Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
iTunes 9 continues to suck on Windows, makes halfhearted attempt at Windows 7 integration
I make no bones about the fact that I'm not an iTunes fan. With Apple's usual trumpeting of a new release of version 9, I was hopeful that things might be different this time around.
Really, we all know better. Apple apps on the Windows platform are kind of like that Christmas present in the fancy wrapping that turns out to be a pair of work socks or plain white briefs.
So off I went to download yet another 80+ megabytes of upgrade. You know, because Apple also hasn't figured out how to do modest, intelligent updates (a la Google Chrome or a dozen other apps). After I'd given up 110 megs of disk space to iTunes 9, here's what I was rewarded with on my Windows 7 laptop.
Jumplist: the Windows default options are there, i.e. songs can be pinned to open in iTunes, but that's thanks to Windows 7. What did Apple themselves integrate? Two links to the iTunes store so we can more easily spend money on fart apps and soundboards. No recently played items, no playlists, nada.
Taskbar preview: Album artwork? Nope. Progress indicator? Nope. Previous, Play/Pause, and Next buttons and a balloon with the current track's title, artist, and album name.
This is the best Apple can do? It's not even close to as slick as what this independent developer knocked together for Foobar2000. Feel free to share your take on iTunes 9 for Windows in the comments.
Really, we all know better. Apple apps on the Windows platform are kind of like that Christmas present in the fancy wrapping that turns out to be a pair of work socks or plain white briefs.
So off I went to download yet another 80+ megabytes of upgrade. You know, because Apple also hasn't figured out how to do modest, intelligent updates (a la Google Chrome or a dozen other apps). After I'd given up 110 megs of disk space to iTunes 9, here's what I was rewarded with on my Windows 7 laptop.
Jumplist: the Windows default options are there, i.e. songs can be pinned to open in iTunes, but that's thanks to Windows 7. What did Apple themselves integrate? Two links to the iTunes store so we can more easily spend money on fart apps and soundboards. No recently played items, no playlists, nada.
Taskbar preview: Album artwork? Nope. Progress indicator? Nope. Previous, Play/Pause, and Next buttons and a balloon with the current track's title, artist, and album name.
This is the best Apple can do? It's not even close to as slick as what this independent developer knocked together for Foobar2000. Feel free to share your take on iTunes 9 for Windows in the comments.
Comments
40
Subscribe to commentsJakeSep 12th 2009 12:56PM
Stop whining. Firstly Windows 7 hasn't been released yet, so don't expect things to work flawlessly, especially from a rival company. Secondly, there are many alternatives to iTunes out there. Just look around, no one is forcing you to use iTunes.
iofthestormSep 12th 2009 1:51PM
Well, it has been released to developers and manufacturers. I'm running Windows 7 RTM on all my PCs, legally and for free. And plenty of people are running RC as well ("tech enthusiasts" and whatnot). But your point is still valid.
Michael WendellSep 14th 2009 9:35AM
Actually, if you have an iPhone, yes, WE ARE being forced to use it. There is no current, fully functional alternative to iTunes for the iPhone. If you know of an alternative that will manage music and back up contacts on my phone, I'd love to hear it.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, iTunes should be considered an embarrassment to a company that supposedly prides itself on user interface design. It's hard to use, and designed primarily to benefit Apple and the media companies they protect, while remaining hostile to the actual user.
blogwardSep 12th 2009 12:59PM
No sh*t, Sherlock.
KururugiSep 12th 2009 12:59PM
The only major problem I seem to have with it is that Aero Snap doesn't work with it when you try to pull down the maximised window.
Tony MontanaSep 12th 2009 1:35PM
This is a pretty weak anti-Apple post. You'd hope bs like that would be preserved for the less civilised forums.
Windows 7 isn't even officially out and presents a tiny portion of the market.
Even when it comes out it is extremely unlikely to do much business as with the current financial climate nobody will be paying 220 dollars for a copy of Windows 7 or buying a new computer.
If I was Apple I'd make sure my product worked as well as it can with Windows XP but Windows 7 wouldn't be high on my priorities list.
iofthestormSep 12th 2009 1:56PM
Mmm, I think it's been an established fact for ages that Apple doesn't try to write good Windows software. Also, I think even despite being prerelease Windows 7 has around 1% or more marketshare, which depressingly might be better than Linux desktop usage.
Tony MontanaSep 12th 2009 2:54PM
Whats been established isn't up for debate the point is the author is complaining about a pre-release OS not being supported "properly".
I really don't think the programmers felt Windows 7 was very important in the overall picture.
Nevadarain72Sep 12th 2009 3:45PM
Now see I think you've missed the point entirely.
When I read this post, I agreed with it wholeheartedly. I've got iTunes running on my uber Vista machine at home and my work XP computer, and it sucks on both. I saw this as a valid complaint: that iTunes (and by extension, Quicktime) are pretty terrible ports to ANY form of Windows.
Is the author using a pre-release OS? Yes. And while it's understandable that size/performance issues would be present for Windows 7, its completely ridiculous that the 'official' retail versions of Windows have similar problems.
This post was a complaint against Apple's shoddy port of a decent product, not that Windows 7 has compatibility issues
KarlWSep 12th 2009 1:40PM
Sucks about as much as Microsoft's Mac's products.
chrisSep 12th 2009 2:38PM
agreed. Bottom line is, download itunes if you have a mac, because that is probably what you're going to use, download some other program if you have windows.
Drew GreenSep 12th 2009 2:18PM
Lee, you're usually spot on, but I have to disagree with you this time. I'm very happy with the song/artist/album bubble and the play controls. More importantly though, it seems a lot more responsive then iTunes 8 did. I'm running a C2D and 4gb of RAM, so there's no reason that a program (like iTunes) should be sluggish on my machine. Tell that to iTunes 8... 9, however, runs as I would expect a music player to.
chrishighSep 12th 2009 2:44PM
Let's not pass judgement until we see what Zune 4 does on the 15th, if they're leaps & bounds better with fancy integration. I already like their desktop app better (wish I could sync my myriad iPods to it) but I agree with others - making a fuss about Win 7 integration when it's not even officially released yet? Meh.
Austen S.Sep 12th 2009 3:04PM
Um, why integrate with a piece of software that isn't even widely released yet?
nitrous9200Sep 12th 2009 2:57PM
I think the fact that they have included the jump list integration in an operating system that hasn't even been released yet is commendable. They didn't have to include anything at all.
Chris BeamesSep 12th 2009 3:02PM
I agree with everything you have said in this post. iTunes has always been rubbish and continues that legacy with 9. In fact, visually it seems to have taken a backward step much like Apple did with the Nano.
I wasn't however pushed to comment until I read some of the trash other people have said. This site was made so that we (the readers) can get an insight in this stuff from someone who might know better, an interesting opinion in other words. I appreciate you might disagree with it, but instead of whining about the fact he has said it, why don't you present a counter argument? If not. Go away.
BrianSep 12th 2009 3:12PM
Lee,
You are correct! iTunes is my absolute slowest app in Windows running on ANY VERSION. It's not just Windows 7 -- it's Vista and XP too.
One of the reasons that I went to 64-bit Windows 7 (and a new PC!) was that I could run the 64-bit version of iTunes. I don't even know if it's better than the iTunes 32-bit version though :(
I can't believe all those people coming to Apple's defense here! Why can't Apple's programmers write good apps for Windows??? What's wrong with them? (And yes, I have a strong programming background).
There's enough Windows users (like me) that have bought multiple iPods and iPhones and are using iTunes for our music and video management. I currently have 10,000+ items in iTunes. I definitely expect more from Apple. If Foobar2000 (or another) eventually meets my needs --- then I will say goodbye to iTunes AND it's Apple's loss!!
JeffKSep 12th 2009 3:41PM
An entire review which addresses only Taskbar integration and Jumplists.
You didn't actually open the program, did you?
Lee MathewsSep 12th 2009 3:49PM
You didn't actually read the iTunes 9 review, did you? Nik did it up here: http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/09/itunes-9-the-download-squad-review/
This post? I dunno, a knock on two "why bother" windows 7 integration features maybe? But it's not a review, that's for sure.
EricSep 12th 2009 3:53PM
I won't defend iTunes for Windows - it was hardly the best-running program available - but Apple never claimed to support Windows 7 - look at the iTunes download page, and they list Windows XP and Vista as system requirements. It's entirely possible - and likely - that a 9.1 version will be released in a few weeks when Windows 7 is actually available to the general public.