[Sonnova]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:37:45 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

vlad wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD


iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.
OK, and the Zune or Zen does this better I suppose? The ipod may not be
perfect but its a helluva good. The iPod is literally the next
generation of Walkman which Sony should have made. They completely
missed the boat. Sony now has what, the bean?


Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order,
iTunes does rip CD tracks in order when you rip an entire album (CD) at
once.

labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare.
Right click the icon that represents the CD. In the info dialogue box
that pops up, you can name the artist, type of music genre etc, things
that apply to every track on that CD. When you make these changes at the
CD icon, iTunes will apply them to every track on that CD. Then you can
edit each track indviviually after that. Sleep well.

Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.
I'm very comfortable with both interfaces, Mac and PC. As I said
earlier, my 1st attempt at a music server was winamp 2. When I went to
iTunes, it was before I even purchased my ipod.

Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable. The drawback being
that it's much more complicated, too. The simpler Mac interface makes
things easy, but harder to customize other aspects of the system. For
most users, that extra customization is usually not needed. People who
like foober like to tinker. Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes
and quicktime don't go that far, but if setup correctly, there's no
need. Just rip and play. Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that
playlist? Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.

I disagree that Windows is more customizable than a Mac. First of all, iTunes
lets you adjust sample rates, and other Mac music programs such as Final Cut
Soundtrack Master let's one adjust bit rates (and everything else). Secondly,
just because OSX avoids the clutter of Windows, doesn't mean that Macs aren't
just as, if not more, customizable than is Windows. The Mac operating system
is Unix and every Mac gives the user access to both the Unix console and the
terminal Window. With those, one who knows Unix can do anything. For
instance, I like scroll bars with both up and down arrows at the top and
bottom (and where applicable, both the right and the left at both ends) of
each window's scrollbar. Apple puts the up arrow at the top and the down
arrow at the bottom (as does Windows). I went into the terminal and added up
and down arrows at both ends with a few Unix commands. That's just an
example. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but son't assume that
the Mac is somehow "simpleminded" just because it hides the arcane
complexities (which, as you say, the average user will never need) of a full
Unix workstation OS from the average user. If that complexity were in full
sight, as in Windows, it would merely confuse the average joe and invite him
to get into trouble by changing things he knows nothing about.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which other music
management program does it better? I briefly ventured into trying
windows media player and quite frankyly found it's interface to be all
over the place. Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows way of doing
things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even Office 2003 and 2007. It's a
whole new learning curve to do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does
Windows have to completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and it shows,
especially in the interface.

I think the MS keeps changing things because they know that their GUI
interfaces aren't right (the critical press certainly tells them that often
enough, I don't see how they can ignore it). And they are stumbling around
trying to find an interface style that's at once "right" and different from
Apple's.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, they
introduced a totally new interface. Yes, they did. But that's because
the transition was to a completely different type of operating system. A
bit painful in the beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to another. Upgrading
from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from one office application suite,
word processing, spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.

If you don't like Macs, then you don't like Macs.

There are a lot of people in that situation, but in all honesty, most of them
have never bothered to learn the Mac either. They look at and perhaps play
with a Mac and when they see that it isn't exactly like Windows, they dismiss
it with an "I sure don't like THIS!" I am expert in both interfaces and I can
tell you that OSX isn't just better than Windows, it's generations better and
more powerful.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the DRM issues with iTunes.
Everybody's always under the impression if they use AAC then its DRMed.
DRM only comes into play in iTunes on music purchased from the music
store. That's it. If you make your own AAC, MP3, AIFF, ALAC or WAV file
in iTunes, no DRM locks whatsoever.

Don't forget that if one wants to pay an extra thirty cents (IIRC) you can
get many iTunes store downloads without DRM.



vlad

CD