Apple Releases iTunes for Windows 1691
Billy_D_Goat writes "Today at a special media event, Apple Computer released their acclaimed iTunes Music Store and stand alone player for Windows XP and 2000. They also announced a partnership to sell music on AOL and give away songs with special bottles of Pepsi. You can learn more and download it from here. "
Great! kind of (Score:2)
Re:Great! kind of (Score:2)
Re:Great! kind of (Score:2)
1155: File F:\INSTMSIA.EXE not found
guess I'll have to find an win32 box, and copy over the
installed files
Bets on when? (Score:2)
Re:Bets on when? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe you didn't hear, the Cubs lost.
Re:Great! kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, before you start flaming me, please listen to my intent:
Apple: puts out uber-cool, lickin' your chops iPod, but makes it only available on Macs (to start). Puts out actually workable online music service and makes is only available on Macs (to start). People love both of these things and buy them in hoards. Mac users have status and coolness as they're the only ones that can get this awesome stuff... at least for little while.
Linux: Can we run this on WINE? In other words, can we take this cool stuff from another platform and try to make it work on ours. You probably can and probably will, but meanwhile you have to wait for some point in time AFTER everyone else has it. Let's face it, cool is very often about being first... about having something others don't have.
What Linux needs is innovation. They need something that only they have (at least for a little while) that everyone else wants. That is how it will build mind share, not by saying "look, we can do it too (if you're only willing to wait a while)"
TW
Re:Great! kind of (Score:4, Informative)
There is plenty of innovating going on - but expecting Linux users to just ignore exciting developments on other platforms is idiotic. Why can't Linux innovate _and_ use other people's innovations? Total originality all the time is highly over-rated, if you ask me.
-Erwos
Re:Great! kind of (Score:3, Insightful)
The Linux architecture and concepts should foster experimental and new designs for software. Why do people have to duplicate existing apps? Apple didn't when they created iTunes.
iTunes is DEAD simple to use, manages a database of your music easily, rips cd's asynchronously, burns a
Re:Great! kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, I've been running Linux since kernel version 0.99pl15, and am running servers with RedHat 7.3/8/9, debian, and embedded linux-ppc based on YellowDog linux.
All I see now are me-too web browsers, me-too developer IDE's, me-too office applications, me-too games, and me-too multimedia apps. Yes I know there is value in making a word processor that feels like Microsoft Word, but where are the experimental word processors that go beyond Word, GUI and functionality-wise? Word is not and never was a good GUI design. It makes me really want to write up my own...
The innovative software that I have I've seen running on Linux was not written with Linux in mind but was originally written for Unix/X11 before Linux existed.
Back to the iTunes topic, I installed iTunes on a WIn2000 machine. On my Mac, I ran iTunes and clicked 'Share Library'. On the Win2000 machine my Mac's music library automatically appeared in the left panel. No complex setup either. It is these little things and attention to detail that make iTunes more innovative than any music player on Linux.
I myself am guilty of promoting complexities. Since I know how to set up NFS and Samba and Apache and Shoutcast, I would just use one of these tools on my own Linux boxes to accomplish the same thing with XMMS or X11AMP or even mpg321 with a cgi php4 script front-end with apache and the mp3 meta-data extracted into a PostgreSQL table for faster searches. All the tools are there, and as a programmer, I find it fun to implement these kinds of things - and I HAVE spent time doing this for my own system.
Because I did it myself like this, I forget about the fact that there would be a much easier way for the end user who maybe does not have these tools or does not know how to use these tools, or does not care - he just wants his music on one computer to be played back on another computer without having to think about file sharing or audio streaming software or DNS issues or IP addresses or IP ports or protocols.
Click on 'Share Music' on computer A.
Click on shared music on computer B.
Press 'Play'
Brilliant Idea!
--jeff++
Re:Great! kind of (Score:3, Funny)
I just wish I was a big enough computer wiz to get sound in Debian under a 2.4 kernel. But nooo...
My newx computer purchase will be a Mac.
Re:Great! kind of (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does linux need iTunes when Linux already has mpg321, postgresql, cdparanoia, sox, LAME, cdrecord, samba, and php with apache? Just connect them up and you have an even MORE powerful system than iTunes! Amaze your computer-illiterate friends with your knowledge of arcane things!
Meanwhile, I run iTunes and now I have more time available to post to slashdot.
--jeff++
More than just the store and ripping. (Score:3, Interesting)
Being able to easily share music over a LAN. How easy? My roommate (who runs Windows) starts iTunes and voila, he's sees my shared music. He even sees my playlists. He clicks a single button to share his music and instantly he appears as source in my list on iTunes. No mounting of disks, no mucking around with servers, it's just there and it works. Instant gratification.
Oh yea, the interface is so much better than anything else out there (except those that are attempting t
Did you notice the headline at apple.com? (Score:2, Funny)
Now that's funny.
Download link (Score:2, Informative)
Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:2)
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:2)
Sweet, absolutely. Thank you!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, get some music taste
Re:Can PC users test it and report? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's great because it 1) uses wavelet compression and 2) has two modes, lossy and lossless and 3) the lossy compression is an order of magnitude better than regular JPEG.
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:3, Informative)
Case
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, in the mini version of the window on Mac OS X there is no time slider. It sounds like it is exactly the same on Windows as it is on Mac OS X
Send Apple this as a suggestion. Apple has been very receptive to us
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:3, Funny)
You didn't want to play songs about pimpin' ho's and killin' wangstahs at a sensetive occasion like your wedding? Sounds like it would have been "ghetto fabulous".
Re:Can PC users tets it and report? (Score:4, Informative)
I then do a Windows Explorer search for all
Other than the fact that it's fucked up my music library and I'll now have to spend hours sorting and renaming files, it's great.... Grrrr...
Audiobooks! (Score:2)
For us Mac users: The updates for iTunes 4.1 and QuickTime 6.4 are both on softwareupdate.
Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:3, Insightful)
128 MB RAM minimum/256 RAM recommended
OK, I know RAM is cheap these days, and most people should have at least 128MB on modern machines, but I just have to ask--why would a simple network file retrieving application (let's face it, that's all this is with a little security thrown in) need that much memory? Damn...
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:2)
And besides, aren't those just the minimum Windows requirements?
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:2)
MCH
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:5, Informative)
So, I'd say it does a bit more than a "simple network file retrieving application" - never mind that a Win2K/XP machine with less than 256MB RAM is going to be awfully painful (my Thinkpad had only 384MB and it was painful if I tried to actually use multiple apps simultaneously).
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone see the requirements? (Score:2)
While it IS possible to run 2000 with under 128mb of RAM, it's not pretty, and won't run most mp3 players without needing to swap, which gives the whole system a big performance hit.
Long and short: you could probably get by with less than 128mb on a win2k machine, but you're not going to be able to run Word or IE while listening to music.
XP on the other hand, can barely sustain itself on 128mb, and 256mb is only marginally acceptable.
Either way, if you're runn
It's also an MP3 player. (Score:3, Informative)
I've gotta say, while I'm a Mac fan. Apple likes to eat up RAM like candy. If I look at Process Viewer right now of all the crazy stuff I'm running on my iBook, the Apple software is chewing up the most (and we're talking about a calendar, and a mail program here...). I can imagine the Windows equal, done by Apple, may experience some of the same issues.
In general, Apple == get more RAM. I think even dedicated Windows users would be a lit
Re:It's also an MP3 player. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're running OS X, eventually most of your RAM will be getting used for something. It doesn't necessarily need that much RAM, but its not going purge anything from RAM until somebody else needs it -just in case it is needed again. Basically works like a cache.
You need to open up a terminal window and run top to see what's reeeally in use.
Re:It's also an MP3 player. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's also an MP3 player. (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, yes and no. The philosophy of Mac OS X (and quite a few other operating systems, especially Unix-like ones) is that you should use as much RAM as you can. RAM access is usually much faster than hard drive access, so why not fill up RAM with stuff that you might possibly need from the hard drive at some point.
Memory management in Mac OS X goes like this: boot up, take up a good percentage of available RAM and place system stuff in there. Every time a window is created, make a backing store for faster and smoother access. If the user runs a program, load as much stuff related to that program as possible. If the user quits a program keep most of it in memory anyways, they might want it a minute later. They access the hard drive? Read into memory the next few sectors beyond what the user asked for simply because they may want them next.
All of this fills up RAM pretty quickly and makes the operating system look bloated. Actually though, it's highly efficient. It's usually much quicker to free up RAM then it is to fill it. Even in the case where you need to page out memory (store it back on disk to make room for something else), it's still not much slower than having the memory empty in the first place. This is why having more RAM makes Mac OS X faster, it uses the extra space to be more efficient.
To show you what I mean try launching Internet Explorer (or any other large program). Time how long it takes to launch, then quit it and start it again. Time how long it takes to launch for the second time. For IE I got 4 seconds for the first launch and then 2 seconds for every launch after that. This is because IE is now cached in RAM and doesn't need to be loaded from the hard drive to be launched.
So again, you are perfectly right in that Mac OS X takes up a lot of RAM. However this is actually a feature. After all RAM is pretty cheap now and I think most people would trade off a few bucks to have their system more responsive. On the other hand I do know that Mac OS X does cope decently with low-RAM situations. It can run just fine on a machine with 256 megs of RAM but it will seem slower than a similar machine with 512 megs of RAM. I'd say that 512 megs of RAM works well with Mac OS X, any less you see slowdowns, any more and you don't notice much improvement under normal use.
Awesome (Score:2)
Plus, I hope this means that true Play Count support has arrived for PC users (you need at least firmware 1.3 for that wot work though)
Other updates today (Score:5, Informative)
Just downloaded it. pretty sweet (Score:5, Informative)
After a while (and when in bakground) those numbers drop to a more reasonable 9+4+3 so it's feasible on a lesser machine. But prepare for some heavy trashing on launch.
Music sharing between OSX & XP works like a charm, even with dynamic playlists. I still gotta try out how my iPod responds when connected to the firewire port on the PC.
Right now i' mgonna do a little stresstesting with iTunes+media player + warcraft, playing all together. The wife sure is going to love that sound
Re:Just downloaded it. pretty sweet (Score:2)
Ehm, dude it's 20:00 here. most folks don't work at that hour. Tomorrow at 7:30 I'll be on the job again.
ARRGH! (Score:2)
New iPod accessories (Score:5, Informative)
More Goodies ... Even for Mac Users (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, the catalog still seems to be growing at a healthy clip - unexpected holdouts such as the Grateful Dead are now available and Audible audiobooks are now available through the store.
I still wish that they would keep track of single song purchases and deduct them from the album price (a kind of installment plan) but a nice feature bump nonetheless.
I also like the headline on Apple's homepage - "Hell Froze Over!"
First Impressions (Score:5, Informative)
Now I just get to tell my family about how buying the music is better than copying it for free.
Not bad (Score:2)
Long-term effect on Apple? (Score:2)
Nobody bought an Apple machine because iTunes was the killer app, but most people that use it for managing archives of music are pretty steadfast about it being the best soft
Alternate download site (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Alternate download site (Score:3, Insightful)
So? It doesn't make sense for Apple, when coming out with a new piece of software, to support versions that Microsoft doesn't even support. All the 9x series are legacy now, except perhaps 98/98SE which is in "extended support" or something for a few more months.
It's one plank in the wall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one of the best parts : allowances (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowance accounts and gift certificates Now you can give your kids a legal way to download their favorite songs with music allowance accounts, which give them access to the store without requiring a credit card and set a limit on how much they can spend. It's easy to set up recurring allowances which refresh every month, and you can establish different allowance accounts for each of your children. You can also buy music gift certificates -- just the thing for your favorite college student or birthday friend. A counter in the iTunes Music Store shows how much credit is left in allowances and gift certificates.
Best Windows App EVER. (Score:3, Funny)
Followed by the awesome, "The best Windows app ever."
Anyone else picture Comic Book Guy when they read this?
Impact (Score:2)
I think this thing will still be huge.
Po
Apple, the Consumer Electronics Company (Score:2)
What should be interesting is not iTunes playback on Windows, or even the Music Store, but the wizardry Apple had to do to make iTunes burn CDs as its Mac counterpart. Consider: While Apple makes iTunes to work with drives that it knows are present in Macintosh systems, it has to consider the myriad of CD and DVD burners out in the PC world. Hell, even dedicated PC burning software goes nuts on PCs, sometimes.
I'm thinking it leve
Their music catalog... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just one reason why iTunes will likely kick the ass of its competitors for the Windows market--name one other player that has a promo even a tenth as big as this one. Apple is playing hardball, and there aren't many companies out there that can compete with an Apple/Pepsi combination, to say nothing of their partnership with AOL...
Re:Whoa. (Score:4, Funny)
Although I can't imagine they did it for such glorious reason. I think they did it to spawn a flamewar about pepsi vs cocacola taste.
Pepsi tastes like shit. No hit me with your flames
Wrong thing to say (Score:2)
"Apple Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson has said that the Windows launch of iTunes would be a Trojan horse".
My, that certainly is a bad choice of terms for a computing product.
Not necessarily... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a term Apple has used before; IIRC, in the Copeland days, Apple was offering developers it's "Yellow Box" APIs (an early version of Cocoa, I would guess--NextStep wasn't in the picture, though), which would allow them to write to new APIs but with the current Mac OS (Classic)
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:3, Funny)
It's way nicer than Office XP.
Winamp 2.x MP4 Plug-in (Score:2)
I think you might have to change the extension to
-Mr. Fusion
installer problem with Panther dev seed (Score:2)
The installer was unhappy (wouldn't go past license agreement page) on my machine, but I'm running a Panther developer seed (not the GM, that's not on ADC yet) so perhaps I have a buggy copy of Installer.app on my machine. The command-line version of the installer worked fine, though. Just in case anyone else out there needs to use it, here's the magic invocation:
installer -pkg /path/to/itunes4.mpkg -target /
Works Great (Score:2)
Anyhow, Sharing from iTunes between platforms works great. Actually, both versions work great. Interesting to see that a lot of the rumor sites (www.macrumors.com for example) were predicting WMA support. But there is none. Not that I miss it or anything
"Hell froze over" (Score:2)
Too bad "Hell Freezes Over" isn't available in the iTunes music store
I've installed the Windows 2000 version (Score:2)
The app is completely identical to the OS X version. I have a first generation 5GB iPod and my Windows machine has no firewire, so I cannot test to see if the Mac iPod will work with this.
First impressions (Score:2)
1)Looks and feels just like the mac version- everything is the same so far as I can tell.
2)Unlike quicktime for windows, win itunes is every bit as responive as the mac version
3) Visualizations are the same as the mac version
4) downloaded the installer at 450k/sec. Go Akamai!
5) Batch ID3 tag renaming as fast. almost instant for a group of 5 tracks
6) New feature allows for one touch backup of your collection onto cds AND dvds. Just swap the discs as need
iPod with Mac and Windows (Score:2)
Insanely great (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The Rendezvous stuff for sharing the tunes works well. I can now share 80GB of music with my wife's IBM Thinkpad.
2) My CD drive was recognized without any problems. I can rip and burn without any problems at all. Goodbye CDex, et. al.
3) The response time on the store seems to be pretty good. The uptake on the new Windows version will probably be a lot slower than it was for the Mac version (hundreds of thousands of the Windows faithful are NOT waiting anxiously for Steve to say "it's available today".)
4) It's kinda weird seeing the Aqua UI controls and metal skins in a Windows app, but it supports my theory that iTunes is a lead in for both iPods & regular hardware. Get them used to the way things are in the Mac world, and then get them to switch.
Well done Apple. I'm impressed!
Re:Insanely great (Score:3, Informative)
The celebrity playlists are pretty cool too.. complete with descriptions on why they like the song. I already found a few songs/bands I never heard of and sound pretty cool.
I especially like the 30 second preview of the song, which loads really fast. Im not sure if I'm actually going to buy anything, but it sure is a good way to find that song that's been nagging you in the back of
Re:Insanely great (Score:3, Insightful)
GNU/Linux to Apple: Ford Mustand (Score:2)
I love the Mac, but the machine. I still run GNU/Linux and Gnome on it.
Screen Shots here (Score:2, Informative)
Do your worst =)
I can't believe the title on Apple's page ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Hell Froze Over"
That's the best laugh I've seen in a long time
apps & services (Score:2, Interesting)
Screenshot! (Score:2, Informative)
iTunes rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, having followed the launch even this afternoon and downloading immediately, I can tell you fidelity of the experience on Windows is good: everything is the same as Mac OS X. The look and feel will be recognizable as similar to QuickTime--the brushed metal look so often reviled among older Mac die-hards. Interestingly, I entered the same account information I use on my Mac at home, but that does not allow me to re-download music already purchased onto this machine at the office; if I want it here again (outside of my home network), I need to buy it again.
The Music Store itself appears inside iTunes; it's just another bookmark, like your playlists, your purchased music, any CD you have in your drive, and any other computers on your local network sharing music through Rendezvous. You can play music off another computer with Rendezvous, but you can't add those songs to one of your own playlists, or download / copy them to your machine.
The experience of using the Music Store inside iTunes is a little like a browsere experience, but on steriods: the interface is more sophisticated, but still based on following links for navigation, backward and forward buttons, a home page, etc. On many pages, lists of highlighted albums appear in scrollable horizontal strips of album cover thumbnails. Definitely more than a browser, more than a website.
If you spend time with iTunes, you discover that more and more music arrives everyday. Things you didn't see when you did a search last week are now there. Over time, it starts to have the same jaw-dropping effect as Napster did in it's heyday: all the music you ever wanted, right there.
Re:iTunes rules (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if you don't want to go to the trouble of copying it yourself. You can put your purchases on up to three machines you authorize to play them, and from the info today it seems that includes whatever mix of Macs and PCs you want; you can move files f
My Review (Score:3, Informative)
My Sister has a Mac and has used iTunes since the spring - and she has told me on several times how much she loves it.
I don't own a Mac (or an iPod), but for my sister to give a glowing review is a rarity - so I figured I'd try the windows version when it came out.
I'm a 20% Windows user. The other 80% of the time I'm a linux guy, with Linux on my main machines at work and at home. But I also have a Windows 2000 PC at home for things like Visio and Microsoft Money [blush].
So I fired up that w2k machine and then fired up Mozilla and downloaded the iTunes for Windows software. The download was uneventful. I fired up the installer.
The installer is much like any other Windows installer - a license agreement and some basic questions about the install process, and you're good to go. I did have to reboot after the installation, but hey, I'm used to that with Windows.
After the reboot I fired up iTunes. I checked out the internet radio stuff (very easy to use), and then I went right to the iTunes store and started poking around. I did some searches for some stuff I'd expect them to have (Pink Floyd, Beck, etc)... and found everything that I was looking for.
The search feature was very easy to use: basically, you just type what you're looking for and it gives you a sorted result set. Pretty basic stuff.
From there I "previewed" some of the results. Simply clicking on a line item plays a portion of the song. It was good quality, and they had a nice fade-in/fade-out.
From there, I decided "what the hell" and downloaded Beck's latest album. The price was $9.99, which is a bit cheaper than the cheap stores.
iTunes asked me to log in or to set up a new account. Of course, I chose to set up a new account. It asked me for some very basic information - the biggest thing being my credit card information.
Then the download began. It was fast and uneventful.
After the download, I figured I'd burn the Beck album on a CD. Usually this is a pain in the butt for me, since I have crappy manufacturer-provided CD burning software.
This is where iTunes was INCREDIBLE. It opened my CDR drive and asked me to insert a disk. I did. From there, it told me to click "burn". I did. And then it burned the album.
It was way easy. You have to ask why other software is so much more a pain in the butt.
15 minutes later the CD was done, and iTunes gave me a little "ding!". I popped the new CD out of the drive and played it in my regular old CD player. Flawless.
That's all I've done so far.
It's impressive how simple iTunes is and how well it works. It doesn't do amazing things - but it does what it does very very well.
Now I see. iTunes is simple and elegant. I'm going to try to download the same music off the net and see how well I do. Although I've downloaded music off the net before, it has never been so freakin' simple.
I hope Linux developers take heed of Apple's progress in simplicity. I'm not an Apple fan, but I must say that iTunes is on the top of the heap so far.
Now I wish there was an iTunes for Linux.
Re:So now (Score:2)
Re:While I like the idea... (Score:2)
Re:While I like the idea... (Score:3, Informative)
That's what I'll end up doing, anyways. (Car mp3 players are cool
Lossless (Score:2)
CD ->MP3 is lossy, but blame that on MP3 ^^
Re:While I like the idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
or maybe you're just upset that there's a resonable compromise between DRM and free use rights. Come on, if you want legit digital downloads, there's going to have to be some restrictions.
Hehe (Score:2)
Quicktime
iMovie
iTunes
iPhoto
I can also use it on my iPod
I can burn audio CDs
I have streamed it across the network
I can burn data CDs
I can convert/transcode to AIFF/MP3/etc
So download the iTunes4PC and give it a shot
Re:Hehe (Score:2)
Re:Hehe (Score:2)
Do you know anything about FairPlay? (Score:2)
1) Play it on any three computers (that have iTunes) at a time.
2) Burn it to as many CDs as you like.
2a) Rerip it from CD.
3) Put it on as many iPods as you like.
What about these exactly do you consider draconian? The music companies are not going agree to a DRM-less system and, frankly, Apple's FairPlay doesn't get in my way at all and is
Re:Do you know anything about FairPlay? (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily. I agree that you have a fair use right to encode any CD you legally purchase from the store to any format that you want. In this case you are not licensing anything, you are purchasing a product and can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of US copyright law. However, when you use
Re:While I like the idea... (Score:2)
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
Re:iTunes for Windows Screenshots? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iTunes for Windows Screenshots? (Score:3, Informative)
running on Windows 2003 Server. Memory usage is little bigger than other mp3 players, but I have 1gig of ram, so it's a non-issue.
Re:Target (Score:2)
Re:Target (Score:2)
Re:I feel like a Cubs fan... (Score:2)
Needless to say, I was very happy when it was fixed (although there are still proxy problems with Safari &
Just hang in there, I am sure there will be a patch or workaround soon. Trust me, it is worth the wait.
Re:I feel like a Cubs fan... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Authorize your work computer.
2. Drag the purchased music files from your iTunes player to your desktop on your home pc to make a copy of them.
3. Transfer the copies to your work PC.
4. drag the copied files into iTunes on your work PC to import them.
5. Delete the copied files on both machines.
6. Enjoy your music at work.
Re:Default rip mode is AAC remember to change it (Score:2)
Do yourself a favor (Score:2)
No loss, essentially.
You *may* find your music habits substantially improved with smart playlists, song ratings, library sharing and the jukebox... so possible gains.
Re:I love this but Windows version doesn't maximiz (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac OS and the QuickTime APIs have no concept of a "Multiple Document Interface" as Microsoft calls it. MDI is a Microsoft Windows exclusive concept that how MS originally got around some of Apple's early "look and feel" litigation. There is also some historical reasons for why Apple never adopted this kind of interface.
When Multifinder was introduced to an earlier Mac OS, it was considered desirable for a user to see content from windows between applications. Macs previously used "desk accessories" to approximate multitasking before, and this UI decision helped smooth the transition. Letting applications only have window scale control, rather than the full screen, eventually allowed Apple to discontinue the DA concept in favor of microapplications.
In addition, as the Mac OS developed, Apple started advocating drag-and-drop data manipulation. This requires that both the source window and destination window be visible for a drag operation to occur; this continued emphasis is why OS X now has the trash can in the Dock and Panther includes an "Expose" feature to make all windows visible at once.
Mac users are accustomed to bouncing between applications readily while most Windows apps seem to be designed for exclusive, one at a time use. Other interface quirks, like floating verses anchored toolbars and the global menubar, are extensions of this differing emphasis in multitasking.
Re:haven't seen complaints about the SELECTION yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence, when you launch a service, you make the most profit by first including the 20% of content that will encompass most of your sales. You later fill in the remainder to satisfy the others.
In the five or so months since iTMS has been
Re:99 cents is too high (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I agree that