Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

clebin · Oct 16, 2003, 09:11 PM

Preferences > Show genre while browsing.

I'm glad you reminded to find it so I can switch it off!

Chris

I'mDaMac · Oct 16, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Spliff:
iTunes for PC seems to have an extra pane (for genre) in the browse library view.

Notice the three view panes in browse mode?

I can't find this in the Mac version, so I'm assuming it's Windows-only.

It's there. Under general preferences select "show genre when browsing."

Drakino · Oct 16, 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Spliff:
iTunes for PC seems to have an extra pane (for genre) in the browse library view.

Notice the three view panes in browse mode?

I can't find this in the Mac version, so I'm assuming it's Windows-only.

I've had that same browse view in iTunes 4 and 4.1 on my Mac... Just hit the Browse button in the upper right when in the library.

Spliff · Oct 16, 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by I'mDaMac:
It's there. Under general preferences select "show genre when browsing."

D'oh!. I never noticed that before and it's never been enabled. Gotta go back to school. Evidently, I need a Phd.

clebin · Oct 16, 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Spliff:
iTunes for PC seems to have an extra pane (for genre) in the browse library view.

Notice the three view panes in browse mode?

I can't find this in the Mac version, so I'm assuming it's Windows-only.

Super Furry Animals... nice choice, by the way. If you like the Super Furries, I suggest you have a scout round for Gorky's Zygotic Mynci (not big enough for ITMS) very much their Welsh soulmates, and a bit of an influence. Get Spanish Dance Troupe or their new one Sleep/Holiday.... Advert over!

Chris

Eug Wanker · Oct 16, 2003, 09:59 PM

milhous · Oct 16, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Deestar:
I think its because you get Quicklime 6.4 as well, when you download itunes for Windows.

See apple download page"QuickTime 6.4 (included)"

If I were a betting man, i'd say that it also has Safari technology built into it so it renders pages verbatim just in the Mac version, or Webcore at least. There's no way IE is rendering those pages I think.

cygsid · Oct 17, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:

smart.. very smart

flyhigher · Oct 17, 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by milhous:
If I were a betting man, i'd say that it also has Safari technology built into it so it renders pages verbatim just in the Mac version, or Webcore at least. There's no way IE is rendering those pages I think.

They should have had the download include Safari as well, and offer to replace IE as the standard browser.

Really.

simonjames · Oct 17, 2003, 03:41 AM

WOW - I am truely impressed

Today at work a bunch of people loaded iTunes onto their PCs - within seconds iTunes had located every other iTunes using PC (with sharing switched on) on the LAN and listed them in blue underneath the library icon.

It was really freaky - a guy I didn't know from Finance contacted me to say how much he liked my choice of music. I quickly renamed my library as I preferred to stay a bit more anonymous

None of us could get over how easy it was to share music (not copy of course)

Does anyone know how much network traffic iTunes creates - with and without playing music?

JLL · Oct 17, 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by milhous:
If I were a betting man, i'd say that it also has Safari technology built into it so it renders pages verbatim just in the Mac version, or Webcore at least. There's no way IE is rendering those pages I think.

iTunes for Mac (and Win) is not using WebCore.

MusicalTone · Oct 17, 2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by simonjames:
I quickly renamed my library as I preferred to stay a bit more anonymous

Yeah, under sharing you can give it any name you want. Another cool feature.

Rendevous rocks.

HiRez · Oct 17, 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by kman42:
Hilarious censorship!!!
Check out the Stones biography. The name Dick is replaced by D**k. It probably happens on the whole site. I just thought it was funny that they auto-edited it.

Heh...hehe....hehehe...hehe...he said D**k...

kovacs · Oct 17, 2003, 05:32 AM

crazyjohnson · Oct 17, 2003, 06:56 PM

I seem to have a problem. I only see one person sharing on my dorm (using a Mac). My PC friend just installed it and does not not see me -- infact he sees more people than I do!

Yes, we are on the same subnet.

Kennel · Oct 17, 2003, 09:14 PM

I live in Sweden and it turns out we don't get Music Store over here. I guess I downloaded 19.1 MB's of bloated software for nothing :/

wataru · Oct 17, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
I live in Sweden and it turns out we don't get Music Store over here. I guess I downloaded 19.1 MB's of bloated software for nothing :/

Yeah, but you're the only one to blame, since it is clearly stated pretty much everywhere that the store is US-only.

Even so, I hardly think that the best music player + hugely popular media player is "nothing."

ph0ust · Oct 17, 2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Preciousss:
Aaargh. Says on the download page that you can only stream if you're on the same local network.

Oh well. I've been holding off on the upgrading from 4.0 to 4.0.1 because of this. Not that i even used it much, but I was holding onto the dream of streaming music with my family who lives across the country and even outside of it. Will hold off for a little bit on upgrading until I read more.

[How am I supposed to get any work done with all this excitement, btw? ]

you can do this quite easily if you like, just set up pptp between your family and you and they/you will all act as if you are on the same local network. it should work in theory, since you will both have internal ips on the same subnet. your router should take care of the rest. real easy to do.

of course at that point you just have to hope you/them stay secure to not get the other hosed

kman42 · Oct 17, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by ph0ust:
you can do this quite easily if you like, just set up pptp between your family and you and they/you will all act as if you are on the same local network. it should work in theory, since you will both have internal ips on the same subnet. your router should take care of the rest. real easy to do.

of course at that point you just have to hope you/them stay secure to not get the other hosed

More details please!!! This sounds fun.

icruise · Oct 17, 2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
I live in Sweden and it turns out we don't get Music Store over here. I guess I downloaded 19.1 MB's of bloated software for nothing :/

It's also not particularly bloated, since it includes Quicktime as well as iTunes.

Kennel · Oct 18, 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by wataru:
Yeah, but you're the only one to blame, since it is clearly stated pretty much everywhere that the store is US-only.

Well, I must have missed that. It sure doesn't say anywhere on itunes.com's frontpage or on the download page for the software.

Originally posted by wataru:
Even so, I hardly think that the best music player + hugely popular media player is "nothing."

It might be the best/most popular on Mac, but on Windows there are numerous players that are more popular and that I consider to be much better. Do you really think Windows users will download and use iTunes even if they can't get access to Music Store? I very much doubt it.

Also, why the hell is Quicktime included? I thought it was a music player.

Kennel · Oct 18, 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Icruise:
It's also not particularly bloated, since it includes Quicktime as well as iTunes.

Then why does it use up over 40 MB of memory the instant I start it? And why does it use between 2 och 10 percent CPU when playing a simple MP3?

icruise · Oct 18, 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
Then why does it use up over 40 MB of memory the instant I start it? And why does it use between 2 och 10 percent CPU when playing a simple MP3?

There's a big difference between memory usage and the word "bloat" as you used it. And 2 to 10 percent doesn't sound that terrible to me.

icruise · Oct 18, 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
It might be the best/most popular on Mac, but on Windows there are numerous players that are more popular and that I consider to be much better. Do you really think Windows users will download and use iTunes even if they can't get access to Music Store? I very much doubt it.

Also, why the hell is Quicktime included? I thought it was a music player.

"There are many more popular players on Windows?" Well, duh, considering that iTunes wasn't out until yesterday, I would think that its popularity would have been right around 0%.

I'm curious what the wonderful features of these other programs are. I've tried Winamp and WMP and found them lacking in most areas (except maybe skins).

Quicktime is included because iTunes and especially the music store use it for decoding MP3s.

Eug Wanker · Oct 18, 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
Do you really think Windows users will download and use iTunes even if they can't get access to Music Store?

By all indications, yes.

I've been reading the PC forums, and yes, iTunes for Windows is a HUGE hit.

It may not get the market penetration into the Windows market as it does in the Mac market (for obvious reasons), but it will still have a substantial chunk of that market.

iTunes for Windows is already a resounding successs, by any measure.

Oh and my nephew with a Windows XP laptop just picked up an iPod, and he'll be using it with iTunes for Windows.

MusicalTone · Oct 18, 2003, 06:14 PM

Yep, my experience backs that up too. Most Windows forums I have visited have been full of happy WinTunes users.

What is not to be happy about? Even if you can't use the Store (yet), Apple just gave millions of PC users a free music jukebox and CD burner and threw in Rendevous networking for good measure. Did I mention MP3 encoder?

The team Apple had working on this are to be congratulated - really excellent port.

Windows users - welcome to the music revolution.

lavar78 · Oct 18, 2003, 06:25 PM

It might be the best/most popular on Mac, but on Windows there are numerous players that are more popular and that I consider to be much better.

Exactly which Windows player do you consider to be "much better" than iTunes?

Kennel · Oct 18, 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
There's a big difference between memory usage and the word "bloat" as you used it.

Perhaps. By bloat in this case I mean an application that ties up more system resources relative to what features it offers. Considering that I can't afford an iPod and that the Music Store part of iTunes is useless for us swedes, iTunes is nothing more than an music player with a "library function". Still, it has all those features that I can't use. It takes a relatively long while to startup and the GUI is slow and unresponsive (the Quicktime syndrome). Seeing the brushed metal interface in Windows also give the impression of a GUI in a GUI.

Originally posted by Icruise:
And 2 to 10 percent doesn't sound that terrible to me.

Well, Winamp hardly ever goes above what registers as 0%. I guess I'm a spoiled wintel user or something.

Originally posted by Icruise:
"There are many more popular players on Windows?" Well, duh, considering that iTunes wasn't out until yesterday, I would think that its popularity would have been right around 0%.

Yeah, that was a stupid remark. I take it back

Originally posted by Icruise:
I'm curious what the wonderful features of these other programs are. I've tried Winamp and WMP and found them lacking in most areas (except maybe skins).

I'm primarlity talking about Winamp 2.*, but I don't mean it in a sence of a player that has loads of features that iTunes doesn't have. iTunes has a lot of features. I'm talking about an app that does exactly what I want and nothing more. Those kinds of apps are starting to get rare nowadays. I'm a follower of the old UNIX paradigm that an application should do one or a few things, but it should do them very well. If I want to encode an MP3, I use the best available MP3 encoder (LAME). If I want to burn a CD, I use the best ...

One of the "features" of Winamp I like very much is the extendability. If I want to add support for playing some obscure audio format, I can just install a plugin. I use it to play MP3, MOD/XM, OGG, Musepack and AAC.

Originally posted by Icruise:
Quicktime is included because iTunes and especially the music store use it for decoding MP3s.

Then why include the whole shebang and not just a DLL with the MP3 code?

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I've been reading the PC forums, and yes, iTunes for Windows is a HUGE hit.

If that's the case, I'm happy for Apple.

I want to emphasize that I think Music Store is a really cool thing and I wish I could use it. I just think iTunes doesn't offer much other than that that I can't use an alternative player for. A player that is leaner and faster in every way.

Edit: Typos.

King Bob On The Cob · Oct 18, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:

Then why include the whole shebang and not just a DLL with the MP3 code?

Because Apple would like some more penetration of the new Quicktime quickly.

tonton · Oct 19, 2003, 03:27 AM

While it's true thet there are music players, encoders, and CD burners available, the beauty of iTunes is that it integrates these beautifully, and with a very attractive and efficient interface to boot. That's the difference between the "Mac way" and the PC way, which is to launch an encoder to encode, then launch a player to play, then launch a burner to burn, etc. Once you've launched all of those separate apps, does iTunes still seem "bloated" to you?

It's okay. I don't expect you all to see the light immediately. But you probably will, eventually.

And with the evident popularity of iTunes for Windows thus far, I think it's only a matter of time before iTunes does become the "most popular" music player for Windows. After all, it's free, whereas a fully functional WinAmp is not.

And no longer is LAME the best music encoder for PC. A 160Mbps iTunes encoded AAC file will definitely sound better than a 160Mbps LAME encoded MP3. LAME may be the best MP3 encoder available, but it's not the best music encoder any longer. iTunes just upped the ante.

Keiretsu · Oct 19, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by midwinter:
I don't think that there is, since WMA is a proprietary format and is pretty much ONLY used by Windows. It's only in the most recent versions of of WMP (which seems pretty good) that it forced users to rip songs in WMA format.

doh. Spoke too soon:

http://www.wma-mp3.com/

But you have a good point about the WMA thing. It would be pretty cool if it offered to convert the songs for you. Or at least let you know it won't play them.

Cheers
Scott

BTW WMA support seems to be just around the corner. iTunes 4.1 does already contain an icon for WMA files! It's hidden within the iTunes app bundle!
If you ctrl-click (or right click) on iTunes and select "show package contents" and the the folder Contents/Resources. Then you'll find the file iTunes-wma.icns. Double clicking on that one will open the icons file in preview and you'll see: it's really an icon file for WMA files.

Kennel · Oct 19, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by tonton:
While it's true thet there are music players, encoders, and CD burners available, the beauty of iTunes is that it integrates these beautifully, and with a very attractive and efficient interface to boot. That's the difference between the "Mac way" and the PC way, which is to launch an encoder to encode, then launch a player to play, then launch a burner to burn, etc. Once you've launched all of those separate apps, does iTunes still seem "bloated" to you?

It's okay. I don't expect you all to see the light immediately. But you probably will, eventually.

That's funny. I think of it the other way around.

Also, the user interface of iTunes may look good in MacOS X, but it just feels wrong in Windows. It's a GUI in a GUI. The brushed metal look never really appealed to me either.

Originally posted by tonton:
And with the evident popularity of iTunes for Windows thus far, I think it's only a matter of time before iTunes does become the "most popular" music player for Windows. After all, it's free, whereas a fully functional WinAmp is not.

Since when is Winamp 2.* not free?

Originally posted by tonton:
And no longer is LAME the best music encoder for PC. A 160Mbps iTunes encoded AAC file will definitely sound better than a 160Mbps LAME encoded MP3. LAME may be the best MP3 encoder available, but it's not the best music encoder any longer. iTunes just upped the ante.

I never said so. I said it was the best MP3 encoder. Lame hasn't been the best "music encoder" for a long time. The MPC/Musepack format has been king of the hill for some time now. Especially at higher bitrates. Also, the AAC support in iTunes is part of Quicktime. I don't need iTunes to encode AAC files.

I just realised the following: iTunes for Windows installs itself, QuickTime 6.4, adds 2 quicklaunch icons, automatically starts "QuickTime Launcher" (what the hell is that for?) in the systray, installs a service called iPodService (even though I don't have an iPod), installs "iTunes helper.exe" (?) that takes up ~4 MB memory and installs a CD burning/ripping service called GearSec.exe! Nice job Apple :/

King Bob On The Cob · Oct 19, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
Since when is Winamp 2.* not free?

I think he's talking about Winamp 3...
Which AOL made into shareware if I remember correctly.

Kennel · Oct 19, 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
I think he's talking about Winamp 3...
Which AOL made into shareware if I remember correctly.

Ah, ok. I don't use Winamp 3.

Eug Wanker · Oct 19, 2003, 03:57 PM

Slashdot loves iTunes for Windows.

Ganesha · Oct 19, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Keiretsu:
BTW WMA support seems to be just around the corner. iTunes 4.1 does already contain an icon for WMA files! It's hidden within the iTunes app bundle!
If you ctrl-click (or right click) on iTunes and select "show package contents" and the the folder Contents/Resources. Then you'll find the file iTunes-wma.icns. Double clicking on that one will open the icons file in preview and you'll see: it's really an icon file for WMA files.

I guess hell did freeze over.

Eug Wanker · Oct 19, 2003, 05:26 PM

Yeah strange.

icruise · Oct 19, 2003, 06:06 PM

Unless I am mistaken, those icons have been in iTunes since version 3 at least. Seems to me like it's some kind of contingency plan, but I wouldn't necessarily count on WMA support in the near future.

Moonray · Oct 19, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Kennel:
Well, I must have missed that. It sure doesn't say anywhere on itunes.com's frontpage or on the download page for the software.

Apple sometimes does not remember there's a world outside the U.S. or they never expected anyone from other countries to go to www.itunes.com. However they do have a nice Swedish iTunes page at http://www.apple.com/se/itunes/.

-

Eug Wanker · Oct 19, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
Unless I am mistaken, those icons have been in iTunes since version 3 at least. Seems to me like it's some kind of contingency plan, but I wouldn't necessarily count on WMA support in the near future.

Yeah, I knew they were in 4, but didn't realize they were there as far back as 3.

And I don't think Apple isn't going to include WMA support soon either.

waffffffle · Oct 19, 2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
Unless I am mistaken, those icons have been in iTunes since version 3 at least. Seems to me like it's some kind of contingency plan, but I wouldn't necessarily count on WMA support in the near future.

Yup, since version 2 I can be sure, if not earlier. I'm going to say that it was probably in version 1 as well.