iTunes for Windows is out

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by: Eug

Ugh...itunes converted my music folder...so now all my songs are orgranized by 1) a folder with the artist name then 2) unknown album then finally 3) the songs by that artist...

You have to make sure you don't let iTunes organize the files. It's a checkbox in the Preferences.

Seems to me like it doesn't really have much advantage over Windows Media Player 9, but its interface is a bit more organized and has less crap.

Exactly, WMP9 is a far too disorganized and ugly.

Too late now...if only I could turn back time

 

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
I wonder if they ported to windows widgets and skinned them, or if they ported cocoa or whatever to run on windows...

edit: I also wonder whether they ported the safari renderer to windows, or if they just use the IE components.

I suspect it is using Firebird internally. Isn't Safari based off Firebird? I guess that it is because the sites that have rendering problems in Safari on my mac have the exact same rendering problems in Firebird on my PC, but not in IE or Mozilla. I think Apple would be foolish to rely on an external rendering engine that they have no control over.

BTW, I just made my first iTunes purchase. The new Barenaked Ladies cd. Bought it on my Mac, uploaded it to my iPod. Then copied the files to my PC and burned them in iTunes (since I don't have a burner on my mac). Worked like a charm, and since both my PC and Mac are authorized to play my purchases, the copy protection wasn't a problem.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: jasonsRX7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
I wonder if they ported to windows widgets and skinned them, or if they ported cocoa or whatever to run on windows...

edit: I also wonder whether they ported the safari renderer to windows, or if they just use the IE components.

I suspect it is using Firebird internally. Isn't Safari based off Firebird? I guess that it is because the sites that have rendering problems in Safari on my mac have the exact same rendering problems in Firebird on my PC, but not in IE or Mozilla. I think Apple would be foolish to rely on an external rendering engine that they have no control over.

BTW, I just made my first iTunes purchase. The new Barenaked Ladies cd. Bought it on my Mac, uploaded it to my iPod. Then copied the files to my PC and burned them in iTunes (since I don't have a burner on my mac). Worked like a charm, and since both my PC and Mac are authorized to play my purchases, the copy protection wasn't a problem.

Safari uses khtml, which is from konqueror.

 

[murphy55d]

Playback sounds much worse than Winamp 5 beta1 + enhancer. Nothing the equalizer could do, matched the playback quality.

Browsed the iTunes store, looks interesting. Don't know that I'll use it though.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: jasonsRX7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
I wonder if they ported to windows widgets and skinned them, or if they ported cocoa or whatever to run on windows...

edit: I also wonder whether they ported the safari renderer to windows, or if they just use the IE components.

I suspect it is using Firebird internally. Isn't Safari based off Firebird? I guess that it is because the sites that have rendering problems in Safari on my mac have the exact same rendering problems in Firebird on my PC, but not in IE or Mozilla. I think Apple would be foolish to rely on an external rendering engine that they have no control over.

BTW, I just made my first iTunes purchase. The new Barenaked Ladies cd. Bought it on my Mac, uploaded it to my iPod. Then copied the files to my PC and burned them in iTunes (since I don't have a burner on my mac). Worked like a charm, and since both my PC and Mac are authorized to play my purchases, the copy protection wasn't a problem.

Mozilla and Firebird are both using the Gecko rendering engine. I think it's not too hard to port something like khtml to windows, it's not like they're using special PPC instructions I would say.

 

[erikistired]

i wouldn't mind ripping my stuff in AAC to reduce size and maybe increase quality, but not if i have to play it back in itunes. what to do what to do.

 

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by: fisher
i wouldn't mind ripping my stuff in AAC to reduce size and maybe increase quality, but not if i have to play it back in itunes. what to do what to do.

If you rip your own cd's to AAC, there's no reason you'd have to use iTunes. I'm sure there are other AAC players for windows. It's not a proprietary format.
Quick info about AAC

 

[clicknext]

How do you make it organize your music by file name? This little thing is what I'm missing most from WMP9 because my songs are arranged by file name and nothing else.

 

[noxxic]

There's an AAC plugin for Winamp 2, and there's also foobar2000.

Organize by filename? I don't think you can.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: fisher
i wouldn't mind ripping my stuff in AAC to reduce size and maybe increase quality, but not if i have to play it back in itunes. what to do what to do.

MP3s too big for you? Just wondering, because I do everything as 256 Kbps MP3.

Actually, it does use up a lot of space, but the quality is great, and it's the most portable format out of all of them (AAC, WMP, OGG, etc.).

Or you could just use Winamp with AAC, although that kinda defeats the purpose of using iTunes.