iTunes for Windows is out

[Asher]

Just out of curiousity, Drake...how can you have the balls to criticize me when it's you that clearly have problems with this debate.

Like, for example, in this iTunes thread, where we're arguing specifically about Apple not letting other people play iTMS-downloaded songs, you just now claim that you weren't talking about that all along -- but the "vanilla AAC" that Apple doesn't even frickin' use.

Just what the hell are you doing, aside from running around in circles like a chicken with its head cut off?

Edit: And what's the point in saying MPEG4-AAC is a standard anyway, when what Apple uses is obviously not a standard? Was this an intentional way for you to mislead people into thinking Apple's AAC-derived format is a standard, or were you just ignorant then and denying it now?

[Drake Tungsten]

*shrug* I agree with Asher mostly.

I have no problem with that, since you argue in a reasonable fashion. My beef with Asher isn't his views, but the way he goes about airing them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I have no problem with that, since you argue in a reasonable fashion. My beef with Asher isn't his views, but the way he goes about airing them.

You have a beef with me because you have the debating skills of a mentally-handicapped llama.

I argue in a reasonable fashion, too, full of logic, reasoning, and links to facts. As I recall, it's Agathon that puts people on ignore that he debates with and you that calls the other person a liar incessantly.

I don't call either of those reasonable, at least I debate the topic at hand.

I'm confrontational in my debates. I won't sit around sipping tea and politely nodding my head when somebody goes on and on about how Blue and Red are the same colors, I'll tell them that Blue and Red are certainly distinct colors, damnit. Some people can't handle that, apparently. They'd prefer somebody coddle them.

[Q Classic]

*shrug* I agree with Asher mostly.

ya, i do too, at least in the notion that aac isn't open.

although with his allegation that you have the debating skills of a mentally-handicapped llama, i don't.

i did download itunes and try it... and i have to say, i still don't like it. it runs a lot smoother at my home computer than the work computer, which is odd, because my work computer is slightly more powerful: athlon 2200+ v 1.7ghz p4. i do think availible ram might have something to do with performance, though: 512 mb @ work v 768 @ home, and the one at home as a bunch of registry/services performance tweaks too... more than the ones that i've put on the computers here.

[Q Classic]

that said, i still prefer winamp2. i might look into what this new-fangled library thing is in winamp5, but i don't think i'll be using it much.

---

blue and red are the same colors if you're a dog and are colorblind... they're just different shades of grey.

which is the same color by certain definitions.

[Drake Tungsten]

Gotta love free publicity...

[Agathon]

Well, over a million people have downloaded itunes for Windows in the first three days of its release and Apple has sold over a million songs in the same period. Not bad for a start.

Anyway, here's a couple of good reviews

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/19/0053242.shtml?tid=107&tid=141&tid=187&tid=188

and a slightly more critical (but fair) one

http://arstechnica.com/****erdesk/03q2/i-tunes-1.html

[Asher]

I found some more things I strongly dislike about iTunes:

It creates two additional Windows services which run all the time and suck up even more RAM than the bloaty program itself.

I went in and disabled "GEARSecurity" (Apple's service that allows you to burn discs with iTunes, the same one which crashes Windows 2000 on boot), and the "iPod Service".

Apple really is a totally crap software developer.

Here's an idea: load the "GEARSecurity" stuff when someone wants to burn a disc, and load the iPod crap when somebody connects an iPod. They're called dynamic link libraries for a reason, numbskulls.

[Asher]

BTW, from Agathon's link:

AAC is not an open standard, but was developed by the MPEG group, which includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia. As a result any software or hardware that uses AAC has to pay a license fee.

Suck it down, Drake.

Weren't you talking about how I could never admit when I was wrong?

[tinyp3nis]

I've probably missed most of these, but form the ones I've seen this quote brings up an interesting point.

Jesus, this is why I can't stand debating with you. Every ****ing post is filled with inaccuracies (at best) and outright lies (at worst). The worst part is that you won't ever admit you're wrong, even when caught. You just try to change the subject and go on like nothing happened.

Which one of you ever has in a thread like these?

[Agathon]

And I've found links saying that AAC is an open standard. This is a purely semantic debate, which is what Drake was saying.

You lose.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And I've found links saying that AAC is an open standard. This is a purely semantic debate, which is what Drake was saying.

You lose.

Q Cubed was saying it was a semantic debate, Drake was saying it's an open standard because people can see how it works by looking at the ISO papers.

Not to mention that I'm sure you can find links saying AAC is an open standard, you can also find links saying the holocaust never happened.

AAC is not an open standard, because open standard means you can use the standard without being charged for it. Being able to see how it works does not make it an open standard, because you cannot use any of that information unless you pay for a license. This is, by definition, a proprietary system since it is both copyrighted and licensable material. In order for something to be open, it must be possible to legally use it and modify it without paying and without legal reprecussions (ie, open source).

In no way, shape, or form is AAC an open standard.

Furthermore, this whole debate is meaningless because Apple doesn't use the MPEG4-AAC ISO standard, they use their own proprietary mix with Fairplay.

Which means the Mac side has been deliberatly trying to mislead people, by saying iTunes uses AAC and AAC is an open standard, while evil MS uses its proprietary WMA.

You both lose, and you get additional deductions for your last minute weasle-attempt.

BTW, so much for ignoring me. I knew you read the posts.

[Asher]

Here is the de-facto definition of Open Standards, by the same guy who wrote the Open Source Definition and father of open source (also 12-year veteran of Pixar):

http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

(Q Cubed linked this already)

Any other definitions are by people who simply don't know what they're talking about -- period.

[Drake Tungsten]

And I've found links saying that AAC is an open standard. This is a purely semantic debate, which is what Drake was saying.

The substantive debate was lost a long time ago. I wanted to discuss the effects the iTunes Music Store would have on Microsoft's plans for WMA, but that got jacked pretty quickly onto the irrelevant argument about the meaning of "open" standard.

[Asher]

The worst part is that you won't ever admit you're wrong, even when caught. You just try to change the subject and go on like nothing happened.