iTunes 7
Snit
For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
well, it is also not a big deal.
It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ The US Constitution grants rights
Steven de Mena
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:C12C4EB0.5FB3F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>
> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better
> organized
> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up
> with
> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my
> liking. Oh
> well, it is also not a big deal.
>
> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things
> have
> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does?
> Is it
> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
It has GAPLESS PLAYBACK!!! YEAH!!
Steve
Snit
xM-dnU6t4_67m5rY...@comcast.com on 9/12/06 12:10 PM:
Yes.... very cool.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
MuahMan
"Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:xM-dnU6t4_67m5rY...@comcast.com...
Uh, what is gapless playback?
>
> Steve
>
>
Snit
dPGdnSoHMY-alJrY...@adelphia.com on 9/12/06 12:22 PM:
Playback with no pause between songs. Other players have had it for a while
and the lack of it was a common complaint against iTunes.
Steven de Mena
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dPGdnSoHMY-alJrY...@adelphia.com...
Playing back tracks with NO gap (silence) between them. Very important
for Classical Music, but also for CDs that have dance/trance type
compilations, many Hip-Hop albums, etc.
Steve
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
I'll wait with downloading it till the first couple of updates are out.
6.05 services me fine, so far.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - liberterran.org, markedspartiet.dk, macplanet.dk
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They
want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless."
- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
Snit
1hlkkez.1ccl03k19pisuzN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk on 9/12/06 11:47 AM:
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>
>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>
>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>
> I'll wait with downloading it till the first couple of updates are out.
> 6.05 services me fine, so far.
Makes sense... they often have bugs to work out after an initial release.
Working fine here, but I do not really push all of its features. All in
all the update will do little for me - some better organization and a less
pleasant screen to look at.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Oxford
> > It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things
> > have
> > their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does?
> > Is it
> > to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>
> It has GAPLESS PLAYBACK!!! YEAH!!
yes, this is a major nicety... yeah is right!
itunes 7 is analyzing my playlist as we speak for gapless playback,
should be great!
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>
>For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>well, it is also not a big deal.
>
>It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
Apple wants iTunes to look the same in Windows as it does in OS X, for
what crazy reason, I don't know. Personally I wish iTunes was
theme-aware on XP.
I guess Apple thinks that if its Media Player looks exactly like it
does on its shitty OS X desktop, Windows users will switch somehow.
iTunes may look good (it does, in fact) though I hate the way it
doesn't organize files in an hierarchal list -- as in
"Artist/Album/song.xxx", but it certainly works like shit in Windows
XP.
After playing a few tunes, all music played in it now sound like my
speakers are broken and blown. They aren't, I assure you. Even when
I play it using the iMac speakers rather than my external speakers, it
sounds just as bad..
I know it's iTunes 7, because they play just fine in Windows Media
Player 11 or in QuickTime 7.1.3, using either the built-in speakers,
or my external speakers.
Looks like Apple missed it big-time on its iTunes 7.x (Windows)
upgrade this time.
Too bad. I liked iTunes, and I miss my iTunes Music Videos (for which
I paid beau coup bucks).
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may not become broken.
===================================================
Snit
pepgg2t8eblh5urrt...@4ax.com on 9/13/06 1:28 PM:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:46:56 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>
>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>
>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>
> Apple wants iTunes to look the same in Windows as it does in OS X, for
> what crazy reason, I don't know. Personally I wish iTunes was
> theme-aware on XP.
I can somewhat understand Apple making iTunes look Mac-like on Windows...
they are trying to entice people to come to the Mac... still, it *is* a
Windows programs, so it would be better yet to go with what you say - make
it work like a good Windows program on Windows and a good Mac program on a
Mac. Now it seems to do neither.
>
> I guess Apple thinks that if its Media Player looks exactly like it
> does on its shitty OS X desktop, Windows users will switch somehow.
Ah, now you are just spewing insults to try to get a rise out of folks who
like Macs. Good luck!
> iTunes may look good (it does, in fact) though I hate the way it
> doesn't organize files in an hierarchal list -- as in
> "Artist/Album/song.xxx",
It does that in the browser.
> but it certainly works like shit in Windows XP.
>
> After playing a few tunes, all music played in it now sound like my
> speakers are broken and blown. They aren't, I assure you. Even when
> I play it using the iMac speakers rather than my external speakers, it
> sounds just as bad..
Check your settings. Maybe you played with the equalizer?
> I know it's iTunes 7, because they play just fine in Windows Media
> Player 11 or in QuickTime 7.1.3, using either the built-in speakers,
> or my external speakers.
>
> Looks like Apple missed it big-time on its iTunes 7.x (Windows)
> upgrade this time.
>
> Too bad. I liked iTunes, and I miss my iTunes Music Videos (for which
> I paid beau coup bucks).
Why do you miss them? Where did they go?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>pepgg2t8eblh5urrt...@4ax.com on 9/13/06 1:28 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:46:56 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>>
>>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>>
>>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>>
>> Apple wants iTunes to look the same in Windows as it does in OS X, for
>> what crazy reason, I don't know. Personally I wish iTunes was
>> theme-aware on XP.
>
>I can somewhat understand Apple making iTunes look Mac-like on Windows...
>they are trying to entice people to come to the Mac... still, it *is* a
>Windows programs, so it would be better yet to go with what you say - make
>it work like a good Windows program on Windows and a good Mac program on a
>Mac. Now it seems to do neither.
>>
>> I guess Apple thinks that if its Media Player looks exactly like it
>> does on its shitty OS X desktop, Windows users will switch somehow.
>Ah, now you are just spewing insults to try to get a rise out of folks who
>like Macs. Good luck!
No, no, no, snit!!!
Everyone knows by now that I like my Apple Intel PC. It's OS X that I
don't care for. Please don't confuse the issue.
>> iTunes may look good (it does, in fact) though I hate the way it
>> doesn't organize files in an hierarchal list -- as in
>> "Artist/Album/song.xxx",
>
>It does that in the browser.
>
>> but it certainly works like shit in Windows XP.
>>
>> After playing a few tunes, all music played in it now sound like my
>> speakers are broken and blown. They aren't, I assure you. Even when
>> I play it using the iMac speakers rather than my external speakers, it
>> sounds just as bad..
>
>Check your settings. Maybe you played with the equalizer?
I used the same settings I always use, snit. I've been using iTunes
since it was released for Windows (and of course, in OS X). The
equalizer has no such effect, either in OS X or Windows.
>
>> I know it's iTunes 7 (Windows), because they play just fine in Windows Media
>> Player 11 or in QuickTime 7.1.3, using either the built-in speakers,
>> or my external speakers.
>>
>> Looks like Apple missed it big-time on its iTunes 7.x (Windows)
>> upgrade this time.
>>
>> Too bad. I liked iTunes, and I miss my iTunes Music Videos (for which
>> I paid beau coup bucks).
>
>Why do you miss them? Where did they go?
Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
Snit
My apologies for mislabeling your trolling.
Sigh.
>
>>> iTunes may look good (it does, in fact) though I hate the way it
>>> doesn't organize files in an hierarchal list -- as in
>>> "Artist/Album/song.xxx",
>>
>> It does that in the browser.
>>
>>> but it certainly works like shit in Windows XP.
>>>
>>> After playing a few tunes, all music played in it now sound like my
>>> speakers are broken and blown. They aren't, I assure you. Even when
>>> I play it using the iMac speakers rather than my external speakers, it
>>> sounds just as bad..
>>
>> Check your settings. Maybe you played with the equalizer?
>
> I used the same settings I always use, snit. I've been using iTunes
> since it was released for Windows (and of course, in OS X). The
> equalizer has no such effect, either in OS X or Windows.
I have not used iTunes 7 much... I will be home more tomorrow... and likely
will have music on. I will let you know if I hear a difference.
>>> I know it's iTunes 7 (Windows), because they play just fine in Windows Media
>>> Player 11 or in QuickTime 7.1.3, using either the built-in speakers,
>>> or my external speakers.
>>>
>>> Looks like Apple missed it big-time on its iTunes 7.x (Windows)
>>> upgrade this time.
>>>
>>> Too bad. I liked iTunes, and I miss my iTunes Music Videos (for which
>>> I paid beau coup bucks).
>>
>> Why do you miss them? Where did they go?
>
> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
You can play Apple media on Windows.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Tim Smith
Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
> itunes 7 is analyzing my playlist as we speak for gapless playback,
> should be great!
I wonder how many people, when they decided to see if it worked, picked
"Dark Side of the Moon" to test?
Speaking of DSotM, the iTunes Store seems to be having some trouble. If
I go to Pink Floyd and ask to see all their albums, it shows 20 albums,
and says it is displaying 1-20 of 23. There is no DSotM on that page,
so I go to the next page, to see the remaining 3. But there are only
two there, neither of which is DSotM. (OK, pausing to let everyone make
all the "there is no dark side of the moon..." jokes!).
They do have DSotM. It's easy to find it via searching. And that
brings me to the second oddity. The album cover I got for DSotM wasn't
the classic black one with the prism. It was the one from the 30th
anniversary edition. I don't see that version on the iTunes Store, so
where did come from? And when I told it to delete the downloaded art,
and then told it to download, I got the classic cover. (I have in the
past added art to a few albums, by hand, by finding the album at Amazon
or someplace like that, and copying the graphic, but I don't think this
was one of them--I would have taken the classic cover, not the new one,
and besides, for art you add yourself, it doesn't offer the "clear
downloaded artwork" option).
And finally, I noticed tonight that it is doing a lot better job of
finding album artwork. I think last night it was timing out, probably
due to everyone trying it.
--
--Tim Smith
Steven de Mena
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-68E...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <45081bdd$0$34082$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
>> itunes 7 is analyzing my playlist as we speak for gapless playback,
>> should be great!
>
> I wonder how many people, when they decided to see if it worked,
> picked
> "Dark Side of the Moon" to test?
I used Richard Strauss "Also sprach Zarathustra". :)
Steve
nicholasbuenk
> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>
> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
> well, it is also not a big deal.
>
> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
browser to easily navigate it
Snit
on 9/14/06 8:11 AM:
> On 2006-09-13 04:46:56 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>
>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>
>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>
>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>
> Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
> color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
> on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
> interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
> button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
> what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
I agree. What were they thinking? It really is ugly.
> At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
If you ignore the colors the UI has improved. The better organization is
welcome and the different views are very cool. And dark. Maybe that is why
they darkened the rest of the UI... to match that? Still ugly.
> However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
> ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
> browser to easily navigate it
No iPod... so I have not run into that. :)
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
files? Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be
that Microsoft doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair,
now Apple"? (or the other way around, for that matter. I can't play
my Windows media files (protected or otherwise) because Apple refuses
to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS X.)
I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
(maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as
I've said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but
iTunes has gone and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes
store, and they are UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
Donald L McDaniel
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>In article <45081bdd$0$34082$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
>> itunes 7 is analyzing my playlist as we speak for gapless playback,
>> should be great!
>
>I wonder how many people, when they decided to see if it worked, picked
>"Dark Side of the Moon" to test?
>
>Speaking of DSotM, the iTunes Store seems to be having some trouble. If
>I go to Pink Floyd and ask to see all their albums, it shows 20 albums,
>and says it is displaying 1-20 of 23. There is no DSotM on that page,
>so I go to the next page, to see the remaining 3. But there are only
>two there, neither of which is DSotM. (OK, pausing to let everyone make
>all the "there is no dark side of the moon..." jokes!).
Actually, Steve, there IS a dark side of the Moon. The moon never
revolves in such a way that we ever see it, however. This is why it
remains DARK (at least to us).
>
>They do have DSotM. It's easy to find it via searching. And that
>brings me to the second oddity. The album cover I got for DSotM wasn't
>the classic black one with the prism. It was the one from the 30th
>anniversary edition. I don't see that version on the iTunes Store, so
>where did come from? And when I told it to delete the downloaded art,
>and then told it to download, I got the classic cover. (I have in the
>past added art to a few albums, by hand, by finding the album at Amazon
>or someplace like that, and copying the graphic, but I don't think this
>was one of them--I would have taken the classic cover, not the new one,
>and besides, for art you add yourself, it doesn't offer the "clear
>downloaded artwork" option).
>
>And finally, I noticed tonight that it is doing a lot better job of
>finding album artwork. I think last night it was timing out, probably
>due to everyone trying it.
By the way, none of iTunes store files will download using iTunes
6.0.5 anymore. They REQUIRE iTunes 7 now. Which makes me believe
that Apple fiddled with "PlayFair, now, Apple" again.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>it's good stuff.
>
>they took everything that made wmplayer look better and incorporated it
>into 7.
>
>i switched from itunes to wmplayer 11 a few months ago, and now i'm
>switching back.
>
>it doesn't run as fast on my comp...i mean the album covers seem to
>slow down the scrolling through lists, but that's 'cause i only have
>256 megs of ram and integrated video. it's an xp system.
I got news for you: it also "scrolls" (if that's what you want to
call it) slowly in a machine with 128MB dedicated video memory, and 2
gig main memory.
>
>itunes 7 makes me want to get a mac pro tower. hopefully that'll be my
>next comp purchase.
>
>it's great to see that itunes is now set to grab album artwork, too.
>that was one of the advantages of wm player.
>
>encoding a disk in AAC at 320 kbps sounds better than an album encoded
>in WMA Pro at 192 kbps...which is the highest data rate of the lossy
>codecs in 11.
Donald L McDaniel
>On 2006-09-13 04:46:56 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>
>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>
>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>> well, it is also not a big deal.
Apple changes the colors of EVERYTHING BUT the DAMN MENUBAR!!! God, I
HATE that white monstrosity!!!
>>
>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>
>Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
>color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
>on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
>interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
>button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
>what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
>At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
>However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
>ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
>browser to easily navigate it
Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
I don't like the global list. I want to be able to display only ONE
album at a time, not several.
Snit
>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>
>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>
> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
> files?
Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
with a free player even.
> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the other
> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files (protected
> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
> X.)
Your double standard is funny.
Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
users.
You vilify Apple.
Do you see the humor in that?
> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING (maybe,
> since Apple changed the format of its media when they released iTunes 7).
> However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've said three
> times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has gone and CHANGED
> the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are UNPLAYABLE in
> anything but iTunes 7.
Your anger does not change the above facts.
Snit
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:11:12 +1000, Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
>> On 2006-09-13 04:46:56 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>>
>>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>>
>>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>
> Apple changes the colors of EVERYTHING BUT the DAMN MENUBAR!!! God, I
> HATE that white monstrosity!!!
I am glad they did not alter that! They added enough inconsistencies. If
you want to change the color of the menu bar, then go to Unsanity or some
other third party. Your whining on this issue is, frankly, annoying.
>>>
>>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>>
>> Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
>> color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
>> on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
>> interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
>> button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
>> what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
>> At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
>> However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
>> ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
>> browser to easily navigate it
>
> Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
> older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
> MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
"cover browser".
>
> I don't like the global list. I want to be able to display only ONE
> album at a time, not several.
Who is stopping you?
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
They modified some of their codices for greater security...
Edwin
> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>
>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>> files?
>
> Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
> with a free player even.
>
>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the other
>> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files (protected
>> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
>> X.)
>
> Your double standard is funny.
>
> Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>
> MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
> users.
You're wrong, as always.
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
[toilet flush of remainder of Snit's crap]
--
What would that topic be? R'lyeh? Are you now claiming that R'lyeh isn't
a sunken city because that would go against your holy belief in the
non-existance [sic] of Global Warming? -- Lars Träger June 25, 2006
Snit
u4lOg.2472$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 9/14/06 3:54 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>> oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>>
>>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>>> files?
>>
>> Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
>> with a free player even.
>>
>>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the
>>> other
>>> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files (protected
>>> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
>>> X.)
>>
>> Your double standard is funny.
>>
>> Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>>
>> MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
>> users.
>>
>> You vilify Apple.
>>
>> Do you see the humor in that?
>>
>>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
>>> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
>>> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've
>>> said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has gone
>>> and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are
>>> UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
>>>
>> Your anger does not change the above facts.
>
> You're wrong, as always.
Then why did you post a link in support of what I said?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
-----
Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free download
for Macintosh users, but has no plans to provide future updates or product
support for Windows Media Player for Mac.
-----
So, technically, yes - MS does have *a* player for the Mac... but, no, it
does not handle the current DRM from MS.
Third party has stepped in... and, it is good to see, MS is supportive of
that.
Are you ever right about anything, Edwin, or do you always make a fool of
yourself and then just run, as your comment below indicates you do:
> [toilet flush of remainder of Snit's crap]
See.
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com...
> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as
> I've said three times, now.
You can say it 10 more times, but your system is configured wrong to be
getting screwed-up sound from iTunes for Windows.
Steve
nicholasbuenk
> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> bn3jg2dn5p07pvc1c...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:23 AM:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:11:12 +1000, Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-13 04:46:56 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>>>
>>>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>>>
>>>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>>>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>>>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking. Oh
>>>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>
>> Apple changes the colors of EVERYTHING BUT the DAMN MENUBAR!!! God, I
>> HATE that white monstrosity!!!
>
> I am glad they did not alter that! They added enough inconsistencies. If
> you want to change the color of the menu bar, then go to Unsanity or some
> other third party. Your whining on this issue is, frankly, annoying.
Consistency is important so that you aren't confused by some UI element
that works in a different way. When you're talking about a theme or a
color. That's just a paint job really, I mean it works functions the
same way. Just looks slightly difference, it doesn't really affect
usability though because it still functions exactly how you expect.
Hence I don't mind inconsistent looks and colors, and think it's
positive that they are trying to improve the look of apps. But what
does annoy me is when they make something look ugly
>>>>
>>>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>>>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>>>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>>>
>>> Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
>>> color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
>>> on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
>>> interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
>>> button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
>>> what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
>>> At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
>>> However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
>>> ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
>>> browser to easily navigate it
>>
>> Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
>> older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
>> MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
>
> So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
> the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
> "cover browser".
>
It has the annoying habit of not staying open after you close itunes though.
nicholasbuenk
<ortho...@invalid.invalid> said:
> On 13 Sep 2006 16:11:10 -0700, "Pez D Spencer" <colec...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> it's good stuff.
>>
>> they took everything that made wmplayer look better and incorporated it
>> into 7.
>>
>> i switched from itunes to wmplayer 11 a few months ago, and now i'm
>> switching back.
>>
>> it doesn't run as fast on my comp...i mean the album covers seem to
>> slow down the scrolling through lists, but that's 'cause i only have
>> 256 megs of ram and integrated video. it's an xp system.
>
> I got news for you: it also "scrolls" (if that's what you want to
> call it) slowly in a machine with 128MB dedicated video memory, and 2
> gig main memory.
>
>
It's as smooth as butter on my macbook pro. ;)
Snit
on 9/14/06 6:26 PM:
> On 2006-09-15 05:50:25 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>
>> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>> bn3jg2dn5p07pvc1c...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:23 AM:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:11:12 +1000, Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-09-13 04:46:56 +1000, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so I was the first on my block to download iTunes 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the most part it looks like a pretty good update... better organized
>>>>> lists, different views, and - of course - the movies. But what is up with
>>>>> the new color scheme? Looks like muddied gray blue... not to my liking.
>>>>> Oh
>>>>> well, it is also not a big deal.
>>>
>>> Apple changes the colors of EVERYTHING BUT the DAMN MENUBAR!!! God, I
>>> HATE that white monstrosity!!!
>>
>> I am glad they did not alter that! They added enough inconsistencies. If
>> you want to change the color of the menu bar, then go to Unsanity or some
>> other third party. Your whining on this issue is, frankly, annoying.
>
> Consistency is important so that you aren't confused by some UI element
> that works in a different way. When you're talking about a theme or a
> color. That's just a paint job really, I mean it works functions the
> same way. Just looks slightly difference, it doesn't really affect
> usability though because it still functions exactly how you expect.
> Hence I don't mind inconsistent looks and colors, and think it's
> positive that they are trying to improve the look of apps. But what
> does annoy me is when they make something look ugly
Mostly true, but for the true novice / non-techie even the color differences
can be confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>>>>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>>>>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>>>>
>>>> Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
>>>> color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
>>>> on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
>>>> interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
>>>> button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
>>>> what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
>>>> At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
>>>> However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
>>>> ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
>>>> browser to easily navigate it
>>>
>>> Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
>>> older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
>>> MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
>>
>> So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
>> the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
>> "cover browser".
>
> It has the annoying habit of not staying open after you close itunes though.
You close iTunes? :)
Just tested and it "survives" re-launches for me.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>
>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>>
>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>>
>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>> files?
>
>Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
>with a free player even.
You seemed to have changed the subject yourself. You know as well as
I that I was referring to my iTunes purchases, not the various types
of Apple media which is not protected by "PlayFair, now, Apple" Media
Rights.
But at the time, I was aware that something was wrong with iTunes 7.
Which is what I WAS complaining about.
Anyway, it's moot, now.
>
>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the other
>> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files (protected
>> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
>> X.)
>
>Your double standard is funny.
How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
>Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>
>MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
>users.
And they never will, as long as Apple refuses to allow Microsoft DRM
in OS X.
But, actually, Microsoft DOES provide a player (albeit a vastly
inferior one) for free to Mac users (Microsoft Media Player). Sadly,
they never added the library features which WMP has. In addition,
they won't be continuing work on the last version for Mac. I guess
Microsoft just threw in the towel when iTunes was released.
Let's face it, iTunes is simply a superior player for Macintoshes.
(Note that I wrote "for Macintoshes".
>
>You vilify Apple.
So I am different than all the others in here how?
The fact is, we all vilify the other's platform from time to time. But
you will have to admit (if you are an honest man) that I DO admit
Apple's good qualities. Something which VERY FEW MacDroids will do
about Microsoft (Hell, man, they refuse to even admit there ARE any
good qualities of Windows).
While I may come down hard on OS X, I love Apple machines, and prefer
them over any Wintel.
Though I do like the Dell keyboards.
>
>Do you see the humor in that?
You know how humourless I tend to be.
>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING (maybe,
>> since Apple changed the format of its media when they released iTunes 7).
>> However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've said three
>> times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has gone and CHANGED
>> the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are UNPLAYABLE in
>> anything but iTunes 7.
>
>Your anger does not change the above facts.
Just a little update, so you won't continue thinking I am biased
against Apple:
1) My ONLY PC is an Apple Intel PC.
2) I have since found a simple fix for iTunes 7 (Windows) which clears
up the distorted sound:
Open QuickTime 7 Preferences and set Sound Out (in the Audio tab) to
16bit, rather than 24bit. Then restart iTunes 7. Your music will now
play without distortion. So I guess the problem was my own ineptness
with the technicalities of audio properties in general. I simply set
audo properties to their highest levels, no matter what program I am
using. Normally, this causes no problems. It did with QT 7.1.3 and
iTunes 7.
3) My ineptness with looking at the changed interface of iTunes 7
caused me to overlook the fact that it IS still possible to view your
library heirarcharically. Simply click on "View" in the Menubar, and
click on "Show Browser". Ouila! the old view is restored.
So I apologize in sack-cloth and ashes.
But I STILL think OS X is a piece of shit.
TheLetterK
Uhh, it's Microsoft that won't give WMA DRM support to OS X. Apple has
no say in the matter.
>
> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as
> I've said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but
> iTunes has gone and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes
> store, and they are UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
Wrong. I just bought some new music yesterday. Works fine in 6.0.5.20.
TheLetterK
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:34:40 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>> oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>>
>>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>>> files?
>> Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
>> with a free player even.
>
> You seemed to have changed the subject yourself. You know as well as
> I that I was referring to my iTunes purchases, not the various types
> of Apple media which is not protected by "PlayFair, now, Apple" Media
> Rights.
You mean FairPlay?
>
> But at the time, I was aware that something was wrong with iTunes 7.
> Which is what I WAS complaining about.
>
> Anyway, it's moot, now.
>
>>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the other
>>> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files (protected
>>> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
>>> X.)
>> Your double standard is funny.
>
> How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
> inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
>
> Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
>
>> Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>>
>> MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
>> users.
>
> And they never will, as long as Apple refuses to allow Microsoft DRM
> in OS X.
It's Microsoft that refuses to support WMA DRM on any platform but
Windows. Apple has no say in it, since they don't develop the player.
>
> But, actually, Microsoft DOES provide a player (albeit a vastly
> inferior one) for free to Mac users (Microsoft Media Player).
Not anymore. WMP for Mac was cancelled in favor of a (free third party)
QT plugin.
> Sadly,
> they never added the library features which WMP has. In addition,
> they won't be continuing work on the last version for Mac. I guess
> Microsoft just threw in the towel when iTunes was released.
Mainly because iTunes has such an overwhelming market share advantage,
particularly on the Mac.
>
> Let's face it, iTunes is simply a superior player for Macintoshes.
> (Note that I wrote "for Macintoshes".
It's a superior jukebox for both platforms. The only one that's better
(IMO) is AmaroK.
Donald L McDaniel
Actually, Steve, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with my system. It
is a normal Intel iMac 17" Apple PC.
However, I DID have QT 7.1.3 misconfigured. This was a change from QT
versions previous to 7.1.3, must I point out.
The 24bit Audio property setting always worked before in QuickTime and
iTunes. It apparently was changed in the newest versions of QuickTime
and iTunes. Of course, Apple failed to point out the possibility that
keeping it the same could distort your sound in its newest Player
under Microsoft Windows.
Snit
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:34:40 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>> oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>>
>>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>>>
>>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>>>
>>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>>> files?
>>
>> Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
>> with a free player even.
>
> You seemed to have changed the subject yourself. You know as well as
> I that I was referring to my iTunes purchases, not the various types
> of Apple media which is not protected by "PlayFair, now, Apple" Media
> Rights.
You can play iTunes media on Windows. This is not something that is in
question.
>
> But at the time, I was aware that something was wrong with iTunes 7.
> Which is what I WAS complaining about.
>
> Anyway, it's moot, now.
Moot? Why? Did you get your problem solved? If not, I think that is where
you should be putting your energy, not getting mad at the world because you
have a computer problem - a rare one it seems - that makes it where you
cannot listen to all of your music with the quality you want.
>>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the
>>> other way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files
>>> (protected or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital
>>> Rights in OS X.)
>>
>> Your double standard is funny.
>
> How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
> inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
>
> Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
Apple provides a player for Windows. You are mad about that.
MS does not provide a player for OS X. You do not show anger about that.
It is true a third party has jumped in to take the place for MS, and MS and
Apple both seem to support that.
>> Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>>
>> MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
>> users.
>
> And they never will, as long as Apple refuses to allow Microsoft DRM
> in OS X.
Refuses to allow? Since when has Apple even discouraged other companies
from allowing Windows media to run on a Mac?
> But, actually, Microsoft DOES provide a player (albeit a vastly
> inferior one) for free to Mac users (Microsoft Media Player). Sadly,
> they never added the library features which WMP has. In addition,
> they won't be continuing work on the last version for Mac. I guess
> Microsoft just threw in the towel when iTunes was released.
OK, MS has a player - but not one that plays much current media.
Apple has a player that plays *all* of their current media... well, anything
relevant to the conversation.
> Let's face it, iTunes is simply a superior player for Macintoshes.
> (Note that I wrote "for Macintoshes".
OK.
>> You vilify Apple.
>
> So I am different than all the others in here how?
There are others who act just as irrationally... some far, far worse.
> The fact is, we all vilify the other's platform from time to time. But
> you will have to admit (if you are an honest man) that I DO admit
> Apple's good qualities. Something which VERY FEW MacDroids will do
> about Microsoft (Hell, man, they refuse to even admit there ARE any
> good qualities of Windows).
I speak of the good and bad of both... not sure what others behaviors have
to do with this conversation.
> While I may come down hard on OS X, I love Apple machines, and prefer
> them over any Wintel.
>
> Though I do like the Dell keyboards.
>
>> Do you see the humor in that?
>
> You know how humourless I tend to be.
>
>>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
>>> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
>>> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've
>>> said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has gone
>>> and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are
>>> UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
>>
>> Your anger does not change the above facts.
>
> Just a little update, so you won't continue thinking I am biased
> against Apple:
>
> 1) My ONLY PC is an Apple Intel PC.
> 2) I have since found a simple fix for iTunes 7 (Windows) which clears
> up the distorted sound:
>
> Open QuickTime 7 Preferences and set Sound Out (in the Audio tab) to
> 16bit, rather than 24bit. Then restart iTunes 7. Your music will now
> play without distortion. So I guess the problem was my own ineptness
> with the technicalities of audio properties in general. I simply set
> audo properties to their highest levels, no matter what program I am
> using. Normally, this causes no problems. It did with QT 7.1.3 and
> iTunes 7.
I am glad to hear you got it solved.
> 3) My ineptness with looking at the changed interface of iTunes 7
> caused me to overlook the fact that it IS still possible to view your
> library heirarcharically. Simply click on "View" in the Menubar, and
> click on "Show Browser". Ouila! the old view is restored.
There is also an icon on the bottom.
> So I apologize in sack-cloth and ashes.
>
> But I STILL think OS X is a piece of shit.
You are welcome to your opinion.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
Apparently, I was stopping myself. I never saw the [Menu->View->Show
Browser] selection before.
So I am once again a happy camper.
Snit
A_nOg.25440$IM1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/14/06 7:13 PM:
> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:34:40 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>>> oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com on 9/14/06 10:10 AM:
>>>
>>>>>> Can't play them using Microsoft Digital Rights management, of course.
>>>>>> And Apple won't release "PlayFair, now, Apple" for Windows.
>>>>> You can play Apple media on Windows.
>>>> Zat so? Then why won't Windows Media Player import iTunes protected
>>>> files?
>>> Why change the topic to *that*? You *can* play Apple media on Windows...
>>> with a free player even.
>>
>> You seemed to have changed the subject yourself. You know as well as
>> I that I was referring to my iTunes purchases, not the various types
>> of Apple media which is not protected by "PlayFair, now, Apple" Media
>> Rights.
>
> You mean FairPlay?
Odd that Donald would sink to such name calling... given his comments about
such things. Granted, calling an Apple tech a name is not the same thing as
calling someone in CSMA a name.
>
>>
>> But at the time, I was aware that something was wrong with iTunes 7.
>> Which is what I WAS complaining about.
>>
>> Anyway, it's moot, now.
>>
>>>> Hell, man, why won't WMP import ANY Apple meda? Could it be that Microsoft
>>>> doesn't want to pay the license fees for "Play fair, now Apple"? (or the
>>>> other
>>>> way around, for that matter. I can't play my Windows media files
>>>> (protected
>>>> or otherwise) because Apple refuses to allow Microsoft Digital Rights in OS
>>>> X.)
>>> Your double standard is funny.
>>
>> How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
>> inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
>>
>> Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
>>
>>> Apple has protection. They provide a player, for free, for Windows users.
>>>
>>> MS has protection. They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac
>>> users.
>>
>> And they never will, as long as Apple refuses to allow Microsoft DRM
>> in OS X.
>
> It's Microsoft that refuses to support WMA DRM on any platform but
> Windows. Apple has no say in it, since they don't develop the player.
But both Apple and MS seem to welcome Flip4Mac
>> But, actually, Microsoft DOES provide a player (albeit a vastly
>> inferior one) for free to Mac users (Microsoft Media Player).
>
> Not anymore. WMP for Mac was cancelled in favor of a (free third party)
> QT plugin.
Which MS does point folks to.
>> Sadly,
>> they never added the library features which WMP has. In addition,
>> they won't be continuing work on the last version for Mac. I guess
>> Microsoft just threw in the towel when iTunes was released.
>
> Mainly because iTunes has such an overwhelming market share advantage,
> particularly on the Mac.
MS is beginning to look to fight back. We shall see how that goes.
>> Let's face it, iTunes is simply a superior player for Macintoshes.
>> (Note that I wrote "for Macintoshes".
>
> It's a superior jukebox for both platforms. The only one that's better
> (IMO) is AmaroK.
Not used it enough to say. I doubt it ties into a player and store as well,
but I use neither so that would not effect my view of it. :)
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Snit
Genuinely glad to hear it. I hope you lean from your tantrum.
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:47 -0700, "Steven de Mena"
> <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:oi2jg2d8b3cbhd438...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were
>>> WORKING
>>> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they
>>> released
>>> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce,
>>> as
>>> I've said three times, now.
>>
>>You can say it 10 more times, but your system is configured wrong to
>>be
>>getting screwed-up sound from iTunes for Windows.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>
> Actually, Steve, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with my system. It
> is a normal Intel iMac 17" Apple PC.
>
> However, I DID have QT 7.1.3 misconfigured. This was a change from QT
> versions previous to 7.1.3, must I point out.
>
> The 24bit Audio property setting always worked before in QuickTime and
> iTunes. It apparently was changed in the newest versions of QuickTime
> and iTunes. Of course, Apple failed to point out the possibility that
> keeping it the same could distort your sound in its newest Player
> under Microsoft Windows.
What the hell did you think I meant when I said your system was
mis-configured? That you had to re-solder some chips on the motherboard
or replace a capacitor? No, I meant something was mis-configured, such
as the 24-bit Audio property.
Steve
Edwin
Why did you insert this text:
****************************************************************
> >>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
> >>> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
> >>> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've
> >>> said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has gone
> >>> and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are
> >>> UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
> >>>
> >> Your anger does not change the above facts.
**********************************************************************
Why did you insert the above text?
> >
> > You're wrong, as always.
>
> Then why did you post a link in support of what I said?
My link does not support what you said:
"They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac users."
> > http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmedia
>
> -----
> Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free download
> for Macintosh users, but has no plans to provide future updates or product
> support for Windows Media Player for Mac.
> -----
The next paragraph:
"As an alternative, Microsoft has teamed up with Telestream to make its
popular Flip4Mac program available to Macintosh users. Flip4Mac
provides Windows Media video and audio playback in the QuickTime Player
for Mac OS X. "
> So, technically, yes - MS does have *a* player for the Mac...
So you're wrong, as always.
> but, no, it
> does not handle the current DRM from MS.
"Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free
download for Macintosh users..."
> Third party has stepped in... and, it is good to see, MS is supportive of
> that.
A third party has not "stepped in," MS has partnered with a third
party.
[toilet flush of Snit's remaining crap]
Snit
> Why did you insert this text:
>
> ****************************************************************
>>>>> I could play my Apple media in iTunes for Windows, if it were WORKING
>>>>> (maybe, since Apple changed the format of its media when they released
>>>>> iTunes 7). However, iTunes 7 screws up my sound something fierce, as I've
>>>>> said three times, now. I could reinstall iTunes 6.0.5, but iTunes has
>>>>> gone
>>>>> and CHANGED the format of its files on the iTunes store, and they are
>>>>> UNPLAYABLE in anything but iTunes 7.
>>>>>
>>>> Your anger does not change the above facts.
> **********************************************************************
> Why did you insert the above text?
I returned what you spoke of in dishonest terms. In other words, I called
you on your lie. Deal with it in some way other than your norm of blaming
others. Please.
>>>
>>> You're wrong, as always.
>>
>> Then why did you post a link in support of what I said?
>
> My link does not support what you said:
>
> "They do not provide a player, at any price, for Mac users."
The context is about the current DRM media. And MS does not. A third party
does, as your link shows. Thank you for supporting my point.
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=windowsmed
>>> ia
>>
>> -----
>> Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free download
>> for Macintosh users, but has no plans to provide future updates or product
>> support for Windows Media Player for Mac.
>> -----
>>
>
> The next paragraph:
>
> "As an alternative, Microsoft has teamed up with Telestream to make its
> popular Flip4Mac program available to Macintosh users. Flip4Mac
> provides Windows Media video and audio playback in the QuickTime Player
> for Mac OS X. "
>
>> So, technically, yes - MS does have *a* player for the Mac...
>
> So you're wrong, as always.
Only from the perspective of someone who is ignorant of the context of the
statement and is playing dishonest games... from that perspective, yes, you
- Edwin - can say I am wrong. I will not argue that that is your
perspective.
>> but, no, it
>> does not handle the current DRM from MS.
>
> "Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free
> download for Macintosh users..."
So you lost the context of current DRM. OK. You missed it. Please do not
make your error into a big deal.
>> Third party has stepped in... and, it is good to see, MS is supportive of
>> that.
>
> A third party has not "stepped in," MS has partnered with a third
> party.
So you deny the third party stepped in. OK. I can accept your ignorance.
>
>> Are you ever right about anything, Edwin, or do you always make a fool of
>> yourself and then just run, as your comment below indicates you do:
>>
>>> [toilet flush of remainder of Snit's crap]
>>
>> See.
>
> [toilet flush of Snit's remaining crap]
Your fascination with toilets is ... interesting.
Donald L McDaniel
<st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
Perhaps you could have suggested the 24-bit audio property? I don't
mind being corrected or helped, if the comments are actually helpful.
>Steve
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
I always learn from my "tantrums", snit. While I may complain and
bitch I am not an unreasonable man. Your pointing out my childish
behaviour did affect me greatly, I assure you. It shamed me, as it
should have.
So thank you, my friend, for your friendly admonitions.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
No, snit, I am not mad that Apple provides a player for Windows. I
actually prefer iTunes over Windows Media Player.
==
Snit
>>> How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
>>> inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
>>>
>>> Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
>>
>> Apple provides a player for Windows. You are mad about that.
>
> No, snit, I am not mad that Apple provides a player for Windows. I
> actually prefer iTunes over Windows Media Player.
Now that your problem has been solved your anger seems to have gone away.
That is good.
Snit
>>>> So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
>>>> the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
>>>> "cover browser".
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like the global list. I want to be able to display only ONE
>>>>> album at a time, not several.
>>>>
>>>> Who is stopping you?
>>>
>>> Apparently, I was stopping myself. I never saw the [Menu->View->Show
>>> Browser] selection before.
>>>
>>> So I am once again a happy camper.
>>
>> Genuinely glad to hear it. I hope you lean from your tantrum.
>
> I always learn from my "tantrums", snit. While I may complain and
> bitch I am not an unreasonable man. Your pointing out my childish
> behaviour did affect me greatly, I assure you. It shamed me, as it
> should have.
>
> So thank you, my friend, for your friendly admonitions.
Just as important as such admonishment, though, is letting it go if the
person is reasonable about it and does not push it.
Consider it in the past and a done deal. No harm done.
nicholasbuenk
I think you're overstating it, users shouldn't have a problem unless
they are completely new to a computer on their first minute of computer
use ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is odd, though, that even the scroll bars and other such things have
>>>>>> their own "look" to them - why not have it match what that OS does? Is it
>>>>>> to ease the coding for Windows and Mac?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yuck they've made itunes ugly. Too many severe dark colors. Terrible
>>>>> color for a scroll bar bring back aqua scroll bar! And the blue icons
>>>>> on the side bar just don't jive with the dark colors on the rest of the
>>>>> interface at all. Insanely dark color around the podcast refresh
>>>>> button. Does every Ui element have to dark colors or shades of grey,
>>>>> what is this nextstep? I was very happy with the look of itunes 6.
>>>>> At least the UI has been greatly improved. It's slightly easier to use.
>>>>> However, one annoyance is the browser doesn't stay open when viewing my
>>>>> ipod which is on disk mode. I have 7500 tracks on it, I need the
>>>>> browser to easily navigate it
>>>>
>>>> Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
>>>> older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
>>>> MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
>>>
>>> So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
>>> the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
>>> "cover browser".
>>
>> It has the annoying habit of not staying open after you close itunes though.
>
> You close iTunes? :)
>
> Just tested and it "survives" re-launches for me.
Is your ipod on disk mode? Does it survive relaunching?
Snit
on 9/15/06 9:17 PM:
>>> Consistency is important so that you aren't confused by some UI element
>>> that works in a different way. When you're talking about a theme or a
>>> color. That's just a paint job really, I mean it works functions the
>>> same way. Just looks slightly difference, it doesn't really affect
>>> usability though because it still functions exactly how you expect.
>>> Hence I don't mind inconsistent looks and colors, and think it's
>>> positive that they are trying to improve the look of apps. But what
>>> does annoy me is when they make something look ugly
>>
>> Mostly true, but for the true novice / non-techie even the color differences
>> can be confusing.
>
> I think you're overstating it, users shouldn't have a problem unless
> they are completely new to a computer on their first minute of computer
> use ever.
Let me guess: you do not work with many new and non-techy users. I do.
While they might not know why they were confused, even small things like
color can confuse them... though I do think you are right that something as
minor as is happening with iTunes 7 would be unlikely to. For my intro
class I will be showing them iTunes... we shall know in a while. :)
>>>>> Even I don't like iTunes 7's colors and arrangement. I prefer the
>>>>> older "Browse" feature, which arranged my music by
>>>>> MediaType->Artist->Album->song.
>>>>
>>>> So why not use it in iTunes 7? The icon to activate it is at the bottom of
>>>> the screen now. You can use the browser with any of the views except the
>>>> "cover browser".
>>>
>>> It has the annoying habit of not staying open after you close itunes though.
>>
>> You close iTunes? :)
>>
>> Just tested and it "survives" re-launches for me.
>
> Is your ipod on disk mode? Does it survive relaunching?
>
I do not have an iPod. I meant staying in browse mode... for my regular
library.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
>"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>09img2p1nlssd4aof...@4ax.com on 9/15/06 5:48 PM:
>
>>>> How can my standard be "double", when I plainly wrote about the
>>>> inability of BOTH systems to play protected content from the other.
>>>>
>>>> Or did you fail to notice my side bar?.
>>>
>>> Apple provides a player for Windows. You are mad about that.
>>
>> No, snit, I am not mad that Apple provides a player for Windows. I
>> actually prefer iTunes over Windows Media Player.
>
>Now that your problem has been solved your anger seems to have gone away.
>That is good.
I get angry quickly, but my anger also passes quickly. Nor do I hold
grudges for long.
My second wife was much different: Once she got angry, she stayed
angry for days. And she carried a grudge against me all the rest of
the days we were married for raising my hand in anger ONE TIME (I
immediately repented, and asked her forgiveness). Yet I never again
raised my hand in anger toward her, and repented of my momentary anger
the rest of the days of our marriage..
nicholasbuenk
> "Nicholas Buenk" <Nicholas Buenk> stated in post 450b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> on 9/15/06 9:17 PM:
>
>>>> Consistency is important so that you aren't confused by some UI element
>>>> that works in a different way. When you're talking about a theme or a
>>>> color. That's just a paint job really, I mean it works functions the
>>>> same way. Just looks slightly difference, it doesn't really affect
>>>> usability though because it still functions exactly how you expect.
>>>> Hence I don't mind inconsistent looks and colors, and think it's
>>>> positive that they are trying to improve the look of apps. But what
>>>> does annoy me is when they make something look ugly
>>>
>>> Mostly true, but for the true novice / non-techie even the color differences
>>> can be confusing.
>>
>> I think you're overstating it, users shouldn't have a problem unless
>> they are completely new to a computer on their first minute of computer
>> use ever.
>
> Let me guess: you do not work with many new and non-techy users. I do.
> While they might not know why they were confused, even small things like
> color can confuse them... though I do think you are right that something as
> minor as is happening with iTunes 7 would be unlikely to. For my intro
> class I will be showing them iTunes... we shall know in a while. :)
Show em an aqua app like firefox or unison. ;) And then show them
itunes see what happens hehe.
Snit
It is a Windows class...
Donald L McDaniel
What an idiotic statement, in light of the fact that Firefox is NOT
"an Aqua application". It is a CROSS-PLATFORM application, and the
Windows version looks and works exactly like the OS X version.
As far as Unison is concerned, it cannot hold a candle to a decent
Windows Usenet client like Agent 4.0.
Now, I will give Unison its proper due: It is a very useful app for
downloading porn, if that's what you're in to. Otherwise, it's pretty
useless as a Usenet client.
>And then show them
>itunes see what happens hehe.
Actually, the only thing iTunes has going for it is its extensive
online store and tie-in to the iPod.
Windows Media Player 11 looks much better and works much better. Too
bad it is hobbled by the Windows Media format and Windows-based online
stores.
Snit
Incorrect. The Mac version, while not being fully "Aqua", it does have the
standard OS X print and save dialogs, preferences in the correct location,
etc.
It is true that its buttons do not look "right", it does not work with the
built in spell checker and other services, etc. I suspect it is not doing
as well on OS X as it would if those things worked correctly.
> As far as Unison is concerned, it cannot hold a candle to a decent
> Windows Usenet client like Agent 4.0.
>
> Now, I will give Unison its proper due: It is a very useful app for
> downloading porn, if that's what you're in to. Otherwise, it's pretty
> useless as a Usenet client.
>
>> And then show them itunes see what happens hehe.
>
> Actually, the only thing iTunes has going for it is its extensive
> online store and tie-in to the iPod.
I use neither... but I like iTunes a lot. It works well as a stand alone
player *and* it ties in to iMovie and other such programs. Very cool.
> Windows Media Player 11 looks much better and works much better. Too
> bad it is hobbled by the Windows Media format and Windows-based online
> stores.
Looking at the beta site:
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/11/default.aspx>
The fact that use Aqua-like buttons is funny. Heck, look at the button they
list under "Simplicity in Design". LOL! No wonder people say they copy
Apple... but let's look at the overall interface: it has all sorts of
different modes and, well, otherwise looks a lot like iTunes. Well, the
basic look of iTunes... not including the new views Apple has added. And
the list is based on a folder structure - Apple has it right... most users
have no need to see what folder their music is in. Actually, Apple gets
that more than anyone else in the industry that I know of.
If you like Windows media player so be it - I have *nothing* against you or
others having differing opinions, but I would love to hear any objective
reasons why.
Steven de Mena
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:C131B326.60148%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>> Show em an aqua app like firefox or unison. ;)
>>
>> What an idiotic statement, in light of the fact that Firefox is NOT
>> "an Aqua application". It is a CROSS-PLATFORM application, and the
>> Windows version looks and works exactly like the OS X version.
>
> Incorrect. The Mac version, while not being fully "Aqua", it does
> have the
> standard OS X print and save dialogs, preferences in the correct
> location,
> etc.
>
> It is true that its buttons do not look "right", it does not work with
> the
> built in spell checker and other services, etc. I suspect it is not
> doing
> as well on OS X as it would if those things worked correctly.
They have their "Camino" browser that I believe has the full Aqua
interface. I haven't tried that one yet as was not sure if it was stable
and/or worked with Firefox extensions.
Steve
John Smith
<ortho...@invalid.invalid> said:
> As far as Unison is concerned, it cannot hold a candle to a decent
> Windows Usenet client like Agent 4.0.
Agreed, but mostly because it doesn't have an offline reader. But
other than that, how is it bad compared to Agent?
>
> Now, I will give Unison its proper due: It is a very useful app for
> downloading porn, if that's what you're in to. Otherwise, it's pretty
> useless as a Usenet client.
I'm using it now, so by definition it isn't useless, and it's working
quite well reading csma. Why do you feel it's useless?
Snit
mfudnfTliKYd8pHY...@comcast.com on 9/16/06 2:41 PM:
I have used Camino and like it, but I do not believe it works with all the
Firefox extensions.
Looking at Versiontracker:
<http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/14326>
-----
The Camino Project has worked to create a browser that is as functional and
elegant as the computers it runs on. The Camino web browser is powerful,
secure, and ready to meet the needs of all users while remaining simple and
elegant in its design.
Camino combines the awesome visual and behavioral experience that has been
central to the Macintosh philosophy with the powerful web-browsing
capabilities of the Gecko rendering engine.
-----
and in the comments:
-----
You can nitpick a few missing features, and obviously it doesn't have
Firefox extensions, but overall it's quite good and it's a real Mac
application.
-----
There is no doubt that it is more fully "Mac-like" than Firefox... and that
is a big plus for Mac users. Still, with Pith Helmet I prefer Safari - I
know of no better ad blocking.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Steven de Mena
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
one its best features.
Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
Steve
Snit
I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
though it does use Aqua dialogs.
I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Donald L McDaniel
Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
offering (Safari).
In addition, it is more configurable than Safari.
I much prefer it over Safari. I do not like Firefox, since it is in a
constant state of beta.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
Personally, the less "OSX-like" it is, the better I prefer an
application, especially in OS X.
>>
>> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
>> one its best features.
>>
>> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
X browsers.
>I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
>well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
>both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
extremely stable).
Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
it is TOO secure for my tastes.
>On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
>use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
>though it does use Aqua dialogs.
>
>I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
>Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
>the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
>buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
>the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
>the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
>know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
As I've tried to tell you people, programmers continually "steal" or
"borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
the actual code.
Steven de Mena
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
On Windows, I switched to to Firebox about 6-8 months ago (from IE).
From the freezeups and other issues with IE that I had I would be more
likely to conside IE to be in a constant state of beta. :)
One thing I liked about Firefox was that I could configure my Bookmarks
file to be on a Network drive, so no matter what system I browse from I
have all the same bookmarks. And the geat "Adblock Plus" extension.
I'll give Camino a look too.
Steve
Timberwoof
Ah, so we know you're not prejudiced against OS X applications.
> >> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
> >> one its best features.
>
> >>
> >> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
>
> It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
> X browsers.
Knowing that you have no prejudice against any OS X apps, we can now
ask, how did you measure this performance?
> >I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
> >well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
> >both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
>
> I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
> extremely stable).
Oh, so you think IE was faster than Safari, too?
> Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
> it is TOO secure for my tastes.
Yeah, the latest version won't run on OS X.
> >On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
> >use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
> >though it does use Aqua dialogs.
All of that is too easy to implement, stupid to leave out.
> >I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
> >Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
> >the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
> >buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
> >the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
> >the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
> >know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
>
> As I've tried to tell you people,
oh, no prejudice here. Just lectures to you people.
> programmers continually "steal" or
> "borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
> the actual code.
>
> ==
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread,
> so that it may not become broken.
> ===================================================
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
John Smith
<ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
>Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
>offering (Safari).
Do you have any benchmarks to back that up, particularly the "much
faster than Safari" comment?
http://internet.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/20/1438230
Note that's with the old Safari - 1.3x, rather than the new one.
Include the new one, and throw in the new Opera, and things get
interesting:
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
and even more commentary, including benchmarks showing Gecko browsers
lag WebKit kHTML browsers:
http://macintalk.com/index.php?id=136
Care to revise your opinion?
Steven de Mena
"John Smith" <jo...@smith.com> wrote in message
news:i3hrg29h9s33pj2g8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:10:08 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
> <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
>>Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
>>offering (Safari).
>
> Do you have any benchmarks to back that up, particularly the "much
> faster than Safari" comment?
I only have to load up Safari once and browse a few familiar pages
(which I did the other day) to see that it is slower than the latest
Firefox. (Mac OS X 10.4.7, Mac Pro).
Steve
John Smith
I posted three links to three unique and seperate documents that all
showed that isn't the case (which, curiously, you've chosen to snip
out). Do you have any benchmarks and URLs to point to suggesting
otherwise?
Steven de Mena
Don't need them. But thanks anyways.
Steve
Snit
Why? Having standard dialogs, buttons, menus, etc. makes a program easier
to learn. The fact most programs have similarities is a huge bonus for OS
X.
>>> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
>>> one its best features.
>
>>>
>>> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
>
> It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
> X browsers.
Do you have stats to show this?
>> I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
>> well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
>> both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
>
> I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
> extremely stable).
>
> Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
> it is TOO secure for my tastes.
I have not worked much with IE 7 beta. I do know that IE 6 is pretty bad.
>> On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
>> use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
>> though it does use Aqua dialogs.
>>
>> I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
>> Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
>> the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
>> buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
>> the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
>> the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
>> know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
>
> As I've tried to tell you people, programmers continually "steal" or
> "borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
> the actual code.
I have no problem with programmers / companies learning from each other. I
do have a problem when they just try to blindly copy from each other... it
is an immoral act in my view. The lines to determine which is happening,
though, are blurry.
nicholasbuenk
Isn't it sort of stealing to use an ad blocker? I mean it's how sites
make their revenue.
Snit
on 9/18/06 6:14 AM:
I fast forward over commercials when I tape shows.
Not stealing at all.
TheLetterK
Huh? I've heard some strange arguments in favor of Camino, but that one
takes the cake. KHTML is usually a bit faster than gecko, and more
standards-compliant. Perhaps you're talking about startup time, or some
equally worthless metric?
>
> In addition, it is more configurable than Safari.
Safari has a lot of hidden options, though you're correct. Use OmniWeb
if you're unhappy with Safari.
OmniWeb is one of the few worthwhile Mac apps out there, though it's not
worth paying for, IMO.
>
> I much prefer it over Safari. I do not like Firefox, since it is in a
> constant state of beta.
Camino is just a Mac-native frontend for Firefox--is uses a native
interface rather than the standard XUL-based interface. If you think
Firefox is perpetually beta-quality, then Camino is *out of date* beta
software. Of course, you're wrong about your original claim.
Snit
DzzPg.13321$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 9/18/06 9:12 AM:
>>> They have their "Camino" browser that I believe has the full Aqua
>>> interface. I haven't tried that one yet as was not sure if it was stable
>>> and/or worked with Firefox extensions.
>>
>> Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
>> Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
>> offering (Safari).
>
> Huh? I've heard some strange arguments in favor of Camino, but that one
> takes the cake. KHTML is usually a bit faster than gecko, and more
> standards-compliant. Perhaps you're talking about startup time, or some
> equally worthless metric?
Different sites seem to load faster in different browsers... and load time
perception is influenced by things other than objective load time, such as
delay until data starts to show.
I hate browsers that try to show me things too quickly - the content ends up
moving around.
>>
>> In addition, it is more configurable than Safari.
>
> Safari has a lot of hidden options, though you're correct. Use OmniWeb
> if you're unhappy with Safari.
Why jump from the topic of Camino to OmniWeb?
> OmniWeb is one of the few worthwhile Mac apps out there, though it's not
> worth paying for, IMO.
As long as you realize your whole sentence is just your opinion, not just
the last part, then I have no argument with you over it. Your view of value
of a program seems to be how Linux-like is it, no matter how little that
matters to others or to how efficient of a tool it is.
>> I much prefer it over Safari. I do not like Firefox, since it is in a
>> constant state of beta.
>
> Camino is just a Mac-native frontend for Firefox--is uses a native
> interface rather than the standard XUL-based interface. If you think
> Firefox is perpetually beta-quality, then Camino is *out of date* beta
> software. Of course, you're wrong about your original claim.
Camino, though, has an OS X interface... top to bottom. Firefox is sorta
there, but not fully. That is a pretty big down side for Firefox on a Mac.
Donald L McDaniel
I've more than once written that I believe OS X is a piece of shit.
>
>Ah, so we know you're not prejudiced against OS X applications.
Actually, Timberwolf, I have on more than one occasion said that I
prefer Windows over OS X. In fact, I really don't like OS X at all,
and use Windows almost exclusively. I do keep up-to-date with Boot
Camp Assistant, so that I will have up-to-date Apple driver software
in Vista.
>
>
>> >> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
>> >> one its best features.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
>>
>> It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
>> X browsers.
>
>Knowing that you have no prejudice against any OS X apps, we can now
>ask, how did you measure this performance?
By using them.
>> >I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
>> >well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
>> >both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
>>
>> I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
>> extremely stable).
>
>Oh, so you think IE was faster than Safari, too?
Of course.
>> Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
>> it is TOO secure for my tastes.
>
>Yeah, the latest version won't run on OS X.
Why would I want to run it in OS X. I hardly ever use OS X.
>> >On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
>> >use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
>> >though it does use Aqua dialogs.
>
>All of that is too easy to implement, stupid to leave out.
>
>> >I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
>> >Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
>> >the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
>> >buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
>> >the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
>> >the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
>> >know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
>>
>> As I've tried to tell you people,
>
>oh, no prejudice here. Just lectures to you people.
>
>> programmers continually "steal" or
>> "borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
>> the actual code.
It's not my fault you MacDroids refuse to read anything I write.
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
The same is true in Windows, snit. So OS X certainly is no exception
in this area.
However, I have no problems gaining the ability to use almost any
software product within the first hour, no matter which OS I am using
the product in.
Let's face it, all programs, whether in OS X or Windows, have pretty
common elements.
>
>>>> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
>>>> one its best features.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
>>
>> It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
>> X browsers.
>
>Do you have stats to show this?
NO, I have only my own experiences in using a variety of browsers,
both in OS X, and in Windows.
>>> I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
>>> well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
>>> both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
>>
>> I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
>> extremely stable).
>>
>> Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
>> it is TOO secure for my tastes.
>
>I have not worked much with IE 7 beta. I do know that IE 6 is pretty bad.
Microsoft has made a great deal of improvementin Internet Explorer.
>>> On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
>>> use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
>>> though it does use Aqua dialogs.
>>>
>>> I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
>>> Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
>>> the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
>>> buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
>>> the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
>>> the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
>>> know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
>>
>> As I've tried to tell you people, programmers continually "steal" or
>> "borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
>> the actual code.
>
>I have no problem with programmers / companies learning from each other. I
>do have a problem when they just try to blindly copy from each other... it
>is an immoral act in my view. The lines to determine which is happening,
>though, are blurry.
Actually, snit, the law about violating copyrights only extends to the
BINARY data, not the "look and feel".
You really have a strange understanding of "immoral". "Immorality"
only refers to sexual uncleanness.
Donald L McDaniel
How would it be stealing, sir? After all, the sites are FORCING their
ads on many who don't want them. We have rights as citizens to have
what WE want on our machines.
Donald L McDaniel
No, I do not. I prefer my own opinion over those of "experts".
I know when a browser is working slowly or fast. I certainly don't
need techies telling me I don't know what I am experiencing.
Donald L McDaniel
I do like OmniWeb, and own a license to it.
>
>OmniWeb is one of the few worthwhile Mac apps out there, though it's not
>worth paying for, IMO.
I felt that it was worth paying for. Thanks for your opinion, anyway.
>>
>> I much prefer it over Safari. I do not like Firefox, since it is in a
>> constant state of beta.
>
>Camino is just a Mac-native frontend for Firefox--is uses a native
>interface rather than the standard XUL-based interface. If you think
>Firefox is perpetually beta-quality, then Camino is *out of date* beta
>software. Of course, you're wrong about your original claim.
I will decide whether I am right or wrong. I don't need your opinion.
But thanks for it anyway.
Snit
>>> Personally, the less "OSX-like" it is, the better I prefer an
>>> application, especially in OS X.
>>
>> Why? Having standard dialogs, buttons, menus, etc. makes a program easier
>> to learn. The fact most programs have similarities is a huge bonus for OS
>> X.
>
> The same is true in Windows, snit. So OS X certainly is no exception
> in this area.
The problem with Windows, however, is that there is not nearly as unified of
a system, as shown here:
<http://www.gallopinginsanity.com/csma/interface/dialogs/>
>
> However, I have no problems gaining the ability to use almost any
> software product within the first hour, no matter which OS I am using
> the product in.
Then you have not used advanced software. :)
Seriously, try Dreamweaver or Photoshop or the like.
> Let's face it, all programs, whether in OS X or Windows, have pretty
> common elements.
Os X, however, does this better than Windows.
>>>>> Actually it is the "Adblock Plus" Firefox extension that I find to be
>>>>> one its best features.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Safari has seemed slow to me, versus the latest Firefox.
>>>
>>> It doesn't just "seem" slow: it actually IS slower than all other OS
>>> X browsers.
>>
>> Do you have stats to show this?
>
> NO, I have only my own experiences in using a variety of browsers,
> both in OS X, and in Windows.
OK, a subjective rating... I can accept that.
>>>> I use Firefox on Windows, including with Adblock Plus, and I agree it works
>>>> well, too - though I find a bit better luck with Pith Helmet. Either way,
>>>> both are excellent products (Safari and Firefox).
>>>
>>> I like Internet Explorer 7 (even in the non-RTM releases -- IE7 RC1 is
>>> extremely stable).
>>>
>>> Microsoft has made it just as secure as Firefox. In fact, many times,
>>> it is TOO secure for my tastes.
>>
>> I have not worked much with IE 7 beta. I do know that IE 6 is pretty bad.
>
> Microsoft has made a great deal of improvementin Internet Explorer.
I have read that... but largely from MS. Good to hear from others.
>>>> On a Mac I do not use Firefox because of its lack of "Mac-ness" - does not
>>>> use Services, does not use the spell checker, does not use Aqua buttons...
>>>> though it does use Aqua dialogs.
>>>>
>>>> I do sometimes use Firefox for some of its extensions, especially Refresh
>>>> Every... that comes in handy. There is a hack to do that for Safari, but
>>>> the Firefox one is far better integrated. I also prefer the tabs with close
>>>> buttons - that is better for me than the Firefox method. I will also say
>>>> the Find in Page feature of Firefox is far, far better than that offered by
>>>> the current version of Safari. And FasterFox is cool, too. From what I
>>>> know, each is "borrowing" from the other in their next versions...
>>>
>>> As I've tried to tell you people, programmers continually "steal" or
>>> "borrow" each other's ideas, though only a bad programmer will steal
>>> the actual code.
>>
>> I have no problem with programmers / companies learning from each other. I
>> do have a problem when they just try to blindly copy from each other... it
>> is an immoral act in my view. The lines to determine which is happening,
>> though, are blurry.
>
> Actually, snit, the law about violating copyrights only extends to the
> BINARY data, not the "look and feel".
I still see it as immoral.
>
> You really have a strange understanding of "immoral". "Immorality"
> only refers to sexual uncleanness.
What? Not in my view. It is immoral, for example, to lie or to kill an
innocent or to burn someone's house down.... at least in the vast majority
of cases.
TheLetterK
Your claim that Firefox is still in beta could be objectively verified,
therefore it is not an opinion. I was correcting your inaccuracy.
TheLetterK
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:07:17 GMT, John Smith <jo...@smith.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:10:08 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
>> <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
>>> Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
>>> offering (Safari).
>> Do you have any benchmarks to back that up, particularly the "much
>> faster than Safari" comment?
>>
>> http://internet.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/20/1438230
>>
>> Note that's with the old Safari - 1.3x, rather than the new one.
>>
>> Include the new one, and throw in the new Opera, and things get
>> interesting:
>>
>> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
>>
>> and even more commentary, including benchmarks showing Gecko browsers
>> lag WebKit kHTML browsers:
>> http://macintalk.com/index.php?id=136
>>
>> Care to revise your opinion?
>
> No, I do not. I prefer my own opinion over those of "experts".
Experts with benchmarks proving their case.
Donald L McDaniel
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:07:17 GMT, John Smith <jo...@smith.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:10:08 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
>>> <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, Camino is a rather good OS X browser (and is fully
>>>> Aquafied) as well as being very stable, and much faster than Apple's
>>>> offering (Safari).
>>> Do you have any benchmarks to back that up, particularly the "much
>>> faster than Safari" comment?
>>>
>>> http://internet.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/20/1438230
>>>
>>> Note that's with the old Safari - 1.3x, rather than the new one.
>>>
>>> Include the new one, and throw in the new Opera, and things get
>>> interesting:
>>>
>>> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
>>>
>>> and even more commentary, including benchmarks showing Gecko browsers
>>> lag WebKit kHTML browsers:
>>> http://macintalk.com/index.php?id=136
>>>
>>> Care to revise your opinion?
>>
>> No, I do not. I prefer my own opinion over those of "experts".
>
>Experts with benchmarks proving their case.
>
As I said, I prefer my own experience over benchmarks.
Donald L McDaniel
Go right ahead and "correct" all you desire, my friend. I will
continue to believe that Firefox is in continual beta.
If you want to talk about Camino, I will also agree that it is in
continual beta.
In fact, very little software for any platform is not in a continual
beta state.
But again, I don't need your opinion. Perhaps someone else does. But
I do not.
By the way, thanks for your grammar lessons. They are actually
helpful to me. I did not advance much beyond a couple of years in a
Business school, so I admit I am sorely lacking in English skills.
However, most people of Gen X and Y are very ar behind us in such
skills. This I attribute to the hip-hop culture which pervades our
society.