Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

laxthxdude · May 18, 2003, 11:54 PM

Sorry to be the one to break the news to the developers on these two pieces of software.

Every PC user I know of is DROOLING at the mouth for iTunes for Windows. In fact they would even PAY $$$ for the software if it wasn't going to be made available for free (which I think Apple is going to do just to get more people to use it and buy more songs from the iTunes store).

Apple could literally OWN the music software (and portable hardware with the iPod) market with the iTunes for windows...

Music Match is such a piece of junk - you'd swear that Microsoft wrote it. Difficult. Bloated. Ugly. Would prefer WinAmp, but that has taken a turn for the worse also...

Ryan1524 · May 19, 2003, 01:22 AM

that's why you stick with WA2. i for one, uses 2.91 right now. but WA3 is not so bad, as long as your system can handle it (read: powerful).

but yea, i'd love to try iTunes.

me17213 · May 19, 2003, 01:44 AM

relax with what u are saying about musicmatch. I know somebody who is a programmer for them (i think he works on the ipod compatibility stuff).

eevyl · May 19, 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by me17213:
relax with what u are saying about musicmatch. I know somebody who is a programmer for them (i think he works on the ipod compatibility stuff).

Regardless of the wonderful people that may be working on it, MusicMatch is a big big piece of crap. Bloated and confusing, to say the good things about it.

libraryguy · May 19, 2003, 03:22 AM

I'm just curious as to how Apple is going to be able to include drivers for all the CD burners that are in all the different PC's. I assume they are going to want to include CD burning capabilities but it's gonna be a lot bigger task on the Windows side than it is/was on the Mac side.

Amorya · May 19, 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by libraryguy:
I'm just curious as to how Apple is going to be able to include drivers for all the CD burners that are in all the different PC's. I assume they are going to want to include CD burning capabilities but it's gonna be a lot bigger task on the Windows side than it is/was on the Mac side.

Isn't there a single framework they could hook onto, and let the OS handle the actual talking to the burner? I know there is in OSX... I'd have assumed Windows could do that too.

Amorya

RevEvs · May 19, 2003, 05:45 AM

Windows allows burning from within the OS, sure they could hook into this.

revs

tenchi71 · May 19, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by RevEvs:
Windows allows burning from within the OS, sure they could hook into this.

revs

WindowsXP is the only one that does. So it may be an XP only deal....

krove · May 19, 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by libraryguy:
I'm just curious as to how Apple is going to be able to include drivers for all the CD burners that are in all the different PC's. I assume they are going to want to include CD burning capabilities but it's gonna be a lot bigger task on the Windows side than it is/was on the Mac side.

It is not actually about support each burner, but rather each burner mechanism (of which there are far fewer of these). Many burners use the same mechanism, but there are still a lot of different mechanisms.

Just wanted to clarify...

ckohler · May 19, 2003, 02:03 PM

iTunes for Windows could be a failure if it turns out anything like Quicktime for Windows. Windows users put up with the laggy, buggy performance of Quicktime since they don't have a choice (when playing QT media). But they do have a choice in music software.

kmkkid · May 19, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by ckohler:
iTunes for Windows could be a failure if it turns out anything like Quicktime for Windows. Windows users put up with the laggy, buggy performance of Quicktime since they don't have a choice (when playing QT media). But they do have a choice in music software.

Amen.

iTunes 4 Win better not be another half assed port, or nooone will want to use it, nevermind pay for it (if thats Apples intension).

Chris

kmkkid · May 19, 2003, 02:20 PM

btw laxthxdude, winamp is free, so it would only be hurting musicmatch sales. Which, if they are already buying musicmatch when there are free alternatives(winamp) then they most likely wont switch anyways.

Chris

clarkgoble · May 20, 2003, 01:00 AM

You know I watch lots of videos in Quicktime for Windows and I honestly *don't* see what all the complaints are. I'm only running a 500 MHz Pentium III and they don't seem to be skipping any frames. Seems as fluid as the movies playing on my Mac with Quicktime. Where's the beef? (Or do I just have a good graphics card?)

Now WMP I *can* tell the difference between the Mac and PC versions. Real Player actually has a fairly nice Mac version, but the only movies I have in that format are some low quality episodes of South Park. So I can't comment on its quality.

Anyway, I think Quicktime for Windows gets a bit of a bum rap. One of those things only "experts" can distinguish -- like the DTS vs. Dolby Digital wars.

Getting back to Windows music players - things are prett weak there. I've used both WinAmp and Musicmatch. Musicmatch is much better, although the older versions of WinAmp had a nice minimalistic ethic I kind of dug. Musicmatch is a tad too complex. There is just something really elegant about iTunes. I can't wait until it is out for Windows. It'll make playing music much nicer. (Actually since I got my iPod that's not a big deal - I listen to music on my iPod at work. Saves computing cycles also!)

Angus_D · May 20, 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by krove:
It is not actually about support each burner, but rather each burner mechanism (of which there are far fewer of these). Many burners use the same mechanism, but there are still a lot of different mechanisms.

Just a thought, but perhaps Apple will license burner technology from some 3rd party?

kmkkid · May 20, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
You know I watch lots of videos in Quicktime for Windows and I honestly *don't* see what all the complaints are. I'm only running a 500 MHz Pentium III and they don't seem to be skipping any frames. Seems as fluid as the movies playing on my Mac with Quicktime. Where's the beef? (Or do I just have a good graphics card?)

Now WMP I *can* tell the difference between the Mac and PC versions. Real Player actually has a fairly nice Mac version, but the only movies I have in that format are some low quality episodes of South Park. So I can't comment on its quality.

Anyway, I think Quicktime for Windows gets a bit of a bum rap. One of those things only "experts" can distinguish -- like the DTS vs. Dolby Digital wars.

Getting back to Windows music players - things are prett weak there. I've used both WinAmp and Musicmatch. Musicmatch is much better, although the older versions of WinAmp had a nice minimalistic ethic I kind of dug. Musicmatch is a tad too complex. There is just something really elegant about iTunes. I can't wait until it is out for Windows. It'll make playing music much nicer. (Actually since I got my iPod that's not a big deal - I listen to music on my iPod at work. Saves computing cycles also!)

It's not the playback thats bad, it's the clumsy, stuttery, just plain slow GUI (and this is on a 2.53 Ghz P4). And whatever they used to code it, it sure doesnt like getting along with other apps, especially applications that use transparencies. Funny that it runs so well alongside alpha channels on OS X, but not well at all on windows. And WTF must my volume ALWAYS be at max with QT when I play any movie, it always resets?!?! grrrrr. That really pisses me off.

Anywho, when mentioning media players for windows, you left out the main player. WMP. WMP 9 is the best media player for windows hands down now. It does almost everything itunes does, and it actually runs pretty well compared to the other players. I, and many others I know use WMP exclusively, because it's just that good. It has many eq options, crossfade, volume leveling, video controls for contrast/color/brightness etc., smart playlists, ratings... SKINS!!! and more. It's just wicked

I don't care if I'm 'supporting the devil' by using it. Because at least I'm supporting the devil in style

Chris

Truepop · May 21, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Ryan1524:
that's why you stick with WA2. i for one, uses 2.91 right now. but WA3 is not so bad, as long as your system can handle it (read: powerful).

but yea, i'd love to try iTunes.

I feel that WinAmp 2.6632 is the best. I have an old 600E and that is the fastest build ever.