Apple Releases iTunes for Windows

Billy_D_Goat writes "Today at a special media event, Apple Computer released their acclaimed iTunes Music Store and stand alone player for Windows XP and 2000. They also announced a partnership to sell music on AOL and give away songs with special bottles of Pepsi. You can learn more and download it from here. "

Comments

Did you notice the headline at apple.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

"HELL FREEZES OVER".

Now that's funny.

Download link

[Anonimo Covarde]

The download link is here

Did anyone see the requirements?

[InterruptDescriptorT]

From the iTunes 4 download page for Win2K/XP:

128 MB RAM minimum/256 RAM recommended

OK, I know RAM is cheap these days, and most people should have at least 128MB on modern machines, but I just have to ask--why would a simple network file retrieving application (let's face it, that's all this is with a little security thrown in) need that much memory? Damn...

Re:Did anyone see the requirements?

[Jobe_br]

Well, it rips CDs to MP3/AAC/AIFF/WAV from CD, burns CDs, compiles smart playlists, accesses the iTunes Music Store, displays visual graphics as music is playing, etc.

So, I'd say it does a bit more than a "simple network file retrieving application" - never mind that a Win2K/XP machine with less than 256MB RAM is going to be awfully painful (my Thinkpad had only 384MB and it was painful if I tried to actually use multiple apps simultaneously).

Other updates today

[daeley]

For Mac OS X users, check your Software Update, as QuickTime has been revved to 6.4, iPod software hits 2.1, and iTunes itself is now at 4.1.

Just downloaded it. pretty sweet

[selderrr]

it's fast on my Athlon 1700XP with 1GB Ram. But you sure need a shitlmoad of ram : in the taskmanager, iTunes itself gobs up a whopping 26MB when browsin. qtask takes another 13MB and iPodservices another 7.

After a while (and when in bakground) those numbers drop to a more reasonable 9+4+3 so it's feasible on a lesser machine. But prepare for some heavy trashing on launch.

Music sharing between OSX & XP works like a charm, even with dynamic playlists. I still gotta try out how my iPod responds when connected to the firewire port on the PC.

Right now i' mgonna do a little stresstesting with iTunes+media player + warcraft, playing all together. The wife sure is going to love that sound :-)

Re:Just downloaded it. pretty sweet

[ripleymj]

Does it do some kind of initial indexing or something like that? It had been running high for 15-20 minutes and just as I hit submit on that post, it dropped to ~5% and held there.

New iPod accessories

[herko_cl]

Apple also released several new accesories for the iPod. They include such things as turning the iPod into an image tank for CF cards and the much-rumored voice recorder.

Re:While I like the idea...

[realdpk]

You may want to re-read what iTunes is. You can copy the files to a CD, as a regular music CD, and then do whatever with 'em - such as conver them to mp3 for your car.

That's what I'll end up doing, anyways. (Car mp3 players are cool ;)

More Goodies ... Even for Mac Users

[gcondon]

The new iTunes Music Store now supports gift certificates & music "allowances" for your kids.

Plus, the catalog still seems to be growing at a healthy clip - unexpected holdouts such as the Grateful Dead are now available and Audible audiobooks are now available through the store.

I still wish that they would keep track of single song purchases and deduct them from the album price (a kind of installment plan) but a nice feature bump nonetheless.

I also like the headline on Apple's homepage - "Hell Froze Over!"

First Impressions

[jokell82]

Well I've been a Mac user for a while and love iTunes on my iBook, and I just installed iTunes for PC on my parent's machine. It feels just like iTunes for Mac, very polished, very smooth. I imported a bunch of songs (bad Kazaa, bad!) and they all were read in fine. It sees my shared playlist on my iBook and I can play the files from it just fine. Haven't gone up to the iBook to see if it works the other way, but it should. So far I'm very impressed with the quality of it, considering it's a Windows app.

Now I just get to tell my family about how buying the music is better than copying it for free. ;)

Re:First Impressions

[edalytical]

Haven't gone up to the iBook to see if it works the other way

Yup, works both ways, flawlessly. I'm sharing my playlist with two other Windows boxes which are intern sharing their playlist with the others computers. I have been playing files off my Power Mac on both Windows computers while I play music from either Windows box on my Power Mac, just to test it out. And it works without any problems at all. Zero configuration, instant play back just like local files, completely seamless, all over 802.11b. Great job Apple.

Re:While I like the idea...

[rlthomps-1]

I guess I don't understand your complaint... you can burn these into a CD ALL YOU WANT and from there you can do anything you want to them (mp3, record them onto a *cough* tape player, whatever).

or maybe you're just upset that there's a resonable compromise between DRM and free use rights. Come on, if you want legit digital downloads, there's going to have to be some restrictions.

Alternate download site

[BenFranske]

If the Apple site gets bogged down it is also availible via BitTorrent at this site. It also looks like Apple is only supporting Windows 2000 and XP.

Re:Alternate download site

[jdreed1024]

It also looks like Apple is only supporting Windows 2000 and XP.

So? It doesn't make sense for Apple, when coming out with a new piece of software, to support versions that Microsoft doesn't even support. All the 9x series are legacy now, except perhaps 98/98SE which is in "extended support" or something for a few more months.

one of the best parts : allowances

[selderrr]

THis really really rocks :
Allowance accounts and gift certificates Now you can give your kids a legal way to download their favorite songs with music allowance accounts, which give them access to the store without requiring a credit card and set a limit on how much they can spend. It's easy to set up recurring allowances which refresh every month, and you can establish different allowance accounts for each of your children. You can also buy music gift certificates -- just the thing for your favorite college student or birthday friend. A counter in the iTunes Music Store shows how much credit is left in allowances and gift certificates.

Best Windows App EVER.

[jeffkjo1]

Apple.com says it best, "Hell froze over. Introducing iTunes for Windows."
Followed by the awesome, "The best Windows app ever."

Anyone else picture Comic Book Guy when they read this?

Re:Best Windows App EVER.

[sparkchaser]

I will now.

Re:iTunes for Windows Screenshots?

[drzhivago]

Yes, the typical front end interface looks a lot like iTunes on the Mac, except they use more Windows-centric fonts. However, I give them kudos that the menus and configuration dialog boxes are all standard looking Windows dialog boxes rather than the crummy half Windows/half Mac dialog boxes from their Quicktime players.

Their music catalog...

[Lord_Frederick]

Is there anywhere you can view their music selection without having to download and install the application?

Whoa.

[American AC in Paris]

They're partnering with Pepsi to give away 100 million songs. No matter how you cut it--hours, number of iPods filled, Libraries of Congress--that's an assload of music to give away.

This is just one reason why iTunes will likely kick the ass of its competitors for the Windows market--name one other player that has a promo even a tenth as big as this one. Apple is playing hardball, and there aren't many companies out there that can compete with an Apple/Pepsi combination, to say nothing of their partnership with AOL...

Re:Whoa.

[selderrr]

The best part about the pepsi deal is when u try to imagine the look on John Sculley's face when he reads that shit :-)

Although I can't imagine they did it for such glorious reason. I think they did it to spawn a flamewar about pepsi vs cocacola taste.

Pepsi tastes like shit. No hit me with your flames :-)

Insanely great

[Chief Typist]

I've been playing around with the Windows version for the past half hour or so. It's very well done -- and feature complete:

1) The Rendezvous stuff for sharing the tunes works well. I can now share 80GB of music with my wife's IBM Thinkpad.

2) My CD drive was recognized without any problems. I can rip and burn without any problems at all. Goodbye CDex, et. al.

3) The response time on the store seems to be pretty good. The uptake on the new Windows version will probably be a lot slower than it was for the Mac version (hundreds of thousands of the Windows faithful are NOT waiting anxiously for Steve to say "it's available today".)

4) It's kinda weird seeing the Aqua UI controls and metal skins in a Windows app, but it supports my theory that iTunes is a lead in for both iPods & regular hardware. Get them used to the way things are in the Mac world, and then get them to switch.

Well done Apple. I'm impressed!

Re:Insanely great

[Frank of Earth]

I have to admit, very nicely done. I was a little skeptical when it required a reboot on XP, but it worked without a flaw.

The celebrity playlists are pretty cool too.. complete with descriptions on why they like the song. I already found a few songs/bands I never heard of and sound pretty cool.

I especially like the 30 second preview of the song, which loads really fast. Im not sure if I'm actually going to buy anything, but it sure is a good way to find that song that's been nagging you in the back of the head.

Re:Insanely great

[Hes Nikke]

it burns your play lists in the order they are sorted. if you sort them by artist, you'll get a folder for each artist, and one for each album inside of that! at least thats how iTunes 3 burned the 1 CD i did that way (by accident)

Screen Shots here

[neilsly]

at sly.us/iTunes-ss.

Do your worst =)

I can't believe the title on Apple's page ...

[Ezubaric]

"Hell Froze Over"

That's the best laugh I've seen in a long time ... now I've gotta reboot and install it on my machine.

apps & services

[Dukhat]

With iTunes, Final Cut Pro, and iMac, Apple obviously sees apps and services instead of the OS as the key making money off of its expertise. Even Microsoft is not secure in its OS market share and is trying to lock in users with Passport and .NET. The only downside is that the user interfaces between OSes will become even more homegenous once the OS doesn't matter.

Screenshot!

[ernstp]

The Link

iTunes rules

[hargettp]

As a long time Linux geek (Debian all the way), I switched to a PowerBook this spring and have never looked back. iTunes is a big part of that experience; having it available for my Windows machines at work is even better. Plus, it means Apple has a huge chance at continuing to be viable in the marketplace. After all, this is about selling iPods--not music.

Anyway, having followed the launch even this afternoon and downloading immediately, I can tell you fidelity of the experience on Windows is good: everything is the same as Mac OS X. The look and feel will be recognizable as similar to QuickTime--the brushed metal look so often reviled among older Mac die-hards. Interestingly, I entered the same account information I use on my Mac at home, but that does not allow me to re-download music already purchased onto this machine at the office; if I want it here again (outside of my home network), I need to buy it again.

The Music Store itself appears inside iTunes; it's just another bookmark, like your playlists, your purchased music, any CD you have in your drive, and any other computers on your local network sharing music through Rendezvous. You can play music off another computer with Rendezvous, but you can't add those songs to one of your own playlists, or download / copy them to your machine.

The experience of using the Music Store inside iTunes is a little like a browsere experience, but on steriods: the interface is more sophisticated, but still based on following links for navigation, backward and forward buttons, a home page, etc. On many pages, lists of highlighted albums appear in scrollable horizontal strips of album cover thumbnails. Definitely more than a browser, more than a website.

If you spend time with iTunes, you discover that more and more music arrives everyday. Things you didn't see when you did a search last week are now there. Over time, it starts to have the same jaw-dropping effect as Napster did in it's heyday: all the music you ever wanted, right there.

Re:iTunes rules

[Blondie-Wan]

Interestingly, I entered the same account information I use on my Mac at home, but that does not allow me to re-download music already purchased onto this machine at the office; if I want it here again (outside of my home network), I need to buy it again.

Only if you don't want to go to the trouble of copying it yourself. You can put your purchases on up to three machines you authorize to play them, and from the info today it seems that includes whatever mix of Macs and PCs you want; you can move files from one comp to another with impunity. Just copy the music you bought at home to your portable storage thingie of choice and take them with you to the office and copy them to your work PC.

As Steve said back in March when introducing the iTMS, "We'll download it to one machine; you have to move it to the other two." If Apple let people download their purchases more than once, lots of people would opt to do it simply out of convenience, and Apple would inevitably spend tons of bandwidth serving up the same track 50 times to the same person for just one payment. Their attitude is that it's the same as any other purchase; once somebody buys a track and gets it from them, it's that customer's responsibility to keep it, put it where he/she wants, prevent it from getting damaged, etc., in sort of the same way Sam Goody won't replace your CD once you get it home and drop a bowling ball on it.

Apple doesn't mind you copying the tracks from one comp to another (as long as you don't put them on a total of more than three, and that's why they have the DRM); they just don't want to do it for you.

Re:iTunes for Windows Screenshots?

[cioxx]

Here, and here

running on Windows 2003 Server. Memory usage is little bigger than other mp3 players, but I have 1gig of ram, so it's a non-issue.

It's also an MP3 player.

[Nijika]

...now that I've gotten my smartarse remark out of the way. :)

I've gotta say, while I'm a Mac fan. Apple likes to eat up RAM like candy. If I look at Process Viewer right now of all the crazy stuff I'm running on my iBook, the Apple software is chewing up the most (and we're talking about a calendar, and a mail program here...). I can imagine the Windows equal, done by Apple, may experience some of the same issues.

In general, Apple == get more RAM. I think even dedicated Windows users would be a little taken aback.

Anyone agree or am I way off base here?

Re:It's also an MP3 player.

[shotfeel]

What some might call "eating up RAM like candy", others might call using all the resources at hand.

If you're running OS X, eventually most of your RAM will be getting used for something. It doesn't necessarily need that much RAM, but its not going purge anything from RAM until somebody else needs it -just in case it is needed again. Basically works like a cache.

You need to open up a terminal window and run top to see what's reeeally in use.

Re:It's also an MP3 player.

[valkraider]

What is the point of having RAM if you can't use it? Or do you just like to see that you have 800MB free? Heck then shut the whole box down, then it will ALL be free!

Re:It's also an MP3 player.

[Graff]

I've gotta say, while I'm a Mac fan. Apple likes to eat up RAM like candy.

Hmm, yes and no. The philosophy of Mac OS X (and quite a few other operating systems, especially Unix-like ones) is that you should use as much RAM as you can. RAM access is usually much faster than hard drive access, so why not fill up RAM with stuff that you might possibly need from the hard drive at some point.

Memory management in Mac OS X goes like this: boot up, take up a good percentage of available RAM and place system stuff in there. Every time a window is created, make a backing store for faster and smoother access. If the user runs a program, load as much stuff related to that program as possible. If the user quits a program keep most of it in memory anyways, they might want it a minute later. They access the hard drive? Read into memory the next few sectors beyond what the user asked for simply because they may want them next.

All of this fills up RAM pretty quickly and makes the operating system look bloated. Actually though, it's highly efficient. It's usually much quicker to free up RAM then it is to fill it. Even in the case where you need to page out memory (store it back on disk to make room for something else), it's still not much slower than having the memory empty in the first place. This is why having more RAM makes Mac OS X faster, it uses the extra space to be more efficient.

To show you what I mean try launching Internet Explorer (or any other large program). Time how long it takes to launch, then quit it and start it again. Time how long it takes to launch for the second time. For IE I got 4 seconds for the first launch and then 2 seconds for every launch after that. This is because IE is now cached in RAM and doesn't need to be loaded from the hard drive to be launched.

So again, you are perfectly right in that Mac OS X takes up a lot of RAM. However this is actually a feature. After all RAM is pretty cheap now and I think most people would trade off a few bucks to have their system more responsive. On the other hand I do know that Mac OS X does cope decently with low-RAM situations. It can run just fine on a machine with 256 megs of RAM but it will seem slower than a similar machine with 512 megs of RAM. I'd say that 512 megs of RAM works well with Mac OS X, any less you see slowdowns, any more and you don't notice much improvement under normal use.

Re:I feel like a Cubs fan...

[b-baggins]

Here's how you play your iTunes purchased music at work:

1. Authorize your work computer.
2. Drag the purchased music files from your iTunes player to your desktop on your home pc to make a copy of them.
3. Transfer the copies to your work PC.
4. drag the copied files into iTunes on your work PC to import them.
5. Delete the copied files on both machines.
6. Enjoy your music at work.

Not Nuclear Certified? WTF?!?!?!

[Sporkinum]

The Apple software is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control systems, life support machines or other equipment in which the failure of the apple software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[clifyt]

"I just ripped Sting's newest CD, Sacred Love, to AAC at 224Kbps, absolutely excellent. I was getting ~14x ripping off a virtual CD driver"

Heh! Thats the first album I ripped as well...but I was only getting about 4-6x speeds off my Dell :(

Sadly, I've been meaning to download one of his exclusive tracks, and it showed up in a tenth of the time it took to rip a single track. Doh! I think Apple is trying to tell me something....

Accessories!!!!

[meh237]

Has anyone noticed the new accessories that you can get for the iPOD!? Voice memo recorder? Photo Card reader/writer for the IPOD? This means you can empty your 512 mg card onto your 40 gig ipod and keep shooting...!! This is awesome and makes me want the new ipod badly (Still using the old 10 gig version).

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[levik]

Steve Jobs referred to it as the greatest Windows app ever. This is somewhat of an overstatement, considering iTunes for Windows, while it certainly does run under Windows, is by no means a "Windows app". It is no more a Windows app than the early X-Windows based builds of OpenOffice were "Mac Apps". As it tries for some reason to mimic the appearance and behavior of iTunes on OS X, the look and feel of the UI is not only inconsistent with the windows standards, but it's also inconsistent with itself.

Case in point: go to the Music store, and you will see an Aqua-style dropdown control showing you're at the top level. Try to pull it down, and a Windows-style list of options appears. It Apple cannot standardize the UI across ONE FREAKING CONTROL, what can you expect?!

Some other interesting usability choices: the Maximize button actually SHRINKS the jukebox window to a Winamp-sized player. Double clicking on the title-bar, which should cause the same behavior as the Maximize button, works as Mac OS's (+) button - toggling the window size between "Optimal" and "Current".

Interestingly, Apple went through the trouble of porting their gloved hand cursors - something I am sure we all agree was needed on Windows for years.

I wish they took the time to put in some more confirmation dialogs instead. Like maybe it's obvious to an experienced Mac user that plugging in my iPod to a machine with iTunes will clear it of all the music... But it sure was a surprize to me. Would asking "Are you sure you wanna delete 10 Gigs worth of MP3s off your iPod?" been so hard?!

I expected better of Apple who provide a lot of documentation explaining to PC programmers that when porting their applications to MacOS they should follow the Mac UI guidelines in order to provide an application that will be consistent with the rest that are available. I guess it doesn't apply when going the other way.

Whatever bad sides Microsoft has, at least Office X and IE:Mac *LOOK* like MacOS apps. Sad to say I can't say the same for iTunes for Windows.

Not necessarily...

[hargettp]

I was following the launch event on an IRC channel (via MacNN), and during the course of that IRC someone asserted that Steve said the way they got iTunes onto Windows was by porting Cocoa wholesale--and called it "Yellow Box."

That's a term Apple has used before; IIRC, in the Copeland days, Apple was offering developers it's "Yellow Box" APIs (an early version of Cocoa, I would guess--NextStep wasn't in the picture, though), which would allow them to write to new APIs but with the current Mac OS (Classic) underneath. It was basically a hosting environment, so that once the real OS was released, programs written to the Yellow Box specification would "just work."

I can't confirm that this comment was actually made by Steve Jobs. If he did say this, and he was being serious, then I wonder if Apple now has a framework to let it deliver software on Windows? I don't know about you, I've always wondered why Microsoft never ported COM & a few other things to Mac, Linux, etc., 'cause that would let them leverage their existing codebase on new platforms. Has Apple put itself in a position to pull that trick on Microsoft? Could we see Safari for Windows soon? Or more "insanely great" software on Windows--and not from Microsoft?

Trojan horse might be apt after all; and delivered so innocently, so out in the open at such a cozy event as a music service launch.

Re:Not necessarily...

[Enrico Pulatzo]

If this is true, maybe Microsoft will release Office V.X for Mac for Windows!

It's way nicer than Office XP.

Re:Bets on when?

[notque]

Well, hell froze over just before it was released, so it can't take too long...

Maybe you didn't hear, the Cubs lost.

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[SweetAndSourJesus]

"Steve Jobs referred to it as the greatest Windows app ever. This is somewhat of an overstatement..."

HOLY SHIT! Steve Jobs made an overstatement?!?!

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[notque]

Sadly, I've been meaning to download one of his exclusive tracks, and it showed up in a tenth of the time it took to rip a single track. Doh! I think Apple is trying to tell me something....

Yeah, get some music taste :)

Re:Great! kind of

[Total_Wimp]

Reading this comment reminds me of exactly why Apple has such great mind share with average home users and Linux doesn't. In a word: innovation.

Now, before you start flaming me, please listen to my intent:

Apple: puts out uber-cool, lickin' your chops iPod, but makes it only available on Macs (to start). Puts out actually workable online music service and makes is only available on Macs (to start). People love both of these things and buy them in hoards. Mac users have status and coolness as they're the only ones that can get this awesome stuff... at least for little while.

Linux: Can we run this on WINE? In other words, can we take this cool stuff from another platform and try to make it work on ours. You probably can and probably will, but meanwhile you have to wait for some point in time AFTER everyone else has it. Let's face it, cool is very often about being first... about having something others don't have.

What Linux needs is innovation. They need something that only they have (at least for a little while) that everyone else wants. That is how it will build mind share, not by saying "look, we can do it too (if you're only willing to wait a while)"

TW

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[__aafutm5472]

the Maximize button actually SHRINKS the jukebox window to a Winamp-sized player.

Actually, if you look at the icon you're clicking, it's not the maximize button. It's the 'restore' button -- ya know, the one built into the Windows API?

Thus, clicking it will togle it from full mode to small mode, the same as many other music apps out there.

Re:Great! kind of

[Erwos]

It's not like you can just go code iTunes++ for Linux. Most of the magic, so to speak, is not in the code (which I suspect is fairly straight forward), but rather in the deals they've gotten with the record companies.

There is plenty of innovating going on - but expecting Linux users to just ignore exciting developments on other platforms is idiotic. Why can't Linux innovate _and_ use other people's innovations? Total originality all the time is highly over-rated, if you ask me.

-Erwos

Re:Win 2000/XP only

[sammaffei]

...and obviously don't spend money on anything new.

Re:Great! kind of

[statusbar]

The original poster had a very good point. Why does the 'best' mp3 player on linux have to be a WinAMP clone? I would LOVE to have iTunes on my linux boxes - even without the Music Store. I can't, so I use iTunes on my Mac.

The Linux architecture and concepts should foster experimental and new designs for software. Why do people have to duplicate existing apps? Apple didn't when they created iTunes.

iTunes is DEAD simple to use, manages a database of your music easily, rips cd's asynchronously, burns audio and mp3 cd's super easily, and makes it easy to build playlists and browse your library, AND allows you to tweak each individual song. Did I mention it is DEAD simple to use?

The magic, is not actually in the code, the magic is in the usability features and concepts.

--jeff++

Re:Do you know anything about FairPlay?

[Laur]

It doesn't need to be "expressly permitted". It's implicitly permitted by fair use. Since there is no legal barrier, and of course there is no technical barrier, you can do this without a problem.

Not necessarily. I agree that you have a fair use right to encode any CD you legally purchase from the store to any format that you want. In this case you are not licensing anything, you are purchasing a product and can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of US copyright law. However, when you use the iTMS you specifically waive several rights, you pretty much only have whatever rights Apple assigns you. Apple specifically allows you to burn CDs with your purchases, which is great. However, those CDs are a derivative of your purchased product and so I don't think that you have the same rights as a CD purchased from a store. Indeed, the music on the CD may still be covered by the Terms of Service you agreed to when downloading the original song. While you MAY have the right to rip these CDs as much as you like, it seems far from clear from a legal standpoint. This is a major stumbling block for me and I would like Apple to address it.

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Downloaded, installed it, imported my existing music library. It asked if I wanted to sort my music library (or something like that) and I said OK. Now all of my MP3s are sorted into a million subdirectories based on artist and album information, all files are renamed to just the track number and the song title. I had all of my MP3 files in "Artist - Song Title.mp3" format and that is now all gone.

I then do a Windows Explorer search for all .MP3 files and move them back into my main MP3 directory and start getting overwrite questions because now two different versions of American Woman have the same file name, same for two different versions of Burning Down the House, etc.

Other than the fact that it's fucked up my music library and I'll now have to spend hours sorting and renaming files, it's great.... Grrrr...

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[MadBiologist]

Huh... weird... I plugged in my iPod, and it synched iTunes with it, not deleting the iPod at all...

Was the iPod originally formatted on a mac, or on windows? There may be some compaitibility issues there... Peace!

Re:I love this but Windows version doesn't maximiz

[DLWormwood]

The window does not expand to fill the whole screen. Am I missing something here?

The Mac OS and the QuickTime APIs have no concept of a "Multiple Document Interface" as Microsoft calls it. MDI is a Microsoft Windows exclusive concept that how MS originally got around some of Apple's early "look and feel" litigation. There is also some historical reasons for why Apple never adopted this kind of interface.

When Multifinder was introduced to an earlier Mac OS, it was considered desirable for a user to see content from windows between applications. Macs previously used "desk accessories" to approximate multitasking before, and this UI decision helped smooth the transition. Letting applications only have window scale control, rather than the full screen, eventually allowed Apple to discontinue the DA concept in favor of microapplications.

In addition, as the Mac OS developed, Apple started advocating drag-and-drop data manipulation. This requires that both the source window and destination window be visible for a drag operation to occur; this continued emphasis is why OS X now has the trash can in the Dock and Panther includes an "Expose" feature to make all windows visible at once.

Mac users are accustomed to bouncing between applications readily while most Windows apps seem to be designed for exclusive, one at a time use. Other interface quirks, like floating verses anchored toolbars and the global menubar, are extensions of this differing emphasis in multitasking.

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[LVWolfman]

I downloaded and installed it about 12:30PM Pacific. It DOES look and feel just like on my Powerbook. I was very pleased that it didn't ask for any personal information (unlike MusicMatch). It even very nicely asked me if I wanted to import all of the AAC and MP3 files in "My Music".

There is where success ended though. When playing music, the sound is choppy. Much like when the heads and rollers are very dirt on a cassette or 8 track tape (or the tape is creased.)

However, the same songs play fine in Music Match and WinAMP on the same computer. (AMD Athlon 1900+, Windows XP Pro, 512MB ram.)

I like iTunes on my Powerbook. I'd like it on my XP machine here at work. However, it looks like for at least the time being, I'll be sticking with Music Match Plus (I registered it years ago and even bought the lifetime updates.)

Re:Great! kind of

[statusbar]

Please tell me - what experimental innovative software is there available for Linux? What does innovative software mean to you?

BTW, I've been running Linux since kernel version 0.99pl15, and am running servers with RedHat 7.3/8/9, debian, and embedded linux-ppc based on YellowDog linux.

All I see now are me-too web browsers, me-too developer IDE's, me-too office applications, me-too games, and me-too multimedia apps. Yes I know there is value in making a word processor that feels like Microsoft Word, but where are the experimental word processors that go beyond Word, GUI and functionality-wise? Word is not and never was a good GUI design. It makes me really want to write up my own...

The innovative software that I have I've seen running on Linux was not written with Linux in mind but was originally written for Unix/X11 before Linux existed.

Back to the iTunes topic, I installed iTunes on a WIn2000 machine. On my Mac, I ran iTunes and clicked 'Share Library'. On the Win2000 machine my Mac's music library automatically appeared in the left panel. No complex setup either. It is these little things and attention to detail that make iTunes more innovative than any music player on Linux.

I myself am guilty of promoting complexities. Since I know how to set up NFS and Samba and Apache and Shoutcast, I would just use one of these tools on my own Linux boxes to accomplish the same thing with XMMS or X11AMP or even mpg321 with a cgi php4 script front-end with apache and the mp3 meta-data extracted into a PostgreSQL table for faster searches. All the tools are there, and as a programmer, I find it fun to implement these kinds of things - and I HAVE spent time doing this for my own system.

Because I did it myself like this, I forget about the fact that there would be a much easier way for the end user who maybe does not have these tools or does not know how to use these tools, or does not care - he just wants his music on one computer to be played back on another computer without having to think about file sharing or audio streaming software or DNS issues or IP addresses or IP ports or protocols.

Click on 'Share Music' on computer A.
Click on shared music on computer B.
Press 'Play'

Brilliant Idea!

--jeff++

More than just the store and ripping.

[Cadre]

what's the big deal about iTunes?

Being able to easily share music over a LAN. How easy? My roommate (who runs Windows) starts iTunes and voila, he's sees my shared music. He even sees my playlists. He clicks a single button to share his music and instantly he appears as source in my list on iTunes. No mounting of disks, no mucking around with servers, it's just there and it works. Instant gratification.

Oh yea, the interface is so much better than anything else out there (except those that are attempting to clone the iTunes interface).

Re:Great! kind of

[statusbar]

Unfortunately you are 100% correct.

Why does linux need iTunes when Linux already has mpg321, postgresql, cdparanoia, sox, LAME, cdrecord, samba, and php with apache? Just connect them up and you have an even MORE powerful system than iTunes! Amaze your computer-illiterate friends with your knowledge of arcane things!

Meanwhile, I run iTunes and now I have more time available to post to slashdot.

--jeff++

Re:Great! kind of

[nordicfrost]

On my Mac, I ran iTunes and clicked 'Share Library'. On the Win2000 machine my Mac's music library automatically appeared in the left panel. No complex setup either.

I just wish I was a big enough computer wiz to get sound in Debian under a 2.4 kernel. But nooo...

My newx computer purchase will be a Mac.

Re:ARRGH!

[CatOne]

Well... iTunes uses Rendezvous (aka Zeroconf) to allow machines on the same subnet to see each others' playlists. Perhaps the infrastructure for Rendezvous exists on 2000 and XP, but not on the 9x based systems?

I'm not sure, but there may well be support for functionality in 2000 and XP that doesn' exist in the 4+ year old OS versions.

Re:haven't seen complaints about the SELECTION yet

[gerardrj]

You are 100% correct. Since launch the iTMS has been biased toward the music that the majority of those who are on-line purchase and listen to. You can apply the 80/20 rule to this in all probability; 80% of the people will tend to listen to about 20% of the music available.
Hence, when you launch a service, you make the most profit by first including the 20% of content that will encompass most of your sales. You later fill in the remainder to satisfy the others.

In the five or so months since iTMS has been on-line, they have grown from 200,000 songs to 400,000 songs, and this isn't the BuyMusic method of accounting, you can purchase each and every song Apple counts.
They've just started getting the indie labels on board and set up to submit tracks, 200 according to Steve's presentation. The indies were tripping over themselves to sign up when the meeting was held a few months back. Why wouldn't they? Apple provdides the hardware, submission is free, Apple handles all billing. Since each music company is apparently responsible for encoding and submitting the tracks, the rate of increase should be greater in the future. The next 200,000 tracks may well be added within the next two months.

There's plenty of "obscure stuff" on the store, or do you perhaps consider Andy Griffith's 'Fishin' Hole' to be main stream music?

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[Graff]

A friend tells me on OSX, both mini version and large mode have the time slider.

Nope, in the mini version of the window on Mac OS X there is no time slider. It sounds like it is exactly the same on Windows as it is on Mac OS X

Another minor irritation is the inability to tell the length and number of multiple selections...On iTunes, selections must be added to a new playlist to see number of selections and total time of selections.

Send Apple this as a suggestion. Apple has been very receptive to user suggestions. Since it sounds like a good idea and they do similar things in other applications (iPhoto, the Finder) they may add it into a future version of iTunes.

The same goes for the iTunes Music Store. If you see something that should be changed or you want a feature or band added just send in feedback. Like I said, Apple has been very receptive to new ideas and user preferences. They have changed a number of things to suit their users.

My Review

[ljavelin]

OK, I just did it... I tried iTunes for the first time.

My Sister has a Mac and has used iTunes since the spring - and she has told me on several times how much she loves it.

I don't own a Mac (or an iPod), but for my sister to give a glowing review is a rarity - so I figured I'd try the windows version when it came out.

I'm a 20% Windows user. The other 80% of the time I'm a linux guy, with Linux on my main machines at work and at home. But I also have a Windows 2000 PC at home for things like Visio and Microsoft Money [blush].

So I fired up that w2k machine and then fired up Mozilla and downloaded the iTunes for Windows software. The download was uneventful. I fired up the installer.

The installer is much like any other Windows installer - a license agreement and some basic questions about the install process, and you're good to go. I did have to reboot after the installation, but hey, I'm used to that with Windows.

After the reboot I fired up iTunes. I checked out the internet radio stuff (very easy to use), and then I went right to the iTunes store and started poking around. I did some searches for some stuff I'd expect them to have (Pink Floyd, Beck, etc)... and found everything that I was looking for.

The search feature was very easy to use: basically, you just type what you're looking for and it gives you a sorted result set. Pretty basic stuff.

From there I "previewed" some of the results. Simply clicking on a line item plays a portion of the song. It was good quality, and they had a nice fade-in/fade-out.

From there, I decided "what the hell" and downloaded Beck's latest album. The price was $9.99, which is a bit cheaper than the cheap stores.

iTunes asked me to log in or to set up a new account. Of course, I chose to set up a new account. It asked me for some very basic information - the biggest thing being my credit card information.

Then the download began. It was fast and uneventful.

After the download, I figured I'd burn the Beck album on a CD. Usually this is a pain in the butt for me, since I have crappy manufacturer-provided CD burning software.

This is where iTunes was INCREDIBLE. It opened my CDR drive and asked me to insert a disk. I did. From there, it told me to click "burn". I did. And then it burned the album.

It was way easy. You have to ask why other software is so much more a pain in the butt.

15 minutes later the CD was done, and iTunes gave me a little "ding!". I popped the new CD out of the drive and played it in my regular old CD player. Flawless.

That's all I've done so far.

It's impressive how simple iTunes is and how well it works. It doesn't do amazing things - but it does what it does very very well.

Now I see. iTunes is simple and elegant. I'm going to try to download the same music off the net and see how well I do. Although I've downloaded music off the net before, it has never been so freakin' simple.

I hope Linux developers take heed of Apple's progress in simplicity. I'm not an Apple fan, but I must say that iTunes is on the top of the heap so far.

Now I wish there was an iTunes for Linux.

Re:My Review

[aaronvegh]

If you're not an Apple fan after that experience, I don't know what'll convince you. What impressed you so much about iTunes would blow you away at the OS level. Spend some more quality time with your sister, and while you're at it, try out her Mac! You'll be amazed.

This is the best move Apple could've made: a truly viral move into the Windows world. Excellent work Apple!

Holy crap!

[Genady]

Started playing with iTunes, hit the volume keys on my Microsoft key board and iTunes intercepted the call and changed it's volume. I didn't even install the drivers for the keyboard (it's plugged into the PS2 port at the moment) tres cool.

Re:99 cents is too high

[Kevinv]

They're competing with free pretty darn well considering they've sold 13 million songs (with a library of only 250,000) so far.

Personally I agree that .99 is too much. Most likely this won't go down until the RIAA method of collecting and distributing monies to artists is changed. With e-music (my preferred service) changing to a 3 cd per month limit (for $10 each month) the Apple Store is looking better to me (except for the rights restrictions)

Re:iTunes? uWish!

[X86BSD]

Cry more n00b! Stop using a useless format *no one uses* Get over it. You made a piss poor choice encoding your tune's in a format that is going nowhere. This is like bitching because you recorded all your movies on betamax tapes and now you cant play them on todays VCR's. What a coke head you must be.

Re:99 cents is too high

[clf8]

If you're going to buy and entire album, I still consider CDs to be your best bet. It may cost more, but you get quality and all the nice physical medium. BUT, for a song or two off an album, it's no doubt the way to go. Worst case, you buy a couple of songs off the store and later buy the whole CD later. Of course, then it would be nice to be able to sell those two songs you bought to someone else, but whatever.

Re:Can PC users tets it and report?

[JDWTopGuy]

#include

You didn't want to play songs about pimpin' ho's and killin' wangstahs at a sensetive occasion like your wedding? Sounds like it would have been "ghetto fabulous".

Re:Can PC users test it and report?

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

It's still pretty new. I did some tests in QuickTime on this OS X box here, and it seems pretty neat. I haven't tried loading the image in a browser, though. You'd have to Google it. It's still coming around.

It's great because it 1) uses wavelet compression and 2) has two modes, lossy and lossless and 3) the lossy compression is an order of magnitude better than regular JPEG.