Apple iTunes - 6.0

it's iTunes 5.1, or maybe 5.2. It isn't itunes 6.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm half-certain they jumped to 6 at least partly as a joke. The keynote speech went something like "We released iTunes 5 just 5 weeks ago. Now, its time for a new version. So we're calling it ... iTunes 6!" (audience laughs).

On the other hand, I suspect that their release schedule for the two versions had been mucked up severely. Think about iTunes 5. Aside from the new interface, there weren't really many changes. But in iTunes 4.3 through to 4.9, Apple introduced video capabilities, lyrics and artwork, photo support and podcasts. I suspect that all of these new features were meant to be released for iTunes 5, but the actual release of iTunes 5 had to be pushed back for some reason.

At the same time, iTunes 6 launched with an adequate collection of music videos, and only 5 TV shows. I suspect that Apple's original plan was to release iTunes 5 (and the nano) at least a few months earlier than they actually did. I also suspect they planned releasing iTunes 6 and the video iPod a couple of months later - that they were aiming for a pre-Christmas launch and actually had the iPod video ready ahead of schedule. Had it taken longer to finish the iPod video, then iTunes 6 would have been launched with at least three times as many TV shows.

The only thing I'm really annoyed at is Apple still haven't added a way to set the "Skip in Party Shuffle" option for more than one track at a time. I have a hundred or so comedy stand-up acts and interviews that I simply don't want to come up in party-shuffle, and at this stage I have to click through each one to be able to set this option.
 
Maybe they want to catch up to Windows Media Player in version numbering? ;) ... Well: Who cares, really. As long as it hasn't got six notes in the icon... I rather find worrying that they always talk about "iTunes" when they mean iTunes Music Store, and let's be clear: The "new" features of iTunes 6 are actually features in the store (online!) not features of the application. I know, clear, they want to mix those lines and let us grasp iTunes and the store as one thing, but I don't think Safari jumps to version 3 only because I update _my_ website...
 
Well I finally downloaded a tv show I bought on Wednesday early this morning. It worked except now I know why they said minimumo of 500 mhz G3 - the movie is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO choppy on a 333 Mhz G3. Though I shouldn't expect to run the latest software on a 6 year old machine (Introduced May 99). I have the RAM required but still there are minimum specifications for a reason. I finally stopped updating my OS at 10.3.9 because (a) I was too cheap to buy Tiger and (b) I don't have built in FireWire (thank God for a PC card ) - which means I need a USB 2 PC Card to use the new iPod Video.
 
Well, they're H.264 - and that _does_ require quite a bit of oomph on the computer - even for low-res movies. I guess you _do_ push it a little with a beige G3... Do you _really_ want to spend your money on USB-2 cards and iPods instead of upgrading to a, say, Mac mini?
 
no it a powerbook g3 but same processer - wow when i think i was using that in a beige g3 in high school in 98 wow - does make my comp seem old. I was debating macmini but after using it at the apple store it seems so slow compared to iMac G5. Ideally I want a laptop which is why I don't think ibooks are strong enough yet either (same as MacMini). decisions decisions
 
H.264 on any G3 (even 900+MHz) is an experience in and of itself. Much better off with a G4 or G5...[begin dream]one of these days maybe I'll even buy a new one.[end dream].

I just bought a copy of Lost just to see what was up. Worked alright on the iBook...quality wasn't too bad either. Downloading was nice and quick...then again I'm on the University's network at the moment so... <G>
 
Looks like Apple has worked out whatever problem was preventing the previews from working. They run fine now for me. I just had to go back to the main iTMS page and navigate back to them, because for some reason it still wouldn't work when I was using the "remembered" page.

The quality really isn't so bad, considering the resolution. Definitely better than VCD (as expected). Lower resolution than SVCD, but fewer artifacts, so...hard to say.

Edit: I just watched the Lost clips, and those look a lot worse. Darker scenes typically look worse in all codecs, so I guess that's no surprise. That really makes me wish they were higher quality. That's So Raven looks pretty nasty, too, even though it's very bright. Hmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top