 install directory is about 8MB, including ~4.3MB of unecessary skins.
  Roughly 4MB footprint on the HDD for full functionality, then.

  How big is the iTunes download and/or install folder?
  I'm guessing it's probably larger or similar, and the program appears to have fewer features (whether that's good or bad is subjective of course).

  So iTunes isn't bloated because it has fewer features regardless of the amount of space it actually takes up on the HDD?

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #35 –
Quote
All files are consistently organised and classified. And there is a built-in database in the software that makes every weird research possible in your collection.

It's really more than just an audio player.

He asked how its different from foobar. 

Anyway whats a smart playlist?

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #36 –
SmartPlaylists allow to you create Playlists that are dynamically generated by play habits, ratings, etc. Say last 100 played or 25 most played or 13 random jazz tracks played 15 or more times and in the last four weeks, with a sample rate higher than 160 kbps and only appearing on compilation discs. If you have an iPod, syncing to these changing/always updating lists can be done automatically too.

Bloat is used different ways by different people. Sometime it's features, sometimes it's the lines of code/file size, often it's when something becomes so feature rich and memory intensive to lessen the usefulness of a new version over an earlier one. WinAmp and Mozilla are examples of the latter.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #37 –
Talk about the can o' worms here.  Lets see what I can clarify.

Obvious point 1 - I do not own a Mac, nor do I come within 10 feet of one during the course of my day.  Hence, I've not been directly exposed to iTunes, nor is it easy for me to become exposed. The only thing I've heard about it is that it's a whole new paradigm (but this is from the words of Mac Zealots, who feel that OSX is whole new paradigm, which is debateable and is another can of worms that is inappropriate for this thread).

Point 2 - Admittedly, I had to look up holistic to understand Blessingx's post, but I suspect that word defines the Apple experience consisely.  For those unfamiliar with the definition, I present the dictionary.com reference:

Holistic - 2a. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

Assuming that definition can accurately be applied to Apple's products, it would explain why I've never been impressed or wowed by their stuff.  I'm definitely more parts attentive than whole attentive.  I also suspect that their paradigm, which works nicely on Apple, won't work as well on the PC.

Point 3 - Software Bloat, I define as anything that seems inefficient and/or unnecessary.  Part of the reason I switched from Winamp to Foobar2000 was that I didn't need a browser with my music player.  The other part was that Fb2k supposedly* has a smaller memory footprint than Winamp.

Netscape is one of the classic examples of bloatware (at least, when I used it last, back in the 4.xx days).  Too many features for too little return.  To a much lesser degree, Opera is like this (working Java-support is far more important in a browser than a working mail client). This is probably why I always felt Photoshop felt bloated on the PC (it IS a beast), but then since I don't know how to use it properly.  For basic image editing, like basic cropping, resizing, filtering, and conversion, it's bloated in comparison to something like XnView. Adobe Acrobat Reader is VERY bloated, but I don't know which platform it started on.

As for Quicktime... I have it on my computer for one reason only.  So I can view quicktime movies.  It's not clear if I still need it since I installed Media Player Classic (MPC).  QT doesn't feel as responsive, powerful or as intuitive as MPC.  IMHO, nothing will be, since MPC builds on a very simple well-known interface.

I never said that iTunes was bloated on the Mac, however, I don't think that it will transition very well to the PC.  But then, that's my guess and I could be very wrong on it.

*supposedly is a cover-my-ass statment, because I haven't verified this.  Sorry for making this post so damn long

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #38 –
Quote
Software Bloat, I define as anything that seems inefficient and/or unnecessary.


  This seems like an entirely subjective definition then. I typically define bloat with a size-based definition (relative to functionality), which is also subjective in its way.

 
Quote
Part of the reason I switched from Winamp to Foobar2000 was that I didn't need a browser with my music player. The other part was that Fb2k supposedly* has a smaller memory footprint than Winamp.


  While I'll chalk the first up to personal preference (I dont use the browser myself; you can hide it or shut it down easily), the latter I have never been able to verify.
  I think this is because the amount of RAM winamp takes up varies a more than foobar. I've seen winamp 2.9 as high as 11MB of RAM on an mp3, and as low as 3 - foobar is usually around 5ish and winamp around 7.
  Let's say for the sake of argument that foobar has a 1-4MB memory footprint advantage (aside from its GUI advantages and 64 bit precision and noise-shaping, ABXing, normalization, etc).
  Now, how often do you hit the page file when you're playing music and doing other stuff? How would this change with a slightly smaller footprint? I'd bet not appreciably.
 
  So it seems like more a matter of the "principle of the thing"....

 
Quote
Bloat is used different ways by different people. Sometime it's features, sometimes it's the lines of code/file size, often it's when something becomes so feature rich and memory intensive to lessen the usefulness of a new version over an earlier one. WinAmp and Mozilla are examples of the latter.


  Now the memory objection I can understand (not so much so if you run new memory-hungry Oses  like OS X or windows XP....), especially if you run neutrino or System 7 or 95b or something. But the additional features?

  If the GUI remains essentially identical and the additional features are nested in there if you want them, how is usability in any way changed?
  For example, if iTunes suddenly acquired the ability to encode to FLAC & OGG but the GUI was functionally identical, and the memory footprint increased by a meg, would anyone bitch?
  I'd suspect most Mac users who knew about such changes would tout the improvements as more proof of the inherent superiority (and inevitable triumph) of their chosen platform. But maybe I'm cynical.   

  Functionality expansion without reduction in the ease of use of the program seems like the polar opposite of "lessening usefulness" to me.

  I apologize for taking this so OT once again. 

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #39 –
Quote
Say last 100 played or 25 most played or 13 random jazz tracks played 15 or more times and in the last four weeks, with a sample rate higher than 160 kbps and only appearing on compilation discs


dBpowerAMP has had this for the last 3 years (selective play), and a music rating system for 7 years (back when it was called Shuffler), funny how all the music players have a 5 star rating...

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #40 –
Quote
SmartPlaylists allow to you create Playlists that are dynamically generated by play habits, ratings, etc.

Media Jukebox/Media Center has also had smart playlists for a couple of years. You can also create custom tag fields (even semicolon delimited if you want) and in combination with "smartlists", you have almost unlimited ways of sorting a very large number of tracks.

Rob

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #41 –
I think you misunderstand why people use iTunes. People don't use and like the "Smart Playlists" in iTunes because they're yet another cool feature. They use it because Apple implemented it in a nice way, and they find it useful. To me, bloat is when the the usability is decreased to add new features. The reason people mention playlists and ratings is because they use them so much. I haven't tried the alternative Windows players mentioned here. I find it more interesting how a feature works than it's mere presence.

Writing a good user interface is difficult, very difficult. It seems to be accepted among mac users - and some others too - that many (but not all) of Apple's applications have a very good user interface, which puts usability anything else. IMO QuickTime isn't one of these applications, and it could be due to it's age. QuickTime is about 10 years old, and it's hasn't undergone any major changes recently. A movie player could be done much better than QuickTime, but people use it because it's there.

Maybe iTunes for Windows will be good, maybe it won't. Bashing mac users (and calling them zealots) for describing why they like it seems like a silly thing considering the topic of this thread.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #42 –
Quote
Maybe iTunes for Windows will be good, maybe it won't. Bashing mac users (and calling them zealots) for describing why they like it seems like a silly thing considering the topic of this thread.

Although I don't think I've really bashed Mac Zealots that much, here's my reasoning. I bash the Mac zealot because they often do a poor job of justifying their zealotry.  Here's a conversation not dissimilar to ones I've had with zealots:

Z: iTunes is just REALLY awesome
Me: What's so good about it?
Z: it just is.  You just have to try it.
Me: ..... Right....
Z: You can encode to AAC, which is definitely better than mp3.
Me: *Not sure what to think since I already use MPC and Ogg Vorbis for better than mp3 quality*
Z: It's got Smart PlayLists.
Me: Ok, that is kinda cool. Don't know how much I use that feature, but still cool nonetheless, what else?
Z: It can rip CDs.
Me: Securely, with scratch detection?
Z: I dunno, but it's really cool to just have that built in.
*Conversation continues proceeding to other features that I don't think are all THAT great, and it's clear that the person I'm talking to doesn't know all that much about them either*

Anyways, this completely unhelpful conversation is not limited to Mac Zealots, but most zealots in general (nVidia/ATI zealots are even worse). HA Zealots are usually an exception due to the infamous rule 8, hence the reason I asked what the big deal was.

I'm still not that impressed by what I've read, but I will concede that iTunes appears to have some cool features, like Smart Playlists and the Crossfade.  It also sounds like the biggest features also depends on other things, like having an iPod or purchasing from the Apple Music Store, but maybe I'm just reading too much of Apple's propaganda.

<even more offtopic>
I'm of the last generation of people that grew up on a non-GUI based computer system.  As such, it took me a very long time to grow comfortable with GUI. I haven't liked Apple's UI in the past (pre-OSX, haven't really used OSX yet). From what I HAVE used of Macs, I've found their UI counter-intuitive to that which I already know, thus I've always felt a steeper learning curve than the average Joe. Hence my predisposition against Macs.  I'll keep an open mind, but I also like to challenge claims to see if they're well founded or not.
</even more offtopic explanation>

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #43 –
Quote
To me, bloat is when the the usability is decreased to add new features.


  That seems like a very usable definition. The problem is, when I hear complaints about reductions in usability (via addition of new features) and the interface remains identical, I'm very very confused.
  If the interface is identical, the new features should not impact the usability in any way, except as another tab in the "advanced" section or something. Would such a thing really impact usability in any substantive way? I tend to think not.

Quote
Bashing mac users (and calling them zealots) for describing why they like it seems like a silly thing considering the topic of this thread.


  Perhaps you're referring to someone else.
  I supposed that if iTunes for Mac added FLAC & OGG support, Mac "zealots" (which most Mac users are not, just as most Nvidia card owners are not Nvidia "zealots", I would think this was self-evident to just about anyone) would trumpet it as the best thing since sliced cheese.
  This is what happens every time the Mac platform gains a feature or improves the hardware, I don't see it as being particularly offensive to anyone who doesnt compulsively post on Macosrumors.com . It also happens every time Nvidia or ATI introduces a new model. Probably Ford and Chevy, too.
    Brand identity is a powerful marketing tool, as Apple (and Ford, and Chevy and Nvidia and Wonderbread.....sigh) knows so well.

 
Quote
Writing a good user interface is difficult, very difficult.

I completely agree. And from my experience, the OS X GUI is excellent in this respect. XP ain't too shabby either.

  ANYWAY, I look forward to the introduction of iTunes for windows. Not for the adaptive playlists though, that's nothing really new or exciting. I also look forward to the time when 160 or 192CBR AAC is used on the iTunes site. Then I might consider shelling out a buck a song. Then again, maybe not.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #44 –
Quote
It also sounds like the biggest features also depends on other things, like having an iPod or purchasing from the Apple Music Store

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

I don't know if I'll do better than the other Mac zealots but the genius of iTunes has *nothing* to do with features, especially advanced features for people who read a forum like this and therefore are way outside the demographic that Apple designs its iApps for.

Now before you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying that Apple's are only for kids, girls and 'artistic' types. As the originator of Java, the Perl developers, Mitch Kapor and a thousand other hardcore hackers will tell you, it is a highly productive environment for techy/hacker types particularly if they prefer mobile computing. But iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iChat, iSight, iPod, iSync, iCal, Mail, Safari and most of Apple's consumer-oriented products are reknowned for a *lack* of features.

iTunes, for example, used to be SoundJam. It was developed by an Apple employee on his own time and marketed under that name until Apple bought it and brought it inhouse. The first thing they did was slap a beautiful interface onto it and remove half the functionality. Right up until iTunes 4 was released the hardcore Mac contigent were bitching about features that iTunes still hadn't got around to replacing.

iPod and the rest are the same, go read the editorial comment on the slashdot story announcing the iPod: "No wireless.  Less space than a nomad.  Lame." (and he's not talking about the mp3 encoder)

Here the mistake is to think adding more features (or bigger measures of certain features) is the key to creating a consumer product that people will fall in love with.

So what is good about iTunes

* iTMS integration for buying online
* iPod integration (iPod + iTunes kicks everyone's ass, hard)
* Simple, near invisible, behind-the-scenes file management
* Great metadata interface
* Astounding flexability and expandability through Applescripting
* Built in broadcasting/playlist sharing over LANs (using Rendezvous, so no set-up required, just open your iBook and any nearby music will be listed within iTunes)
* Easy creation of on-the-fly playlists (see below for more on these).

Explanation: Open the browser and you see 3 columns listing all your genres (optional), artists and albums. You want to playlist all your beatles tracks? Click on the Beatles, or double click to begin playing immediately, then Command-click on the Stones to add them to the mix or add the Doors, or both. Or listen to specific albums chosen from the list of all albums by any of those artists.

You want to listen to all your Jazz except for anything by Chet Baker and two particular  album by Miles Davis? Click, click, hold command, click, click, click, done. You can then drag and drop it onto the side panel to store it for all time. It's beautiful and it's what's keeping me with iTunes until Rhythmbox can do similar on Linux.

What's bad about iTunes:

* no support for anything but mp3, Wav/Aiff and AAC/MP4
* no secure ripping
* can't nest smart playlists e.g. 5 random dance songs interleaved with 5 random rock songs

That's all I can think of as far as downsides. As you can see these are not things your average consumer will worry about and so probably won't appear in iTunes ever.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #45 –
Quote
* no support for anything but mp3, Wav/Aiff and AAC/MP4


I believe there's a Quicktime Component that adds OGG support. Not officially supported, but it works.

Quote
* no secure ripping


True. However, there's another variable you're not considering.

Apple controls what hardware is built into each and every Mac. The CD / DVD / DVD-R drives that Apple uses are all the same, are of high quality, and the OS software is written to support that hardware 100%.

Mac users don't have to worry about their hardware devices flaking out because of faulty drivers, or some weird incompatibility between devices, or the hardware being cheap.

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

On the nasty, scratched CDs, iTunes will bail. It really is idiot-proof.

Now, will iTunes behave this well in Windows? Probably not, but I'm hopeful.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #46 –
Quote
That seems like a very usable definition. The problem is, when I hear complaints about reductions in usability (via addition of new features) and the interface remains identical, I'm very very confused.
  If the interface is identical, the new features should not impact the usability in any way, except as another tab in the "advanced" section or something. Would such a thing really impact usability in any substantive way? I tend to think not.

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.

Quote
I supposed that if iTunes for Mac added FLAC & OGG support, Mac "zealots" (which most Mac users are not, just as most Nvidia card owners are not Nvidia "zealots", I would think this was self-evident to just about anyone) would trumpet it as the best thing since sliced cheese.

Actually, I'd find native Ogg and FLAC support in iTunes highly unlikely. They have already committed themselves to the MPEG-4 suite, and each MPEG-4 component is quite likely at least as good as it's Ogg counterpart - at least I haven't seen anything indicating otherwise. 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. And lossless audio - why would they add that? iTunes already has two lossless codecs, AIFF and Wave. (AIFF is used for historical reasons.) There have been countless threads here trying to convince newbies that lossless is exactly that, without loss. To most consumers, 320kbps AAC is overkill, so why waste even more bits? It may have an application within QuickTime when used for editing, but I believe it would be, well, bloat to add it to iTunes.

Quote
ANYWAY, I look forward to the introduction of iTunes for windows. Not for the adaptive playlists though, that's nothing really new or exciting. I also look forward to the time when 160 or 192CBR AAC is used on the iTunes site. Then I might consider shelling out a buck a song. Then again, maybe not.

If they made it available in Denmark and switched to a better quality, I just might be a customer as well

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #47 –
Quote
What's bad about iTunes:
...
* no secure ripping

True, it doesn't have secure ripping (is there a definition of that term?) but it does a decent job. On Mac OS X, Audio CDs are handled by a file system kernel extension which mounts the CD as volume containing AIFC files. It's my experience that the OS does a good job in error correction. There are many things that indicate that it indeed does apply some sort of correction:
- You can't rip at full speed. (At least not on my slow mac.)
- It sounds a bit funny when it's ripping; this could be because it reads the same thing twice.
- Once in a while, it will encounter a scratch and keep reading the same portion until it appears to get it right.
- Highly scratched disks lead to weird behavior: I borrowed a CD from the library and it was very scratched. It would retry the exact same portion for quite a while until it gave up. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Darwin has threaded I/O, so the system responded slowly while the ripping was stuck  I hope 10.3 fixes this...

How does one compare rippers? It would be interesting to compare Mac OS X with cdparanoia for Linux.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #48 –
Quote
How does one compare rippers? It would be interesting to compare Mac OS X with cdparanoia for Linux.

You can compare it with cdparanoia on Mac OS X. The paranoia libs are included in some builds of cdda2wav available for the Mac and there's a Cocoa GUI too, though I can never remember it's name. I think it's part of a set of DVD/VCD ripping/burning tools.

Note that I personally use iTunes to rip my CDs (on a superdrive equipped iMac) and they are mostly well looked after but I have had it screw up royally on several tracks, totally choking and not making it to the end, though I totally blame the state of the CD for these problems. I will eventually rerip these tracks with some other program and see how they fare but I haven't got round to it yet.

I wouldn't assume iTunes is doing anyhting more than basic error correction as adding this 'feature' would slow ripping considerably for very little gain because, as you point out (edit: actully not you but someone else in this thread), Apple quality and hardware/software integration mean there is very little need for cdparanoia in general usage.

iTunes coming to PC sooner

Reply #49 –
Quote
I believe there's a Quicktime Component that adds OGG support. Not officially supported, but it works.

Yes and no.

There is an Ogg Vorbis component for Quicktime, but the developers of it complain that the quality is hobbled by some bugs within Quicktime. Whether Apple thinks it worth its while to fix these bugs is debatable though I remain hopeful.

Furthermore, just because a file format is supported by quicktime, doesn't mean it's supported in iTunes. You can play any of the crazy file formats that Quicktime supports in iTunes (this is generally true for anything that uses Quicktime libraries) but that doesn't mean that the Sound Check, Effects, Vorbis Tags or a thousand other features large and small will be compatible unless support is specifically written into iTunes.