[MusicalTone]

Check it out,

http://download.com.com/3302-2167_4-10235269.html

The feedback is awesome.

[blackbird_1.0]

feed back idiot #1:

"Crashed.. Sucked.."
"I installed it, expected a lot considering I'm not a mac user and I have heard these great reviews years ago.. Thought I'd try it out when a friend told me about it. After I installed it crashed.. ever after restart. This is with just one song trying to play. After this, I was so disguisted I just uninstalled it. Another thign is they installed quicktime on my computer without asking. Maybe I don't want quicktime? After I uninstalled it, they didn't even remove quicktime which they put in without asking, they could have at least asked if I wanted it removed. I expected a lot more.. I'm very dissapointed, maybe apple should have been a bit more considerate, and posossibly changed the gui a bit? You know where I didn't feel like I was using a mac program. I guess I'm pretty much disguisted with the whole program, I don't reccommend.. Try it if you want.. Stick with winamp and nero or alchohol 120 and you can't go wrong.. At least you know you'll get software that has a good chance of working. "

feed back idiot #2
__
"Very Good, but hidden flaw!!!!"
" Apple doesn't tell that, at least in the Mac version, you cannot move the music onto most mp3 players other than the iPod. Even if you burn to a cd there is a copy protection which will not allow you to use, for instance, Sony SonicStage."

wtf? :

[Developer]

Originally posted by blackbird_1.0:
wtf? :

Well, it's true for music purchased on the music store (assuming the reviewer didn't try burning as Audio CD and rerip as mp3 yet).

[MusicalTone]

Blackbird how did you manage to focus in on the few negative comments amongst the sea of praise?

[voodoo]

iTMS sucks. You have to authorize each computer that you stream the m4p songs to which defeats the purpose of streaming. You'd be better off just copying the file over since you have to authorize the machine anyway. Stupid Apple.

[biscuit]

Originally posted by voodoo:
iTMS sucks. You have to authorize each computer that you stream the m4p songs to which defeats the purpose of streaming. You'd be better off just copying the file over since you have to authorize the machine anyway. Stupid Apple.

I think the point is that you're permitted to 'use' (i.e. listen to) the tracks to buy on up to 3 computers. If you didn't have to authorise the streamed-to machines then you could 'use' the track on an unlimited number of machines.

Haven't tried Win iTunes yet, but good to see positive feedback.

biscuit

[sniffer]

It's really nice to se the recieption have gotten so positive among the Windows users. I am glad Apple did it right and made iTunes about just as good as the Apple version. And not only that, it's free. I bet this would not only boost the ipod sales, but also the Mac sales would be affected.
I am really happy about this. Besides now I can comfortable use my XP box for music playback.

[MusicalTone]

Originally posted by voodoo:
iTMS sucks. You have to authorize each computer that you stream the m4p songs to which defeats the purpose of streaming. You'd be better off just copying the file over since you have to authorize the machine anyway. Stupid Apple.

Is sharing the same as or different from streaming? When you share your music collection in iTunes is there a machine limit on it like streaming or are they in fact both the same thing - 3 machines top? I was under the impression that folks could see loads of music shares on a network. Maybee they were just seeing non-drm MP3s

[BZ]

Just got posted to MacMinte...

http://www.macminute.com/2003/10/20/ituneswindows

Looks like Windows users are downloading iTunes (good thing) and buying songs (good thing). Now lets see Holiday sales numbers of iPods (really good thing).

BTW: I read over 50-60 of those reviews and they were mostly positive. There is not one software title that gets 120 or so people to all say YEAH! From what I could read, it is and will be a success and the feeling is that Apple creates good software.

BZ

[djjava]

every windows user i know that has Dl'ed itunes loves it tremendously... Steve would do good to have nice price cut on the iPods for the holidays.

[Oneota]

This one is probably music to Apple's ears:

Tunes 4 for Windows is a superb product and a great addition to the numerous other media player jukeboxes available on the PC. It is well designed, elegant, and intuitive to use. Unlike WMP, which seems at times convoluted to access its features, iTunes remains focussed on what it was designed to do. I've browsed through the Music Store and think its great. They have a considerable collection with good info on the artists as well as decent previewing and one-click purchasing. What really impresses me, technically at least, is how rapidly the pages on the iTMS render. I hear Apple is using its own browser technology. I would love to see Internet Explorer render pages that quick. Also, I was blown away by the networking feature. All you have to do to set it up is, well, NOTHING! That's a first. Zero configuration networking. When I installed iTunes on my laptop I was shocked that the playlist on my desktop automatically appeared over my Wi-Fi network without having to do anything. I understand that the iPod is supposed to appear the same way, without any driver installs or anything, automatically on the playlist. I may have to get one in order to test it out. I've heard a lot about Apple's iApps but was dubious about how much better they could actually be then Microsoft's offerings. A media player is a media player I thought. How wrong I was until I tried iTunes. I wonder what the other iApps are like and if Apple will port them to Windows. I would happily pay to see some of Apple's other apps on Windows. At the very least, I hope it makes Microsoft focus on making Windows better. Next opportunity I get to check out a Mac at CompUSA I'm going to see what else they have on that platform that we've been missing out on.

[djjava]

it is pretty clear that the best Windows application available is by Apple--go figure

[xi_hyperon]

A friend of mine is using iTunes for Windows and has a problem with existing mp3s encoded with variable bit rate: iTunes is misreporting the playback time. For instance, a song which is actually 3 or 4 minutes is being reported by iTunes as 45 minutes to an hour in playback time. Not a huge issue until he tries to burn a CD with iTunes. With times reported in error like that, he can only get a few songs on the CD. Other than this issue, he loves the app.

Obviously this is a bug and has been reported to Apple, but I was wondering if anyone here had any similar experiences and might know a workaround.

Any feedback is appreciated.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
A friend of mine is using iTunes for Windows and has a problem with existing mp3s encoded with variable bit rate: iTunes is misreporting the playback time. For instance, a song which is actually 3 or 4 minutes is being reported by iTunes as 45 minutes to an hour in playback time. Not a huge issue until he tries to burn a CD with iTunes. With times reported in error like that, he can only get a few songs on the CD. Other than this issue, he loves the app.

Obviously this is a bug and has been reported to Apple, but I was wondering if anyone here had any similar experiences and might know a workaround.

Any feedback is appreciated.

I had that problem with a few tracks myself. It isn't anything new to iTunes 4.1 though (Mac or PC). It's very random. The only thing I can figure is it has something to do with the way the track was ripped. Seeing that I got the tracks from a 3rd party (a friend & some from the Internet), I'm not sure how it was ripped.

My fix was to convert them to AIFF and then back into mp3's again. Fixed the problem and I didn't notice any loss of quality.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I had that problem with a few tracks myself. It isn't anything new to iTunes 4.1 though (Mac or PC). It's very random. The only thing I can figure is it has something to do with the way the track was ripped. Seeing that I got the tracks from a 3rd party (a friend & some from the Internet), I'm not sure how it was ripped.

My fix was to convert them to AIFF and then back into mp3's again. Fixed the problem and I didn't notice any loss of quality.

Hmm... when you converted them back to mp3, did you then use a constant bitrate?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Hmm... when you converted them back to mp3, did you then use a constant bitrate?

Sorry, I don't remember. It's only happened a few times. I should also say that I use iTunes exclusively so I don't know if the tracks had the same time signature in other players.

I just did the conversions. Do you think a constant bitrate makes a difference?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Sorry, I don't remember. It's only happened a few times. I should also say that I use iTunes exclusively so I don't know if the tracks had the same time signature in other players.

I just did the conversions. Do you think a constant bitrate makes a difference?

He seems to have the problem isolated to the VBR, although I don't know much else. I suggested to him that he try to convert one of the files to a constant bit rate, but haven't heard back from him yet. Thanks for the feedback.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
Is sharing the same as or different from streaming? When you share your music collection in iTunes is there a machine limit on it like streaming or are they in fact both the same thing - 3 machines top? I was under the impression that folks could see loads of music shares on a network. Maybee they were just seeing non-drm MP3s

Sharing is not the same as streaming. Sharing gives people access to actual music files, while streaming only gives you the ability to listen to a music file on someone else's machine.

If you are sharing your iTunes library it only shares on the same LAN as you are in, or through Airport giving it a 10 meter radius or so. It cannot be shared over the internet. That was fixed in iTunes 4.0.1.

However is you want to play a DRM song that you've downloaded/bought from iTMS you have to authorize the machine that will play it. Even when streaming the song to another computer. That is so silly because no copying takes place and it is being played off an authorized machine! The file is only being decoded and destroyed in real time within the LAN - a very defined closed area.

Since you can share your iTunes library with as many as you like (that are within your LAN) you should also be able to share the DRM files withing that LAN. Dammit. This is a very inconvenient restriction and ultimately pointless to the extreme because it won't prevent someone from copying the song by burning it on a CD and importing it because the autorized computer is within physical reach. The purpose of this limit eludes me and it is IMO stupid as a bread.

[geekwagon]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
A friend of mine is using iTunes for Windows and has a problem with existing mp3s encoded with variable bit rate: iTunes is misreporting the playback time. For instance, a song which is actually 3 or 4 minutes is being reported by iTunes as 45 minutes to an hour in playback time. Not a huge issue until he tries to burn a CD with iTunes. With times reported in error like that, he can only get a few songs on the CD. Other than this issue, he loves the app.

Obviously this is a bug and has been reported to Apple, but I was wondering if anyone here had any similar experiences and might know a workaround.

Any feedback is appreciated.

I've had this problem on certain VBR tracks. I think they are probably all encoded by some encoder that iTunes doesn't seem to like, although I have never been able to tell which one since it has never done it on any of the tracks I encoded myself. They playback fine, it is just the time that gets misreported. It happens the exact same on the iPod too.

iTunes 4.1's changelog had an entry about "improved handling of VBR MP3 files" so I was hoping it would be fixed. But alas, no.

Interesting idea on re-encoding the files which I never thought of. I don't think I will bother though since all of my files that have this problem just go from 3-4 minutes to 6-8 minutes. It doesn't bother me enough to chance losing sound quality to a re-encode.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by geekwagon:


Interesting idea on re-encoding the files which I never thought of. I don't think I will bother though since all of my files that have this problem just go from 3-4 minutes to 6-8 minutes. It doesn't bother me enough to chance losing sound quality to a re-encode.

Mine were much more extreme. A 4-6 minute track that had a 20+ minute time signature. Either way the re-encoding seemed to fix it.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by voodoo:
However is you want to play a DRM song that you've downloaded/bought from iTMS you have to authorize the machine that will play it. Even when streaming the song to another computer. That is so silly because no copying takes place and it is being played off an authorized machine! The file is only being decoded and destroyed in real time within the LAN - a very defined closed area.

I agree it would be nice to 'sample' other people's iTMS music with streaming. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen for several rasons:

1. This is mostly true for technical reasons: iTunes doesn't do anything fancy with the music it streams to clients, it just sends the file piece-by-piece. In the case of purchased music, that file is encrypted. So the client needs to know how to decrypt it. That requires the authorization key.

2. Remember all the programs for copying music from other people's iTunes libraries that popped up with iTunes 4? It's trivial to download (i.e. copy) the music file if you're receiving a stream of it. So why should iTunes decrypt and make readily available a purchased song? Do you think record companies would be happy with that?

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Why do we even care so much? I mean it just gives PC users another reason NOT to buy a Mac and call the hardware expensive.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I agree it would be nice to 'sample' other people's iTMS music with streaming. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen for several rasons:

1. This is mostly true for technical reasons: iTunes doesn't do anything fancy with the music it streams to clients, it just sends the file piece-by-piece. In the case of purchased music, that file is encrypted. So the client needs to know how to decrypt it. That requires the authorization key.

2. Remember all the programs for copying music from other people's iTunes libraries that popped up with iTunes 4? It's trivial to download (i.e. copy) the music file if you're receiving a stream of it. So why should iTunes decrypt and make readily available a purchased song? Do you think record companies would be happy with that?

Fair points. But why aren't there apps to rip music from internet radio? That's just mp3 stream. Yet RIAA and co are just fine with internet radio. Something smells rotten in all this. I am not attacking your points -- you make good ones. I am just adding thoughts to the discussion.

(This is actually the only gripe I have with the iTMS and iTunes so I'd say all in all iTunes is a clear winner!)

[KeyLimePi]

Why care? Perhaps you're not familiar with a little game I like to call 'Six Degrees of KeyLimePi.' It goes like this:

PC-users get iTunes and like it, so they buy songs.

PC-users get many songs, so they buy big iPods.

PC-users like iPods so they buy Macs.

PC-users buy Macs and Apple stock goes up.

Apple stock goes up, KeyLimePi is happy.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by KeyLimePi:
PC-users like iPods so they buy Macs.

Why would they if it works exactly the same on the PC?

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
Why would they if it works exactly the same on the PC?

The hope is that these Windows users see just how nice it is over here on this side of the fence, after peering through the nice little hole in the fence called iTunes. Then they get the iPods, and realize that Apple is where it's at. So they decide to go full Apple and live happily ever after!

Ahh, I love to daydream.

[blixa]

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
Why would they if it works exactly the same on the PC?

Because they think "Whoa. What if my WHOLE DAMN OS was this good!"

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by blixa:
Because they think "Whoa. What if my WHOLE DAMN OS was this good!"

Ha ha right. So the same way cheap clones would bring the Windows users over in drones. Ya, all 0.4% of em!

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Fair points. But why aren't there apps to rip music from internet radio? That's just mp3 stream. Yet RIAA and co are just fine with internet radio. Something smells rotten in all this. I am not attacking your points -- you make good ones. I am just adding thoughts to the discussion.

(This is actually the only gripe I have with the iTMS and iTunes so I'd say all in all iTunes is a clear winner!)

Well, there are apps that rip music from MP3 broadcasts and they'll even split them into individual files for you.

The reason the RIAA allows internet radio is because of hefty licensing fees paid in order to legally broadcast.

But, I think Mithras' first point is most correct - iTunes just shoves the file's data over the network to the other computer. No decryption is involved until it reaches the listener's end.

[MusicalTone]

Call me stupid (go on), but I really dont get the difference between sharing your library and streaming it.

What I gather is that you can share your library with anyone/everyone on your LAN, i.e. no limit on number of computers.

But you can only "stream" to 3 computers on your LAN.

In both cases the music stays on the host computer - so what is the difference?

And why do people have issues over streaming numbers when it is just as easy (if not easier) to share?

[voodoo]

On a tangent: How can the internet radio stations support themselves?? I've never heard a single commercial! Makes no sense right?

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
Call me stupid (go on), but I really dont get the difference between sharing your library and streaming it.

What I gather is that you can share your library with anyone/everyone on your LAN, i.e. no limit on number of computers.

A stream is broadcast, sharing they can pick there own songs.

[allap]

Nice reviews and all, but i have a hunch half of them were written by mac users Either way, good propaganda for windows users looking to download it from cnet.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by voodoo:
On a tangent: How can the internet radio stations support themselves?? I've never heard a single commercial! Makes no sense right?

Most of them don't, and have gone under. The others are paying out the ass for the right to play the music. Some rely on listener donations, web site ad revenue, and other small income. Last time I read anything about the situation, there were a lot of them who were fighting the law and not paying the fees.

One of my all time favorite stations went under when the RIAA imposed these laws. I remember they had small reminders in between some songs that stated that the RIAA was going to kill them and many others, and they asked for help.

The RIAA is an evil evil evil entity. They are on par, if not worse than MS. I hate them with a passion.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::

The RIAA is an evil evil evil entity. They are on par, if not worse than MS. I hate them with a passion.

Before the 13th century and the Gutenburg Press, written information was controlled by priests and the monks who copied books by hand. This gave them enormous power in not only the type of information that was passed but also who it was given to. Backed by the authority of the church, the control they exercised by restricting distribution was total.

The RIAA is the modern equivalent of that cabal. Only this time they are controlling music distribution and on a far larger level. The power they gain is in the form of money.

At some point the politicians are going to have to decide if the distribution of music is going to benefit the whole of society rather than the few corporate interests that contribute nothing creatively to the process.

(sorry for the OT rant)

[Ratm]

[Adam Betts]

Hehe, that is a good strip

[Truepop]

classic strip

[lemondrop]

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
Call me stupid (go on), but I really dont get the difference between sharing your library and streaming it.

What I gather is that you can share your library with anyone/everyone on your LAN, i.e. no limit on number of computers.

But you can only "stream" to 3 computers on your LAN.

In both cases the music stays on the host computer - so what is the difference?

And why do people have issues over streaming numbers when it is just as easy (if not easier) to share?

Share = Place a copy of file on other computer.

Stream = File is temporary. Like the radio. Once they stop sending it it goes away.

The three computer limitation is of songs you bought from the iTMS and not your ripped/downloaded cd's. You can stream to more if they are your own ripped files.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
Why do we even care so much? I mean it just gives PC users another reason NOT to buy a Mac and call the hardware expensive.

iPod is a trojan horse.

Besides imagine all the former mac-haters who now listen and buy music on a mac app then FW (not USB) over those songs to an Apple made iPod. Just getting mac haters to use mac hardware and software of any kind is a BIG win.

[Eug]

It's 87% positive now.

[Goldie]

It seems to me, after reading some of those reviews, it aint all windows users commenting. Looks like a lot of mac fans to me. Though 38,600 dl's just from cnet is pretty damn good. I'm looking for a tko in the 8th round. Wma's don't stand a chance.

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:

If you are sharing your iTunes library it only shares on the same LAN as you are in, or through Airport giving it a 10 meter radius or so. It cannot be shared over the internet. That was fixed in iTunes 4.0.1.

However is you want to play a DRM song that you've downloaded/bought from iTMS you have to authorize the machine that will play it. Even when streaming the song to another computer. That is so silly because no copying takes place and it is being played off an authorized machine!

What is the big deal? Just authorize the computer. If you don't want to share them, then, as you said earlier copy the file over and double the amount of disk space required for your tunes.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by riverfreak:
What is the big deal? Just authorize the computer. If you don't want to share them, then, as you said earlier copy the file over and double the amount of disk space required for your tunes.

Big deal is the fair usage of bought songs. They are mine and I should be able to stream them to more than three computers. There are 5 in my houshold and my family is just average sized. If this DRM scheme doesn't fit the average house well, then it quite frankly isn't very good IMO. It also kinda undermines the possibilities of streamed music I'd say.

[zachs]

Originally posted by KidRed:
iPod is a trojan horse.

Besides imagine all the former mac-haters who now listen and buy music on a mac app then FW (not USB) over those songs to an Apple made iPod. Just getting mac haters to use mac hardware and software of any kind is a BIG win.

USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire.

Anyway, I think that Apple will get some converts out of
this. But I think a lot of people will say "Cool, iTunes is the
same as on the Mac, I can sync my iPod with it...all the more
reason to stay."

Even if there aren't many converts, at least the sales
from the iTMS and iPods will be a .

[solitere]

Originally posted by zachs:
USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire.

USB 2.0 is not faster than FW400 (only on "paper")
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/s...393574,00.html

[Eug]

Firewire 800 > Firewire 400 > USB 2.0 > USB 1.1

The difference between Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 is VERY important for 7200 rpm desktop drives, but not important at all for the iPod.

ie. Current desktop drives are faster than Firewire 400, so any speed boost will help, including Firewire 400 over USB 2.0.

However, with the iPod, it's much slower than even USB 2.0, so it doesn't matter.

So:

Firewire 800 > current desktop 7200 rpm drive > Firewire 400 > USB 2.0 > iPod 4200 rpm drive > USB 1.1

[Wet Jimmy]

Interesting article for those that are inclined -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/33468.html

Talks about Apple vs. Microsoft, the concept of monopolies and the internet music biz.

[alphasubzero949]

As usual, you will find some Mac-haters in there slamming iTunes out of ignorance.

Can only play AAC files? WinAmp has more features? Yeah, right...

[biscuit]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Big deal is the fair usage of bought songs. They are mine and I should be able to stream them to more than three computers. There are 5 in my houshold and my family is just average sized. If this DRM scheme doesn't fit the average house well, then it quite frankly isn't very good IMO. It also kinda undermines the possibilities of streamed music I'd say.

The average household does not have 5 computers, of that I am certain.

Now, a household that is savvy enough to have a home network and use computers for playing/buying/sharing music might have 5 machines, but I'd have thought it's still the exception. Give it a few more years and it might be more commonplace. Who knows, by then online music may have taken hold well and Apple might be able to talk the record companies into adjusting the usage rights.

biscuit