• 0

iTunes for XP?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
WMP doesn't play nice with AAC files. You can download the Direct Show codecs over at 3ivx, associate M4A files with WMP and then double click your favorite AAC file and it should play (after asking you if the file is safe).

I imagine someone will get around to writting a WMA plugin for quicktime on windows, but at the moment the only apps I know that can deal with windows media files are xine, mplayer, and vlc - none of those have quicktime compatible plugins. Until this time Windows users had no real need for quicktime to do more than just play MOV files.

Without sounding too much like a jerk: this is the issue of encoding in non-standard audio formats. Using WMA puts up barriers to the non-windows world. Using Mpeg4 does the same, but the standard is well documented - so at least it was easy to make aac work on non-mac platforms.

If re-encoding using MP3 is an option for you - that might be something to consider. It will work everywhere, it's reasonably good quality/megabyte if you use LAME, and though not free - it's still free (as in beer).

So I can play AAC files in WMP, but can't put them in my library and stuff like that? I was looking forward to having AAC files on my comp since they're so much higher in quality than mp3s (space wise anyways) but I don't want to devote myself solely to iTunes, yet anyways.

  • 0

Fixed my issue that i had posted about earlyer. Seems i had a album that iTunes did not like so i removed it.

I then tried again to add my mp3 folder to the iTunes library and this time it worked perfect.

Also iTunes has not changed any of my folder or file names which is a good thing.

  • 0

This has a nice playlist layout but my god, it sure is a memory hog. IT is a CPU hog when Audio Enhancements are enabled. It adds 2 services that aren't even nessicary(iTunes Helper and iPod service). IT should only turn on the iPod service if you actually have drivers for an iPod installed on your system(meaning you have an iPod). At least you can disable the iPod Service which also disables the iTunes Helper. It doesn't automatically retrieve and display album art(you have to manually drag album art pics to the album art popup), It doesn't have a taskbar player and It doesn't even play video. I think I'll stick with WMP9.

post-12-1066348065.jpg

Edited by Zombie9920
  • 0
,Oct 16 2003, 22:33]
Anyone else having iTunes crash when adding a large folder of music to the library.

When i tell iTunes to add my mp3 folder which has well over 40 gigs in it, iTunes starts adding then after about a minute it crash's. If i add the folders one by one it has no problems but i'll damned if im adding that many folders maunally.

Will say that iTunes seems to have a much cleaner sound.

Yep, that happens to me too... I already uninstalled it, it?s not superior to WMP9 anyway.

Im not having any problem with adding large folders.

btw, care to explain how its not superior? :rolleyes::

1 - Well, for starters, apparently it has a bug (happened to somebody else that posted here, so it WILL happen to a lot of other people as well).

2 - And then it?s a slower, heavier piece of software than WMP9 (it also adds a service and a startup executable, whcih gobble up RAM). It doesn?t sound better than any of the media players I know IMO and the equalizer is pointless to me, as I like the sound as pure as it comes.

3 - Its media library philosophy is different from WMP?s but not better IMO, it?s a even a bit more confusing. It doesn?t retrieve Album cover art or media info from Mp3s, which is something that WMP does...

4- Also, it has that Mac look, which doesn?t combine with Windows at all.

It doesn?t have any feature that I need that WMP9 doesn?t have... and for the ones I need I?m better off with WMP.

  • 0
1 - Well, for starters, apparently it has a bug (happened to somebody else that posted here, so it WILL happen to a lot of other people as well).

Yeah, like WMP's security problems are the best display of programming in the world :rolleyes: I'm suprised a peice of software like this, developed in under a year, doesn't have more bugs, to be honest...

2 - And then it?s a slower, heavier piece of software than WMP9 (it also adds a service and a startup executable, whcih gobble up RAM). It doesn?t sound better than any of the media players I know IMO and the equalizer is pointless to me, as I like the sound as pure as it comes.
I'll give you this one, it's not as streamlined as WMP or other players, but it *is* new, so I think it's fair to give a chance in this regard.
3 - Its media library philosophy is different from WMP?s but not better IMO, it?s a even a bit more confusing. It doesn?t retrieve Album cover art or media info from Mp3s, which is something that WMP does...

I think the WMP way is confusing, personally. iTunes puts search and browse right next to each other. Browse is a three-paned format that narrows down choices as your select from left to right. It's a proven usable format, and you probably don't like it just because you're stuck thinking of WMP. Unfortunately, no matter how well you design the use of your applications, users may be stuck with another paradigm in mind. So, there's a hurdle to overcome there. Regardless, for people not as set in mind as yourself, the iTunes layout provides for more clear organization of your music without creating clutter (like the tree view of WMP can lead to very easily). Open up several trees in WMP and things start to get confusing from the end-user's perspective quickly, even though you may be used to it by now.

4- Also, it has that Mac look, which doesn?t combine with Windows at all.

Ok, so use a different theme or get over it. I could care less if it was purple and flashing as long as it plays the music I bought just fine. While there are options to spruce up our computer's appearance out there, as long as it's usable, it's done well, IMO.

  • 0

Usually Apple will go to the CLEAN versions of songs if they're on the front panel of the Music Store.

Here's an example of one... the 2Pac album.. if you click on the image on the front of the iTunes Music Store page, it'll take you to the clean version.

help1.jpg

and then select the correct version you would like to browse/download.

help2.jpg

and sometimes Singles will appear like this, so you can see what's what...

help3.jpg

Hope that helps.

  • 0

Can anyone help me, I am getting a error message that reads like this:

Unable to create InstallDriver instance,

Return code: -2147024894

that's why I clicked on the install icon. I ahve redownloaded just in case the file was curupted but no it still does the same thing. I have windows xp pro and a amd 2000+ with a 5600ultra.

  • 0
Yeah, like WMP's security problems are the best display of programming in the world :rolleyes: I'm suprised a peice of software like this, developed in under a year, doesn't have more bugs, to be honest...

I'll give you this one, it's not as streamlined as WMP or other players, but it *is* new, so I think it's fair to give a chance in this regard.

I think the WMP way is confusing, personally. iTunes puts search and browse right next to each other. Browse is a three-paned format that narrows down choices as your select from left to right. It's a proven usable format, and you probably don't like it just because you're stuck thinking of WMP. Unfortunately, no matter how well you design the use of your applications, users may be stuck with another paradigm in mind. So, there's a hurdle to overcome there. Regardless, for people not as set in mind as yourself, the iTunes layout provides for more clear organization of your music without creating clutter (like the tree view of WMP can lead to very easily). Open up several trees in WMP and things start to get confusing from the end-user's perspective quickly, even though you may be used to it by now.

Ok, so use a different theme or get over it. I could care less if it was purple and flashing as long as it plays the music I bought just fine. While there are options to spruce up our computer's appearance out there, as long as it's usable, it's done well, IMO.

Dude, he asked why I uninstalled it, and I answered him... a program that crashes in its first and every run is not promising... WMP9 is not perfect, but it works much better for me. We?re just in the first hours since ITunes?s launch... it might be more buggy than you think.

And if a program is purple and flashing... I?ll never use it:whistle:le:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!