[Arny Krueger]

"Codifus" wrote in message


Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable.

I don't know about that.

The drawback being that it's much more complicated, too.

I don't know about that, either.

The simpler Mac interface makes things easy, but harder to
customize other aspects of the system.

I surely don't know about that. The Windows XP user interface is
stone-simple, and it really doesn't take a lot of customization to make most
things work.

For most users,
that extra customization is usually not needed.

Agreed.

People who like foober like to tinker.

Isn't the name of the product Foobatr?

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.

True for any piece of software.

Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that playlist?
Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.

OK.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which
other music management program does it better?

It's all about the UI, which was evolutionary.

I briefly
ventured into trying windows media player and quite
frankyly found it's interface to be all over the place.

That's the fault of the WMP development team.

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.

Change for the sake of change.

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.

Part of this is due to the fact that MS defines the mainstream market to
optimize their profitability, while Apple is just a niche.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX,
they introduced a totally new interface.

They've got to have something to feed to the faithful, no?

Yes, they did.
But that's because the transition was to a completely
different type of operating system.

Really? Very many people who are running OSX did an upgrade from OS9. Same
hardware.

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.

If you think that 32 - 64 bit is such a big issue, did you know that XP
has both 32 and 64 bit versions?

No, the number of bits that the OS uses on the processor hardware can be and
often is completely decoupled from the API and UI.

Upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from
one office application suite, word processing,
spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.

Right. But nobody much is going to pay much for a new box of software to
install Office 2000 on their spiffy new hardware.

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

No, its all about money and compatibility. If you want to pay 2-3 times as
much for hardware and suffer a vastly limited software marketplace, then
love that Mac!

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.

If you want to get rid of the DRM locks on a piece of music, it just takes a
little time to remove them.