Linux Windows debate

perspectives on the Open Source community vs Microsoft

Back to sfsw.net

Monday, March 16, 2009

Review Windows Media Player 11 vs iTunes (Windows) Part ii

Apple's iTunes

Apple manifests as absolute genius when it comes to user interfaces. Being used to the paradigm of WinAmp and often put off by the need to intervene - music is not management of things. The update install failures over years gradually accumulate and you start to think - this software is not going anywhere. My friend with a Mac - well he managed a huge music library with iTunes. He found doing fiddly things too annoying. What did iTunes have that made it easy. It seemed very confusing to me, the way it organised itself.

So I installed iTunes on Windows and promptly forgot about it. Except that Apple had mastered auto updates when WinAmp hadn't and it was yet another WinAmp update that did nothing except made it work badly in terms of being able to find and listen to one's CD collection it was just hopelessly administrative overload.

That day I started to load my CDs into iTunes library. And then I started to listen and was shocked at the sound difference. I was so used to the AM radio signal of WinAmp's comparatively flat use of the sound card and all its dimensional glory to this - a sound as hi fi as you could ever want. Now I understood the Apple way - great software written so well you love it.

And now I only use iTunes as a media player on Windows. So when Microsoft told me to upgrade its barely adequate media player to version 11, I thought in my usual curiosity driven way - OK.

How does it compare to iTunes? Or that other work of media genuis: MIRO ?

See the next post...

Labels: ,

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Review Windows Media Player 11 vs iTunes (Windows)

I went to microsoft seeking information about a product registration for an old product that i had not used for a while and to my horror I could not find the product registration page. First of all I was distracted by the Media 11 download - and I thought - why not?

So I downloaded Windows Media Player 11. I had Media player 10. What the hell is this latest monstrosity? Well it installed very smoothly if perhaps the way in which it makes you agree to a 30 page document and encourages you to go for the no digital privacy mode as the "Typical install". So I recommend ALWAYS choose the custom install if there are hidden extras like host logging of your musical tastes you probably do not want. If you do want to be part of an insane world then go for the Typical one but expect to be given recommendations by email to load up your Zune with these 3 tracks for only 3 bucks or something. I suspect Donny Osmond would be on offer. Never mind, there is only one test of a media centre - you listen to it.

I played a live acoustic performance by an extremely talented singer with virtuoso musicians in a fairly acoustic environment. On Windows 11 I thought the singer's technician was taking the mickey - on this performance. That did not make sense. I had just seen this artist live and this was not her treatment. I listened to the same track in iTunes and the clarity brought tears to my eyes (like the original). The Windows version sounds pumped up with bass. Excessive reverberation distorted the piano on this track. Obviously there is a patch to come.

But it is not just that.

Before we complete the dissection, first I must compare with Apple and its iTunes platform on Windows. Here we have a musical library software stack written in a Linux environment being ported to Windows - so how does it perform?

If you are interested in answer, it will be in the next posting (so bookmark this page).

Labels: