 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:31
|
|
19MB download? Holy bloatware batman! A full install of Winamp is 2.2MB, and it plays videos as well.
The install is typical of the annoying Apple installs we were used to with Quicktime. It doesn't even ask you, it simply installs QuickTime 6.4. Not only that, but it adds some **** to your startup so you have a gloriously useless memory-hogging QuickTime tray icon by default.
It's also somewhat weird how iTunes demanded access to the internet the second I opened it, even at the installation wizard's first screen.
It requires "special" drivers for burning to CDs and DVDs -- huh? What kind of design is this? This also requires a reboot after an install.
The GUI seems to be remarkably inefficient, when I resize the window there is a noticable delay of when I move the mouse to resize and when the window redraws -- and it's choppy when it does so. And the CPU is an Athlon 64 3200+...
It doesn't recognize WMA as an audio format whatsoever, which is somewhat of a pain considering 95% of my audio files are in WMA format. The least they could've done is take a couple hours and simply call DirectSound's WMA decoder, doesn't add to file size nor complicate the program. But I suppose for political reasons they want to shun MS' format and only support MP3 and AAC (no OGG either).
The interface is huge, and virtually uncustomizable. I'm not a fan of the brushed-metal look. There is no equivalent window shade mode (Winamp) or taskbar mode (WMP) I could find, which is annoying for playing it in the background.
It's a resource hog: Playing a simple 4 minute MP3 it uses 32MB of RAM and 3-5% of my Athlon 64 3200+. The exact same song in Winamp 2.91 uses "0%" of my CPU consistently and 7.6MB of RAM.
What am I missing about iTunes' purported greatness?
Last edited by Asher on 17-10-2003 at 00:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
you're missing the fact that it was originally designed to be a mac program.
it's one of the only mac programs capable of doing all it does.
thus, it's great on the mac, but on the pc, where there are numerous lightweight alternatives, many which don't do everything itunes does (do everything badly, or do a few things really well seems to be the design ethic with pcs).
for instance, winamp doesn't have built-in burning capability, nor is it capable of purchasing music.
what it boils down to is this: you and i have been spoiled by the simplicity and light weight of winamp. i believe that you, like me, detest the all-in-one programs, like musicmatch jukebox or kazaa; you probably like windows media player, which i'm not a fan of (too heavy, although the toolbar is nice).
when you stack up any of those programs against a simple player like winamp, they're naturally going to come up lacking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
I don't like all-in-one programs. Thus it sounds like I won't like iTunes either.
Eh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Asher, as long as it's brought up and Ag's doing his blood pressure a good thing by ignoring you--who in Microsoft ever thought up that ugly default scheme? It's one of the worst things I've ever seen on a computer, for any program. And to think they'd had a fine look all along, too...yeah, I know you can change it, but, Jesus, the thing is ****ing ugly!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-10-2003 00:24
Attachment: 
|
