Talk:History of iTunes

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of iTunes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on September 13, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Battersby, Jeffery (September 2002). "iPod, Therefore iSteal?". Macworld. pp. 26–27. (Macworld issue available on archive.org, condoned by the copyright holder)

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs support

I have tested iTunes extensively on Windows FLP, but I can confirm it installs fine, but it refuses to open which contradicts this article in reference it being compatible back in iTunes v6? Can we make reference to iTunes v7.6 as being non-functional on Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs? T94xr (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XP/Vista vs. 2000?

Is iTunes 7.3.1 the first version to have a different download for XP/Vista than 2000? --70.71.224.200 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First version to be Universal Binary

Was it with version 7 that iTunes became a universal binary for Mac OS X? If someone knows for sure which version it was, please add it to the article; it's a fairly important addition, I'd say. --Ali 24789 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was v6.0.2...Kiranerys-Talk 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This article is nothing more than a glorified changelog. We need to either strip it down to the bare minimum, or delete it entirely. I doubt anyone needs to know when support for various bugfixes in OS X 10.3 were introduced, and it's definitely not notable. -Mysekurity 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. You're the only person on this talkpage so far who agrees with a cleanup or a deletion. We may not need to know, but many people are curious to know about it including myself. This is part of a project so I highly doubt it would be deleted and this article does exactly what it says on the tin, 'iTunes version history', what did you expect when entering this page really? The article is clean enough anyway. For now I will delete this template and if anyone disagrees with my actions, they are more than welcome to replace the template. 172.159.17.59 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 172.159.17.59, this article is easily one of my most visited on Wikipedia, if someone nominates it for delition I'll more it to a subpage of my userpage immediatly, and to several different wiki's, its an extremely useful article, and as 172.159.17.59 so rightly put it, does exactly what it says on the tin.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is very useful. Epson291 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys, check this out... (Plus, first anon, I'm not only the only person saying there should be a cleanup--I'm the only person saying it at all!). You guys, really. And you can't just sub-page everything. If you want to take it to your own wiki, be my guest. You can provide a link to it from the iTunes article and everything. Have fun. -Mysekurity 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it. This article should not exist. --Fredrick day 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But its gonna, check out your own AFD
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't crow so soon - still got three days to run... --Fredrick day 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, very true.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done with editing the iTunes version history page for a while... Kiranerys-Talk 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks to Josephbertes efforts, this article now has references, time to delete the tag at the top me thinks?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only has references for some things, the added features area needs sources. I will attempt to find those..Kiranerys-Talk 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Look

I like the new look, although we could possibly have the changes in bullet point format? Just to make it a little easier to read. And maybe we should have one table for each of the major release (one for all the 1.x's, 2.x's, 3.x's etc)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, please, change what you want, I'm done editing this page for a long time, I've spent way too much time into it..Kiranerys-Talk 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion!?!

I don't get why this page is up for deletion. iTunes is a major application and goes through many versions. I think it is kind of interesting to be able to see when certain versions were introduced and the new features that they offered. Is it really hurting anyone by being here? Its not like is is false information. Cartman0052007- Talk 1:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Go make your thoughts known on the Proposal Page then :)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, um, as most of us have mentioned, if it is decided to be deleted, I WILL transwiki it.. Okay? I don't see the problem, it's not like it would be going away forever, just from Wikipedia... Kiranerys-Talk 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but as most of us have said on the AfD page, theres no need for that to happen, it can stay right here. The decision should be here soon.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I 'knew' it was going to be deleted? I was just mentioning that ASSUMING it is voted to be deleted, I would transwiki it.. Kiranerys-Talk 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I didnt say you said that, but you did emply we were making a deal over nothing, but where not, I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, honostly believe its fine where it is.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

colors...

It would be nice if the colors corresponded to the colors of the musical notes for each iTunes version's icon. Just a suggestion. Also, that dark blue is too dark to read the text (especially linked text) easily. Paul^C/_T+ 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, it turned out I used the wrong color.. You can change it to the icon color, does not matter to me, go ahead, I just though it'd be consistent to use a different color for a different version..Kiranerys-Talk 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version vs. Old version

Do you prefer the [[1]] version of the page, or old version #2, or the version before I changed anything? As for the current version, I plan to make it more like the History of Mozilla Firefox page, including more history information, screenshots re-added, etc.. Kiranerys-Talk 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are prepaired to bring in that far, then I say keep the table, and maybe we should move the page to History of iTunes.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have the time to do this, I should not be on Wikipedia as much as I currently am, but I have quite frankly done a lot to this page in the last two to three weeks..Kiranerys-Talk 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uch

Ok, even though a 5h1t load of other articles use the exact same format for there gallarys someone has decided to put another tag on this page, I've never so much as dipped my little fingure into the images of Wikipedia so can someone more versed comply with the tag and get rid of it?

Also, this article now has more References then most, even more then some FAs, is there really a need for such a rediculous amount of "citation needed"s?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'cication needed' is very important as it shows what sources we still need to find for the various versions, as for the images, I only put in what was previously in the non table versions of the page, I don't mess with images anymore, they're too eeky with the tags and everything IMO..Kiranerys-Talk 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough in the citations needed thing, and I totally agree, there so trigger happy with tags its unbelieveable
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple Of Ideas

Ok, now that that nonscience is over, 2 questions, should we move this page to History Of iTunes? And should we keep the tables or go back to the lists? Personnaly I say hes to the move and keep the tables, what are peoples opinions of this?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lists personally. At least a few pictures need to be reintroduced if we were to keep the table layout though. Anyone else agree? 172.215.115.68 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did re-add the images before, but they were removed because the images themselves had inappropriate tags. Kiranerys-Talk 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definately needs some pictures. Maybe the iTunes icon and a screenshot of each major version (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7).--Cartman005 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod/device support

Similarly to Operating systems, it would be helpful to have info regarding which iPods/iPhone/etc. are supported by specific versions of iTunes... Is this doable? Paul^C/_T+ 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could do the minimum version required. No iTunes version to date has removed support for the original iPod... But I can start the table none-the-less...Kiranerys-Talk 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colours Are Too Bright....

The Colours Need Changing. ASAP, they resemble nothing to iTunes and have an annoying colouring,

User:JoWal [[[User:81.77.195.238|81.77.195.238]] 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

I agree. We can use some blues, grays and greens maybe?--Cartman005 01:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still agreed, and its now 2010 :eek:. I'll see if I can take a look in the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done It should be better now, and they are in sequence colour-wise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000

I removed the "Requires a 32-bit version of 2000" from the line "‡Windows 2000 does not support the iPhone. Requires a 32-bit version of 2000." once before but someone has added it back again. Why? - there were never any 64-bit versions of Windows 2000, so it looks wrong to say requires a 32-bit version when there were only 32-bit versions!

Also, as far as the other versions of Windows are concerned (XP and Vista), iTunes works on the 64-bit versions but is just not supported by Apple, so "required" should maybe be changed to "recommended".

78.146.72.50 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 64bit version of Windows 2000, while rare, it still counts.. Read Windows 2000..Kiranerys-Talk 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes 7.5 features

I have to question this feature: "Also adds a battery charge indicator to the left pane when an iPod is synchronized". I don't see it when I sync my iPod. Can anyone clarify on this feature if it does in fact exist? --Lakeyboy (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it only does it for 2007 iPods/iPhone (excluding Shuffle)..70.162.139.99 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album ratings

This must've been brought in with 7.5 or 7.6, but I see no mention on this page... Seegoon (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in version 7.4 [2] Kiranerys-Talk 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64 Bit Windows

iTunes is now available for 64 bit Windows as shown on http://images.apple.com/itunes/download/. Should this be mentioned on the page? 81.159.56.52 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Nano 1G Incorrect

I have an iPod Nano 1G and it works on iTunes 4.9. I can take a screenshot if no one believes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Thirteen (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9.0 entry seems too opinionated

It seems that the comments next to 9.0 seem a little opinionated:

" the option to use a shopping cart and password confirmation prior to finalizing a purchase were removed, increasing Apple's revenue from accidental clicks" and " This makes the Version 9 store almost unusable for users who commonly purchase such items."

Should these be removed? Plus-media (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style

Whoever wrote the description for the last update wrote it as a promotion for the product. When addressing new features/bugfixes, keep them straight forward or to the point. This page isn't an advertisement, it's an information source. If you want to see an advertisement, go to apple.com or just visit Best-buy. 24.211.72.69 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the dead external links category?

Why is this in the 'dead external links' category? It has only one external link, to the iTunes download page, and that works OK. Chevymontecarlo. 06:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last G3 compatible version

is 9.1.1 even though the last official G3 support was 8.2.1. What's very annoying is the installers past 9.1.1 up to 9.2.1 will install without any messages about compatibility on a G3 but then refuse to launch. Apple failed to put "unsupported" hardware detection into the installer and also didn't fix 9.1.1 to not update itself to an incompatible version. Bizzybody (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If unofficial versions were counted, then we'd have to put in Mac OS 8.6 running version 1.1.1, or Windows Home Server, or Windows Server 2003, or 2008... 97.124.50.84 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Versions

Does this section belong on wikipedia? Some of the links are to non-apple domain sites. I will admit its nice to know about these though. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Version

This is probably the most helpful old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITunes_version_history&oldid=433172370

Before the idiot now vanished user messed with it. -Kai445 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. What additions from that version do you feel should be added back in? The OS support listing in the version release table? We can see about putting stuff back in, just let us know.. Angstygangsta (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icons

It would be nice for this article to have the old iTunes icon and the new one, to show how it changed. I would do it myself, but I don't know if we can use the icons and logos for more than one article. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP 64bit and 9.1.1 for G3

Windows XP 64bit was never officially supported by Apple. If we were to add this in, we may as well add in Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2008 R2, Mac OS 8.6, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, Windows Home Server (and any variants of that), etc, as all of those can probably "unofficially" run iTunes as well. This release table is for what Apple supports. But again, if we do want to add in XP 64bit, be aware that we must place equal weight on any other OSs that could possibly unofficially run iTunes. Anyway, I removed it from page and opening discussion here. Angstygangsta (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed 9.1.1 for G3.. 8.2.1 was Apple's latest official release for G3 Macs running Tiger. My point still stands as with XP 64bit like 9.x for G3... Apple did not officially support it. Angstygangsta (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Table of Content

Since Snotbot did its "magic trick" the Table of content of this article goes as far as nearly half the page when you scroll down. It has to break the (prestigious) "World record" for the longest Table of content for an article. Is there any way we may bring it back to something more readable ? This was an older version prio to the modification: "previous". Any thoughts ? Thanks. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 03:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert it back to pre-bot setup. I'll also see if Snotbot's people can take this article off of their patrols. Thanks! drewmunn talk 08:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11.1.5 was the last version that ran error-free on Windows Vista SP2

The article says of 11.1.5, "This is the last version available to Windows XP SP2 32-bit." Although Apple hasn't acknowledged this that I know of, subsequent versions of iTunes are also no bed of roses for those running Vista SP2: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6241945 Nor has the situation improved with 12.0.1: https://discussions.apple.com/message/26849173 There have been relatively few complaints from users of 64-bit Vista, but it appears that their issues also began with 11.2.

Regarding the usefulness of this article, I would urge the editors to keep in mind the needs of iTunes users who might be contemplating a downgrade. Many older versions are available for download from either Apple or oldapps.com. (Yes, this editor has a 32-bit Vista PC and has downgraded to iTunes 11.1.5. I have only edited articles about Country songs, and will leave it to those actively involved to decide whether my report warrants any mention in this article.) Preservationist957 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8 July 2015: So Apple finally admits as of 12.2 that they no longer support Vista? As noted above, de facto support for Vista ended more than a year ago.

iTunes 12 needs to be edited.

The entire iTunes 12 section sounds like it was taken directly from Apple promotional material. A section should mention important changes or updates, not an instruction manual and praise for the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83B7:B080:6D0D:2F9:1308:4E5 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes 12.1.3 adds iOS 9 support for unsupported Vista and 32-bit XP

This might throw that beautiful iTunes 12 table somewhat into disarray: https://support.apple.com/downloads/itunes. It is still true that no version since 11.1.5 has run error-free on Vista. Apple really should study the meaning of "support" and "end of support." Preservationist957 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I added 12.1.3.6 at the only logical place. The chronological break is admittedly displeasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservationist957 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of iTunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of iTunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes support for iOS 10.x

Under the block for iTunes 12.5.x, it says "Adds iOS 10 support". While 12.5.0 may have supported iOS 10, I know that it happened a bit earlier than that. I am currently running an OS X 10.8.5 MBP, with iTunes 12.4.3.1 (the last rev for Mountain Lion). It supports an iPhone 5c running iOS 10.2.1. What is not clear, and I have searched the web, is if iTunes 12.4.3 will also support iOS 10.3.3 (the last rev for the 5c).

Blue Sky thinking: What would be nice is if there were a page that allowed you to see the left-right flow of compatibility. Four columns, Apple device, Apple iOS version, Apple iTunes version, Apple OS X version (and possibly Windows versions). Clicking on the device would light up the valid iOS releases, clicking on one of those would light up the valid iTunes supporting that device/iOS, clicking on the iTunes would light up the operating system versions applicable.

Cosmicray (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

itunes 12.9

itunes 12.9 was released yesterday, but I'm afraid to edit this difficult looking table. warpozio (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tables for macOS and Windows

It's great to see the chronology of the OS and the corresponding support. However, it's distracting to have Mac OS and Windows in the same table. Why not split them in two? Then it will be obvious at a glance that the last macOS and the oldest Windows are not consecutive or even related. Some of the tables might work with both operating systems in the same table, but the "Operating system versions" table should definitely be split. BrianWilloughby (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article should give a broader overview of iTunes history

I think the tables should be turned into prose. Each major version (iTunes 1, iTunes 2, iTunes 3) should be covered in its own section, and each should have at least one paragraph detailing major changes (sourced to secondary sources) and a paragraph detailing the reception and reviews received by that version (again through secondary sources). iTunes received pretty wide coverage from the beginning, including by mainstream non-tech press, so these sources won't be difficult to find. When minor releases (X.1, or X.0.1) contain noteworthy changes, those should be described in prose as well.

I very much like the operating system compatibility tables and device compatibility tables, and secondary sources shouldn't be hard to find for those either. DFlhb (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Mac and Windows versions

Some Windows-only versions are listed in the Mac table; they should be separated so things are more organised and clearer. DFlhb (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]