Wolfire Games Forums

Either that or it's a windows thing. Which it's not.

Renegade_Turner wrote:I have iTunes running, playing music right now. It's flawless. I don't see why people are always bashing iTunes. I think it's a fantastic program.

Bah, you kids and your fancy new computers that can run iTunes...

No, but seriously, my computer is slow as hell when the mouse so much as rolls over something made by Mac. I think that might be my computer more than the programs, but I've just taken to removing everything except Quicktime.

I don't 'bash' iTunes. I merely said that I dislike it. You don't need to share my beliefs, just don't hate on me for them.

Do you know any of the names of these magical programs, Zatoichi?

Makrond is oversensitive. No one implied they hated him. =/

Unless you have a CPU equivalent to something significantly worse than a 1.4 Ghz G4 (My CPU), iTunes should run fine…

Sorry i havent been on for a bit to reply- i was on holiday.

I completely understand Dave- good on ya.

I know no one implied that hated me, I'm just saying it now before it turns into a hate session...? Now even I can see how pathetic that sounds. Oh well, whatever.

Anywy, iApps on Windows need at least a 2GHz to run properly, in so far as my experience with them. Sadly, my 1.6 just can't keep up.

Plus, XP is a huge memory hog. My Pentium II with Windows 2000 can run most of them just fine.

I'm thinking that maybe a 2Ghz PC processor's actual performance might be something like a 1.4Ghz-1.6Ghz in mac terms. That's what it seems like sometimes, anyway.

BunnyWithStick wrote:Unless you have a CPU equivalent to something significantly worse than a 1.4 Ghz G4 (My CPU), iTunes should run fine…

iTunes runs fine on my 1 Ghz G4 Motorola PPC...according to this site:
http://kb.iu.edu/data/avrn.html
iTunes only requires 500 Mhz minimum to run on either an Apple or a PC machine. I don't know how old these requirements are or for what version...

BunnyWithStick wrote:I'm thinking that maybe a 2Ghz PC processor's actual performance might be something like a 1.4Ghz-1.6Ghz in mac terms. That's what it seems like sometimes, anyway.

Yes! Hooray, BwS gets it!

Plus, I just found out my motherboard is a Micro-ATX form factor which means it doesn't have all the really cool stuff that most Pentium 4s have (like hyperthreading). Sad, isn't it?

Makrond wrote:... Not because I have anything against Mac or anything, I just hate how much of a memory hog they are on Windows. Quicktime is enough for me, and even then I dislike it at the best of times.

The Mac, or Apple? "Mac" is the name of the computers Apple makes, and Apple is the company that makes the Mac

Sorry, reading "I hate Mac" gets me every time

As for QuickTime, unless it runs terribly, what do you have against it? I've tried just about all of the video players (RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, VLC, and MPlayer), and none of them compares to QuickTime ... though the only downside about QuickTime is you need QuickTime Pro to run fullscreen

Renegade_Turner wrote:Do you know any of the names of these magical programs, Zatoichi?

I can't vouch for their quality (being on a Mac), according to VersionTracker, there's one freeware program, and loads of shareware for the PC.

Makrond wrote:

BunnyWithStick wrote:I'm thinking that maybe a 2Ghz PC processor's actual performance might be something like a 1.4Ghz-1.6Ghz in mac terms. That's what it seems like sometimes, anyway.

Yes! Hooray, BwS gets it!

Plus, I just found out my motherboard is a Micro-ATX form factor which means it doesn't have all the really cool stuff that most Pentium 4s have (like hyperthreading). Sad, isn't it?

I don't know exactly what kind of PC he has, but someone I play Halo with gets serious comp lag when he's playing and listening to iTunes at the same time.

As I said, I don't know what kind of PC he has, but I've seen screenshots of his Halo, he's got rather nice graphics ... seriously, iTunes 1.0 ran perfectly in OS 9 on my iBook SE (366 MHz, 64 MB RAM at the time), and all the versions of iTunes that played on our iMac G4 (800 MHz) has worked flawlessly.

So it's either his PC hating iTunes, or Apple not being familiar with coding for Windows — then again, why would they?

But yeah, looks as though iTunes on PCs work either flawlessly, or terribly

Apple's software for Windows is really bad in my experience. Quicktime was locking up my computer whenever it checked for updates, so I had to uninstall it. ITunes ran very slowly, and automatically installed Safari without my permission. Safari itself on Windows is basically just a buggy version of Firefox.

Apple's Mac software is great, but sometimes I suspect that their Windows ports are designed to be slow and buggy to trick people into thinking that Windows itself is slow and buggy.

David wrote:Apple's Mac software is great, but sometimes I suspect that their Windows ports are designed to be slow and buggy to trick people into thinking that Windows itself is slow and buggy.

Well it would also give the impression to unknowing windows users that all Apple apps suck. The native apps would run faster and therefore just show up apple's apps. I doubt they'd do that purposefully.

Gah! People always suspect Apple of doing this kind of silly behind-the-scenes trickery.

Has anyone used Microsoft's copycat of itunes? It's an extension that comes with the new Windows media player. It can't do half the stuff iTunes can do and it uses like three times the processing power.

Same with real player, the new version also sucks.

I agree about Quicktime by the way, it's horrible on both platforms. VLC is my video player of choice. I've heard Mplayer is good but I've never gotten it to run. I don't know about iTunes on windows, but it's fine on OSX. Also, cocks.

iTunes is never buggy or slow for me.