[MrBenn]

I read somewhere that iPod will be available for Windows. Does this mean PC users will also be getting iTunes? I hope so. They need a little happiness in their lives....

[jwblase]

Personally, I think that iTunes for Windows would be great! Then PC users wouldn't have to put up with WMP bull. It would also work great with the iPod.

Unfortunately, I don't think Apple plans to release iTunes for Windows. It goes against their needing to sell Macs strategy (although I'm not exactly sure how selling more iPods hurts Mac sales terribly.)

JB

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

No way in hell will Apple make iTunes for Windows. The whole point of iMovie, iTunes, iDVD is the fact that they are ONLY for the Mac. This is how Apple sells computers.

[Nebrie]

Well, Walt Mossberg in a CNBC interview about the iPod is betting on Apple to release Windows compatibility in the spring; no iTunes port but rather partnering with an existing 3rd party Windows app to provide the funtionality.

[ARENA]

Off topic: IKE, i see you went back to your Starwars themed signatures, the picture in this sig looks just like Palpatine!

[Mole]

Shouldnt it be "immoral k-mart employee" or is that just being redundant.

[ThunderP]

actually, i was thinking of this for a while. this could be a great opportunity for apple to push 3 things at once. Think about it, in WinXP, M$ dropped support for mp3 encoding/burning from WMP. several articles i read stated that people would have to pay extra for the software to be able to do this again. By porting/releasing iTunes for windows, and still keeping it a free download, they could possibly get their SW on the hd's of many pc users. and since they will have itunes, that means that they could also use the ipod. the third thing that apple would be pushing (although not directly) with this idea would be firewire, since it is the only way to connect the ipod).

just my 2�

[eep!]

Apple release iTunes for Windows? only if it deletes the partition tables...

[DyslexicCow]

maybe it's going to be some type of Plug in for WinAmp or MediaPlayer...

[MikeM32]

Doesn't Apple Make Quicktime for Windows also? So why not iTunes?

I believe Quicktime is available on both platforms and last I checked Apple makes Quicktime.

Mike

[Mr_Solar_Wind]

I bet they'll need QuickTime Pro...

[jwblase]

I think the big problem is getting the burn software part of iTunes working on Windows, as well as the Firewire drivers for iPod. It's not like Apple controls each and every piece of hardware for PCs. After all, that's one reason we love the mac: Perfect (or almost so) hardware/software combo.

JB

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Ahh one of the few "feel good" things left in the Mac world apparently... the persistant belief that everyone using a Windoze system is starving for Mac software.

I dunno, I'm not starving for any media playing apps on my PCs. I'm happy with iTunes on my Macs, yet at the same time more than happy with WinAmp on my PCs. 'magine that!

Personally, I wish iTunes was anywhere near as customizeable as WinAmp, but I know, I know, how dare I say so. Basically, I use either app to *gasp* play music with, not gawk at for hours admiring the interface details. If anything, iTunes behaves a lot more like a bloatware Windows app of old... taking up WAY more than it's fair share of screen real estate for what it does. Why not a skinable, completely resizeable-while still displaying whichever vital info I choose- interface? Why not be able to seperate the media library/playlist controlls from the player interface if you so desire? Meanwhile WinAMP 3.0 is infintly re-sizeable, and the epitome of customizeable, which I really dig. The new dynamic skinning engine in 3.0 looks to be truly unique, with user controlls over everything right down to the exact color shade. I truly *WISH* iTunes could do any of that. It'd make it more cool, and more useful to boot.

Mac fans often do it, but Mac **DEVELOPERS** would often times do well to stop ignoring everything outside the realm of one platform, and learn a bit more from what's going on beyond one narrow computing realm. Find out what else is happening, and don't design applications in a vaccume. So far, if someone is just digging the iPod so bad they just gotta have one, that's the main 'Mac only' feature that iTunes2 *really* has to offer- until some 14 year-old in Finland comes out with a crack, that is.


But hey, I'm aware that according to rule#3 in the "Things I must do to be okay with owning my Mac" handbook, it clearly states that "..in order to like one thing (iTunes) you must dislike everything else, in order to balance the Karma and achive inner peace with your Mac purchacing descision". But that's me, a rebel! I threw out my handbook and am just winging it through life!

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>Personally, I wish iTunes was anywhere near as customizeable as WinAmp, but I know, I know, how dare I say so. Basically, I use either app to *gasp* play music with, not gawk at for hours admiring the interface details. If anything, iTunes behaves a lot more like a bloatware Windows app of old... taking up WAY more than it's fair share of screen real estate for what it does. Why not a skinable, completely resizeable-while still displaying whichever vital info I choose- interface? Why not be able to seperate the media library/playlist controlls from the player interface if you so desire? Meanwhile WinAMP 3.0 is infintly re-sizeable, and the epitome of customizeable, which I really dig. The new dynamic skinning engine in 3.0 looks to be truly unique, with user controlls over everything right down to the exact color shade. I truly *WISH* iTunes could do any of that. It'd make it more cool, and more useful to boot.</STRONG>

*cough cough*

There are a zillion MP3 players for mac that can do exactly the things you want. Want infinite skinning possibilities with user controlable hues? Go Audion. Light-weight players that will only play MP3s with as little overhead as possible? There's plenty.

Heck, there's even winamp for the mac (if it's not dead yet).

iTunes is not the only choice you have. Big duh!

Why is iTunes great? Because:

1) I like the interface. One window takes all. And it looks great on a TV.
2) Cross-fading
3) Best plug-ins are availible (G-force, whitecap)
4) Click & Edit ID-tags in playlist.
5) All the great features inherited from soundjam, like the EQ.
6) Sound-enhancer
7) Great minimized view
8) Apple-scriptable (integration with snapperhead or oculus for instance)

Bottom-line: iTunes is the best MP3 player I've ever encountered. I've used WinAmp for about a year every day on a PC, and the only thing I miss is the advanced crossfading plugin I had, but the built-in one in iTunes 2 is more than adequate for me. Oh, and I liked the 10 px high minimzed view too. However, I can completely hide iTunes and just controll it from the dock-icon...

I've been through a lot of MP3-players on the mac too. I used SoundJam for the longest time. I like audion too, it has some of the coolest looking skins ever, and nice features too. Heck, even the predecessor to WinAmp, MacAmp were great in it's time...

[eep!]

Hey couldn't you just connect an iPod to a FireWire port on a pc, drag the mp3 files across the FireWire Target Disk Mode then play all/random?

all you'd need then was a way to create iTunes compatable playlists...

just ideas here, don't shoot me or anything.

[mr_sonicblue]

I prefer iTunes over all other players for Mac and Windows for a few simple reasons:

It:
1) Allows large MP3 collections to be easily managed with browsing, playlists, and ID3 tagging.
2) Has integrated burning.
3) Has integrated support for MP3 players.
4) Is free.

I do wish it had free-form skinning (like Audion for Mac and Sonique for Windows) but I can live without it, because the window is hidden most of the time anyways.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
<STRONG>Hey couldn't you just connect an iPod to a FireWire port on a pc, drag the mp3 files across the FireWire Target Disk Mode then play all/random?

all you'd need then was a way to create iTunes compatable playlists...</STRONG>

Doesn't iTunes put the MP3s on a hidden part of the drive, so you can't get to them, or add more, via the disk-mode?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

ah double posts!

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
*cough cough*

There are a zillion MP3 players for mac that can do exactly the things you want. Want infinite skinning possibilities with user controlable hues? Go Audion. Light-weight players that will only play MP3s with as little overhead as possible? There's plenty.

Heck, there's even winamp for the mac (if it's not dead yet).

iTunes is not the only choice you have. Big duh!

Did I say iTunes was the only MP3 player for Mac? No. Was the theme of this thread pretty much centered around a. iTunes and b. "hey, will it be available for PCs?" Yes. So does your cute little list of what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about iTunes have anything to do either with what I said, or the original direction of the thread in general? No.

Big Duh is right.

Try reading a little more next time (starting with the TITLE of the thread). And do something about that cough.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[deisom]

iTunes for Windows? It ain't gonna happen, any more than iMovie is gonna be made for Windows. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple does release Windows drivers for the iPod at some point, but they'll stop far short of providing the full iTunes-iPod experience that you get with the Mac OS. Perhaps something along the lines of allowing for manual transfer of .mp3s to the iPod using the prevalent Windows jukebox software, but not enabling the automatic synchronization with iPod that you get with iTunes 2.0.

[NeoMac]

How about windows for iTunes instead?!

this way, when you use iTunes you can see into (X-ray like) or behind your Mac.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]

[typoon]

Originally posted by eep!:
<STRONG>Apple release iTunes for Windows? only if it deletes the partition tables...</STRONG>

LMAO, Though I too doubt they will release iTunes for Windows. Though it might show people the True ease of use or Apple Programs and in turn maybe the Mac.

[c4zp3rgh0zt]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
<STRONG>
1) I like the interface. One window takes all. And it looks great on a TV.
2) Cross-fading
3) Best plug-ins are availible (G-force, whitecap)
4) Click & Edit ID-tags in playlist.
5) All the great features inherited from soundjam, like the EQ.
6) Sound-enhancer
7) Great minimized view
8) Apple-scriptable (integration with snapperhead or oculus for instance)
</STRONG>

1) I like Winamps interface, one window takes all
2) Winamp�s 3.x has cross-fading builtin as well (2.x with can w/ a plugin)
3) Winamp supports the same plug-ins you consider the best (and displays them way faster) and hundreds more plugins are available
5) Winamp has a built in equalizer
6) Winamp has _many_ sound enhancer plugins available to it
7) Winamp has a better minimized view


Now I'll address 4) and 8) and along with some points mr_sonicblue made:

Originally posted by mr_sonicblue:
<STRONG>1) Allows large MP3 collections to be easily managed with browsing, playlists, and ID3 tagging.
2) Has integrated burning.
3) Has integrated support for MP3 players.
4) Is free.</STRONG>

Windows Explorer is WSH scriptable, allows you to click and edit ID3-tags, allows large MP3 collections to be easily managed with browsing, has support for ANY MP3 player and has integrated MP3 to audioCD burning and MP3CD burning.


4) Winamp is free.

Winamp also:
-uses less than 1% CPU on decent systems (this is a big deal).
-supports way more visualizations and plugins.
-is far more customizable.

WMA/MP3's encoded into an album with WMP8 can automatically have their folder icon in Explorer painted with the CD cover for said album.

Things aren�t as backward in windows land as everyone likes to believe.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: c4zp3rgh0zt ]

[Creation]

Essentially I believe the same thing c4zp3rgh0zt said, with a few more additions:

Winamp is small in terms of file size, and is built to do one thing: play music. It all boils down to that simple statement: Winamp plays music. It's a 800KB download that plays music.

It doesn't bundle 50MB worth of visual plug-ins (but you can if you want) and it doesn't throw in five thousand other features that only a handful of people might use (CD burning/ripping, MP3 player connectivity, FireWire connectivity, etc.). If I want to burn audio CDs, I'll use the software that came with my burner, which is designed to burn CDs only. If I want to connect to an MP3 player, I'll use the bundled software, which was designed to interface with MY mp3 player.

Stand-alone products generally function much more efficiently than a do-it-all program.

Though I too doubt they will release iTunes for Windows. Though it might show people the True ease of use or Apple Programs and in turn maybe the Mac.

Winamp's pretty damn easy. Double-click on a mp3 file and Winamp zips open in about half a second and plays it for you. And if you want to make a playlist, drag-and-drop your files into the playlist in Winamp. Not too difficult.

Disclaimer: yeah, iTunes probably doesn't bundle 50MB worth of visual plug-ins. It's more than likely an exaggeration. But you get the idea.