iLounge

1

2k/XP it works.

I’ve tried it on 98SE & ME, iTunes crashes when I tried to upload files to iPod, and when deleting songs off iPod.

Posted by Stasyna on October 22, 2003 at 6:20 PM (PST)

2

Well if you would have read the itunes webpage would have seen it only works on Windows 2000 and Windows XP.  In related news, I tried it on my Playstation 2 and it didn’t work…. Hmm… I wonder why…

Posted by Patrick on October 22, 2003 at 6:26 PM (PST)

3

Haha, I love how they dont even mention buymusic, because everybody knows how much it sucks.

Posted by sailgreg on October 22, 2003 at 6:50 PM (PST)

4

Yes, i read it on the website.

All they had to do was port code over, lazy job on the part of apple team.

Posted by Stasyna on October 22, 2003 at 7:01 PM (PST)

5

No, not really.  Microsoft doesn’t even support Windows 98 anymore.  Its at the end of its lifecycle. Thats a fact.  As for ME, it just plain sucks anyways.  Microsoft admitted that fact.  Just upgrade to 2k or XP and get on with it.

Posted by Patrick on October 22, 2003 at 7:11 PM (PST)

6

ME sucks?...

Get your hands on a beta version of ME. No dos in it, meaning: all the compatility of 98 and stability of 2k.

It doesnt even matter, the product sucks. 28mb of memory to play 1 song, woohoo. Winamp used 2mb. Yes, I know, get more ram, blah blah.

Posted by Stasyna on October 22, 2003 at 7:20 PM (PST)

7

If ephpod only had CD Ripping/AAC Encoding, it would beat Itunes, hands down.

Posted by tetro on October 22, 2003 at 7:25 PM (PST)

8

ME sucks?...

Yes, it sucks.

Posted by Bob on October 22, 2003 at 7:44 PM (PST)

9

If you want seamless integration between itunes music store, your jukebox, and your iPod, you can’t beat iTunes.  Itunes is just a more elegant solution.  You’d be hard pressed to find a FREE jukebox that rivals it.  MC9 rivals it, but then again, its not free.  It costs $40.  And yes, Get more ram.  Its really cheap.  And you are comparing a jukebox all in one software to a basic mp3 player.  Don’t even try to tell me winamp is even half as fully featured as iTunes.  Ephpod can’t really compete either.  As all it really does is transfer songs to your ipod.  iTunes is a total music solution.

Posted by Sam on October 22, 2003 at 8:16 PM (PST)

10

Thanks Sam… Sometimes I wish there were more level-headed people around here… I’m tired of people bashing iTunes for Windows, suggesting Winamp as the next-best thing, because it is a less CPU intensive player.

...ya think?!  It’s not music store.  It’s not a cd burner.  It’s not even a management tool.  It won’t seamlessly interface with your iPod—(Oh, wait.  It doesn’t interface at ALL).  It’s just a player.

Posted by Jerrod H. in TX on October 22, 2003 at 8:34 PM (PST)

11

“runs crisply”

I don’t think that he actually used the program. It is by far the slowest program on my computer, and doesn’t have that many features to slow it down. Bad programming.

Posted by Adam on October 22, 2003 at 9:49 PM (PST)

12

Resource usage seems to vary. Over at Maccentral.com people have posted XP screenshots showing VERY minimal resource usage even on REALLY old PCs, like 350 Mhz P2. Perhaps there’s some setting that makes the difference, or maybe Apple has an issue to track down—but don’t think that iTunes HAS to use 20-30% CPU. For some it may—but not for others.

Also, there’s a new version of iTunes out now. It should be in the app’s auto-update soon.

Posted by Nagromme on October 22, 2003 at 10:32 PM (PST)

13

Here’s the thread with discussion of CPU usage, and screenshots showing low usage on bottom-end PCs:

http://forums.maccentral.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=558439

Posted by Nagromme on October 22, 2003 at 10:37 PM (PST)

14

CPU usage or not, it is still the slowest program by far. I think it has little to do with the CPU speed.

Posted by Adam on October 22, 2003 at 11:37 PM (PST)

15

I dont notice any problems with speeed.

then again, i Have 512 and a 2.13GHz

Posted by fnarfy in j on October 23, 2003 at 2:21 AM (PST)

16

i’m forced to use a pc here at work, and haven’t noticed itunes to be any worse than most programs.  it’s a little slow to launch, but no worse than firebird/mozilla.  checking the process viewer it seems that itunes is using 9mb of memory and about 5-10% of cpu.

the machine here is a dell 1.? ghz with 512 of memory, running w2k.

itunes is certainly a better experience at home on a mac.

Posted by Box on October 23, 2003 at 5:49 AM (PST)

17

Works quite crisply for me, even on a 3 year old laptop with just
128MB of memory.  I think Apple just has an undiagnosed software interaction someplace, that is biting all these people who report iTunes as being pathetically slow.

Posted by sward on October 24, 2003 at 6:10 AM (PST)

18

iTunes is not bad but Apple does not sell CD quality music. I bought several AAC audio files and they are so so.

It seems there are no online stores which sell audio files with at least 256 kbps :(

Posted by AlexK on October 25, 2003 at 5:44 PM (PST)

19

everybody who is reading this is a loser and needs to find better stuff to do with their time. SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Wesley Wooten on June 18, 2005 at 5:55 PM (PST)