Talk:ITunes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ogg icon

Version 7 removed the Ogg icon from the package. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the Ogg icon is not actually from Apple. Mine is still in the package, except it's still green instead of blue, leading me to believe that Ogg isn't actually part of iTunes natively. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I think the criticisms in this article are valid, but misplaced. Most of them belong in the iTunes Store article, and not this article about the iTunes application -- the DRM and EULA disputes are about the store, and not the jukebox software used to access the store. I propose that these criticisms be merged into the article on the iTunes Store. Perhaps the major criticisms (the DRM, the lock-in) could be briefly mentioned under the iTunes Store section in this article. Anyone agree? Disagree?

And while there were bugs in version 7.0, that is not uncommon, and Apple released an updated version (iTunes 7.0.1) 15 days later. Minor bugs and bug fixes belong in the "Recent Version History" section, not as a "Criticism" of the software itself. Anyone agree? Disagree? BJ Nemeth 09:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I'll move the criticisms to iTunes Store. Thomas Ash 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but now there's no criticism in the iTunes article. What about how it doubles the space your music takes up? That's fairly noteworthy. Software as sucky as iTunes should have plenty of criticism.

70.72.50.20 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for personal views. These are not widely held views. --80.41.90.45 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about you are an idiot and shouldn't be allowed near computers?75.23.46.184 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What about no iTunes for Linux?Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

iTunes deserves plenty of criticism. Sure, its pretty, and it has many nice features, and from my experience, bugs aren't too much of a problem. But the program is the slowest I have ever used. For example, it takes unecessrily long to update ID3 tags when editing information. The length of time when adding a file to the library is more reasonable, as it must read each id3 tag, but deleting files from the library should be as simple as editing an xml file, while instead it can take minutes. Even when its only a matter of- say, 20 seconds, consider how tiresome that is when going through a library deleting songs from different locations. Even scrolling through music can be a pain, and my computer is fairly high-end. If you keep your music on a remote drive, you should not even attempt to edit song information because the program will make you wait while it contacts every individual file. I just hooked in a new iPod, and it took over a half hour of "syncing" before it even started transfering files. I understand it was processing all that data, but what I'm saying is that it does not need to to the extent that it does. I know this page isn't for user complaints, but the underlying problem of speed with this program is not subjective. 71.176.205.160 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Watermarking and Privacy

No mention of the included 360k myster-block in the new Watermark-only itunes. Nor the privacy concern of them using your full name and email address in plain text for the purpose of waterarking both the DRMed and Watermark-only versions "options".

I propose this criticism is included in this main article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6711215.stm http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-apple-hides-account-info-in-drm-free-music-too.html http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/06/no_explanation_.html

Wageslave 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Music purchased through the iTunes Music Store has contained account information from day 1 - get info on any purchased song in iTunes, whether DRM-free or not, and it'll give the account name and email address associated with the account that purchased the song. It's hardly a watermark, though - "watermark" implies that it's embedded within the data stream in some difficult-to-remove fashion. This is just standard stream metadata; the only thing that differentiates it from the standard metadata (title, album, author, etc.) is that iTunes doesn't provide an interface for editing it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

File format for sale?

Which file format do I get when buying from the iTunes store? I gather it's DRM'ed, and I'm guessing some sort of Apple format, but exactly what do I get? Codec? Bitrate? What is the DRM limitations? When buying an album, do I get the cover art, and in that case in what format? Mannaja 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is MPEG-4 Part 3, most commonly termed "AAC", at 128kbps, in a FairPlay wrapper. Purchased albums come with album art; not sure what format, but I assume it's JPG. —bbatsell ¿? 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's usually around 128 kbps, but some songs are higher or lower format. The album art is embedded in the song (iTunes 6 and below). The file will have the extension .m4p. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts are often of lower quality - 56kbps I believe. Their quality varies due to a wide range of users posting podcasts. Audiobooks are 32kbps —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The freddinator (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Podcasts (at least the few I've downloaded for free through iTunes) are .mp3's and not ACC, but music you purchase is AAC with FairPlay (.m4p) as said above. In May, there will be the option to buy some tracks without FairPlay (DRM-free), which will be AAC format at 256 kbps. --Georgeryp 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows hard disk space requirements?

if i install iTunes in windows, how much hard disk space does that take up?

The Apple website doesn't say. This is probably because if you're using a computer that possibly won't have enough space to install iTunes, you won't have enough space for music OR your computer is too old and slow to play music properly. Any space taken up to install iTunes itself will soon be dwarfed by the amount of space needed for your music. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is that Apple is used to fixed architecture computers, assuming everyone has upgraded to something recent. Thus, as mentioned in the response above, people who buy iPods are assumed to have gigabytes of free storage. However, on Windows PCs we're used to little information boxes full of hardware requirements that let us know if we will run this without problems or not. However, even running iTunes on a Core 6400 with several terabytes of storage behind it, you can't get away from iTunes being a tad buggy and slow compared even with Sony's notorious SonicStage software. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The Add/Remove Programs applet under the Windows Control Panel says iTunes 7 uses 50.4MB of space (my library of music and video is much larger and so is not included in that number). --Georgeryp 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source #8 does not exist anymore

The citation: "Amorim, Roberto (2003). Results of MP3 at 128 kbit/s public Listening Test (http). Roberto's public listening tests page. Retrieved on January 12, 2006." is gone. It is referenced in "File Format Support." Is there another location of this test, or another different test altogether to cite? PS. I hope I used the Talk correctly, (first Talk post)

Sp3z1aL 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, welcome, and yes, you did the talk thing fine. As for the source...there's always Google.--HereToHelp 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ITunes iTunes?

Is there a reason the standards technical limitations disclaimer isn't in place? -b 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the article title as "ITunes"? Appears as "iTunes" on my screen. AlistairMcMillan 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the technical limitations preventing lowercase initial letters, and their associated warnings are no more. That's why the article is called 'iTunes' --81.105.251.160 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you change the first letter of an article name to be lowercase? I tried moving a page to a lowercase name, but it appears with a capital. It was a different name from the original one so it's not some name taken issue. -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

{{lowercase}} uses a JavaScript hack to make the first letter appear lowercase, but the article is still called "ITunes". In browsers that do not support JavaScript, a short message is displayed instead.--HereToHelp 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Safari or Internet Explorer

iTunes for Mac apperently runs the webpages in itms on a type of Safari-engine (khtml-based). What does iTunes for Windows runs on? Khtml or Internet Explorer ? --213.112.157.143 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, iTunes for Mac does not use WebKit for rendering the music store. I forget the exact details, but it's basically streamed WebObjects. Presumably, Apple ported whatever renders it to Windows. --Steven Fisher 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GForce

The visualizer built into iTunes is not GForce. It's a lookalike, originally written as a component for SoundJam MP. I believe the original version was called "Melt-O-Rama". Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"January 11, 2001 SoundSpectrum creates and licenses a special version of G-Force to Apple Computer for inclusion in its new iTunes music player as the "iTunes Visualizer" [1] AlistairMcMillan 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's in the about box, under the companies old name Whitecap. AlistairMcMillan 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I miss the release notes.

which used to be featured in the article. There is no other such resource. Thadk 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Here they are: ITunes_version_history

iTunes 7.1.0.59

Appears to be a large number of problems with the new release - many users find iTunes crashing when they try and play a track —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.147.155 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:ATT. We need "reliable sources". Forum postings and your own personal experiences are not "reliable sources." AlistairMcMillan 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Apple is unlikely to provide a reliable source for the 7.1.0.59 crash bug until it is resolved. I found a cached version of this page on Google that did mention the crash bug, and found that very useful. The page as it stands now, without the unreliable source, is less useful and contemporary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.131.36 (talk • contribs) 20:49, March 12, 2007

iTunes Windows Vista issues

Consider creating a new article like the above as we may well have Apple employees regularly visiting these pages to take out the negative comment. As one editor suggested Apple doesn't yet officially support Vista at least according to the download page. This particular editor is keen not to see Vista comments (and possibly -ve comments) on the iTunes page. There are the obvious immediate technical and performance issues (not just on Vista apparantly) and also there is ample opportunity in such an article to explore any trade practices issues that may arise in the internet press as and when they do in verifiable ways. We all know that there are good commercial reasons for Apple not to make iTunes work well under Vista. Such issues are ideal for the article as I said as and when any such alleged issues are alleged in the media. ;-) I am hoping I will not be deeply disappointed to see Apple behave like Microsoft did with the AARD code and DR-DOS many years ago aahhummm I have always thought they were a better corporate citizen than this. Advertising campaigns are one thing and within acceptable bounds of more or less fair competition under capitalism (and trade practices law i.e.: the rough and tumble of the marketplace and acceptable "puff" within advertising) however deliberate inaction and/or even worse -ve action is very disheartening to say the least. I for one would like to continue to respect the company and whats more would "like to" migrate to their platform. I used to positively say "intend to" (and soon) - sad - my opinion must already be changing without my even knowing... I fear moving from one proprietary and monopolistic devil to another and it was my major reason for "intending to move" in the first place... If I could only be proved wrong Steve (J) :-( so please don't disapoint us as even if we have moved to Vista it doesn't prohibit us from then moving on to OS/X (my own upgrade was only ever "intended" to be a stop gap on this progression and then running my cheap Vista upgrade under Parallels Desktop on my new Mac if I needed to). Oh dear we are getting royally screwed from both sides now... Apple Marketing Men: Please pass it on to your boss! (And I had an iPhone in my future sights too! For that reason alone Apple doesn't need to sink to Microsoft's level and play dirty tricks as you've always been a technology leader that could rely on your honest innovation alone. Remember: leaders lead, followers cheat!) Mattjs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources to back up your edits. Wikipedia:Attribution clearly says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." What you are doing now is bordering on vandalism, please either provide "reliable sources" or stop. AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you revert my last edit I will consider you a vandal and the matter will go to arbitration - THIS IS MY FINAL WORD!!! Mattjs 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! AlistairMcMillan 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the are are 6 references now on problems including performance (not confined to Vista) and it can readily be added to or the stuff you put back in - good idea thanks! - can readily go into a Vista problems article as well... give it a few more months and there should be some critical web cites on trades practices issues as I have suggested here already... feel free to correct citations but please do remember what I have said about reverting and ARBITRATION. Apple employees and religiously extremist operating systems defenders and protagonists alike take note. Everyone can see from my post above that I am not biased nor laughing and any criticisms of MS (or anyone else) on my part are well founded on historical facts (e.g. MS's many restrictive trade practices prosecutions (although the AARD code is not one of them...)) Take care! Mattjs 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is currently in 3rd place"

Do we have a reference for this claim? --Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where "third" comes from, but "fourth" was announced during the January 2007 Macworld keynote. I've edited the article to reflect that. AlistairMcMillan 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quicktime/iTunes

Does it say anything about Quicktime's semi-symbiotic relationship with iTunes? They're installed together, and if one is removed, the other ceases to function. I think that's something worthy of note, though it may better belong in a critisism section/page. Unfortunatly, I have no references to cite, though you may clarify it yourself. (Note: There is in fact an installation file for just Quicktime, but it appears to be from a website with no affiliations with Apple) My very highest regards; 1337 r0XX0r 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--- *Sigh*... I should have checked more.... it appears it may only be that removing Quicktime messes up iTunes, as iTunes uses Quicktime for certain features; So it appears iTunes has very good reason to be packaged with Quicktime. However, this fact may be of some use to users of iTunes in general, and though I dost not knoweth where this is to be placed, I shall nevertheless request a mention, at the very least. And to thee my sincerest apologies; I am in an Old English mood. My tidings to thee, 1337 r0XX0r 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an official Quicktime download from Apple that does not include iTunes. See http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html, which includes "QuickTime 7.1.5 with iTunes" and "QuickTime 7.1.5." I'd assume the same is true for the Mac download, but I didn't check because they both come with Mac OS by default anyway. -seinman 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mac download doesn't have the option of 'bundling' iTunes with QuickTime.--82.152.215.167 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Vista problems/issues being constantly reverted

Vista related issues and problems NPOV are being constantly reverted by a particular editor under the pretense that Apple doesn't yet officially support Vista.

Yet there is an official knowledge base article

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042

In any case it would not then be worth mentioning Vista at all instead the situation seems to be the POV of saying as little as possible about the issues instead as a result.

Finally perhaps two potentially influencing factors here in general are to be noted:

• There may people here who are OS religiously minded or fanatical
• There may be people here who are either employees or public relations consultants of Apple

My own position is neutral: I am OS neutral and as a user under Vista I am aware and seek to factually document the issues (I have tolerated the fair edit and corrections of my submissions but that have passed the neutral point and moved to the POV bias I have documented above. I am not an experienced user so any posts on how to go about this to my talk back page would be much appreciated.)

The diffs concerned are as follows

Revision as of 18:51, 24 March 2007 (edit) Mattjs (Talk | contribs) m (copyedit cite) ← Older edit

Apple are working to get iTunes working with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista, however numerous issues still remain including poor performance and it is still not yet officially supported.

Current revision (18:54, 24 March 2007) (edit) (undo) AlistairMcMillan (Talk | contribs) (iTunes isn't supported yet on Vista. We don't need five cites that all basically say the same thing.)

Apple are working to get iTunes working with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista, however issues still remain and it is not yet officially supported.

I am seeking to have it go to arbitration... Mattjs

Did you read the linked Apple support document? The one that says in the intro "Blah blah blah, Apple is actively working with Microsoft to resolve a few remaining known issues". Did you look at the iTunes download page that clearly says "Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 or later or Windows XP" under the heading "Windows Requirements"? AlistairMcMillan 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is very likely that Apple will shortly work out the bugs in iTunes on Vista. That is why it is not worth going into excessive detail. One year from now, ain't no one gonna care. AlistairMcMillan 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but maybe not. However it is here now, relevant now, and I see no reasons other than prejudice for it to be ignored. This is exactly what an Encyclopedia is for I thought!? Mattjs 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion assuming that is the right place. Mattjs 20:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Particularly not worth noting in excessive detail in the intro of the article. AlistairMcMillan 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Though it cannot (yet) be susbstaniated nor can it go in the article for reasons of evidence - if you have read my posts here - I have the strong suspician that the performance issues are deliberate on Apple's part as they have gotten worse with the latest iTunes revision and is the reason for its relevance and why I am insisting that these details go in. Given Apple's Ad Campaign and intentions you may well be right - it might take a year to get fixed and they have had plenty of time through the Vista betas already to fix it which add to my argument yet again and there are references to discussion along these lines on the web as well which I haven't yet bothered to consider... The list I made and submitted is short but the six refs after the one sentence are enough to show that something is _definatly_ "going on" as I argue again that they should! Mattjs 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said it would take a year to fix; I was saying that in a years time everyone concerned will have forgotten about this "issue". I also have no idea how long it'll take to fix the "problems" because iTunes runs fine on Vista in my experience. I think you've just demonstrated perfectly exactly why your contributions shouldn't go into the article. Please take your conspiracy theories to a more appropriate forum. AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have and had the option of putting this stuff in a Vista/Vista problems/Vists issues/Vista controversy section instead of simply reverting... I cannot do anything now as I would only expect from your form (and I am not trying to be rude here) that you would simply revert again. Obsessive compulsive reversion may be a problem at Wikipedia. I dont know.... Mattjs 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One last point before we leave it to a moderator: the conspiracy theory as you call it - I call it the criticism of Apples performance with respect to minor tweaks of iTunes for Vista - I can readily cite: it is well discussed on the web. (At this point what I shouldn't say is how madingly simple minded many editors seem to be here and how keen they are to have the last word on every topic.) Well will just have to wait and see what happens meanwhile I can dig up some more references if you would like. I would suggest creating a separate Vista section (away from the intro) as that would be an easy way to solve our deadlock. Mattjs 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion .. What exactly are you having a dispute over? The differences between the pieces from the article cited above are minimal - they mean exactly the same thing, without the word 'numerous' and 'including poor performance'. Also the word 'still' was removed, which is a good thing since it's not NPOV - it implies a slow reaction of Apple Computer. This could be a copy edit! 'Numerous' is kind of a pleonasm next to issues, and 'including poor perfomance' is an example not worth disputing.

I can only conclude the dispute is over the removed references. My opinion is that the current remaining reference is good enough, and that more than this one are not needed. One could argue for including the vnunet reference, because the other reference is of the manufacturer of the product.

Also, the third opinion request included a username. This is not protocol - please read the instructions before asking for a third opinion.

--User:Krator (t c) 21:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Little Problem

On the mini-bio for bands, there are some problems.If you read the My Chemical Romance,Fall Out Boy,Ext its uses the word 'emo'.Many of these bands decline being 'emo', this is really off-topic but ya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.108.187.136 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CD-Text

The CD-Text article says that "iTunes 7 supports burning with CD Text". Can that be added to this article, thereby confirming it? TIA -- Jerome Potts 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD -- KelleyCook 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vista (32 not 64 bit) as unsupported operating system: Please provide an official Apple press release...

": You already sought a third opinion and the third opinion agreed with me. Stop trolling. Vista is not yet listed as a supported operating system. AlistairMcMillan 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please provide your reference that Vista 32-bit is not a supported opearting system!? What is indicated on a downlowd page is not a sufficient reason and the reference in the text that was fixed is a support Article from Apple for Visat (32-bit)!? An official press from Apple that Vista (of all flavours) is not officially supported will suffice so please provide this if you can otherwise the correction should stand. This is another issue I will pursue. 220.240.58.190 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The support article clearly says iTunes and iPod don't work properly with Vista yet. It even clearly says using your iPod with Vista "may corrupt your iPod".

The Download page obviously matters because that is where people go to get iTunes. The Download page clearly states "Windows 2000 or XP" and "Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 or later or Windows XP". As soon as that changes, the iTunes article on Wikipedia will be updated. AlistairMcMillan 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: recommended operating system versions for download (doesnt it include XP, XPSP1 or XPSP2?) doesn't constitute "officially supported" I think it would be resonable to ask for the "offical press release" from Apple to maintain this sort of statement and of expression in an eminent encyclopedia like Wikipedia. (The reductio as absurdam, as an example, would be that I could claim that XP SP1 and XP SP2 are "officially unsupported" if they are not listed for download in your list above.) 220.240.58.190 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PROVIDE IT if you can otherwise should revert this sentence. 220.240.58.190 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to waste time on this so get over it so we can both move on with our lives or we can escallate it. Make your choice. This is one minor - but very well defined point - now that I will win as I am positive that there is no "official press release" only the official statement in the link that 64-bit is not supported whilst the character and flavour (of your own referenec BTW) clearly suggests otherwise for Vista 32-bit so unless you can find something from Apple say that they "officially do not support Vists (32-bit!) then you are out of luck as they say my friend. 220.240.58.190 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So allow me to revert and get on with your life unless you are the young juvenille geek (who probably works for Apple) that I hope you are not and so can follow a rational and precise argument impartially. Regards (and touche!) 220.240.58.190 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving and copying all of this to the iTunes Talkback... 220.240.58.190 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Above is a conversation moved here from two talkback pages on a revert and misunderstanding of what consitutes Apple "officially supported" or not by the reverter and will once again (justifiably this time) go to some form of arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. 220.240.58.190 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently happy with the inserted "the 64-bit version of" and wont currently be editing or pursuing this matter further if this enttirely appropriate correction is left unmolested by the not so "dispassionate". (I myself have a "life" to lead unlike others amoungst us apparantly.) 220.240.58.190 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, you should be aware that you are close to violating WP:3RR. (Reverting to this version two times...) If you revert something more than three times in a consecutive 24 hour period you risk being banned for 24 hours. Paul^C/_T+ 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. One of them at least was fixing the work of a "vandal" which I will happily label anyone including a more senior editor or not who reverts blindly without first checking the discussion on the talkback page. I will wait another 24 hours before checking it again as I am aure the POV community here will continue doing it. Thanks Mattjs 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:Mattjs and User:220.240.58.190 are the same editor. Please note that Mattjs wants this in the article because he has "strong suspician that the performance issues are deliberate on Apples part as they gotten worse with the latest iTunes revision". Please note also that Apple are working on supporting 32-bit Vista, not 64-bit Vista support. They have never supported 64-bit Windows in any shape or form. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mate: it doesnt matter what my motivations are - the fact of the matter is that you still have not, and cannot, provide a reference to support the claim that either Vista in general (or 32-bit specifically) "is not yet officially supported". You are basically a vandal by continually reinserting by stealth this factually erroneous statement into the article and will bear the full consequences of your actions in time. If you cannot be objective, cool-headed and non-partisan about it then you should go elsewhere and not contribute to Wikipedia at all. You've lost this argument so give it up PLEASE! Mattjs 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this (it says so on the IP's talk page). I should also point out that you are even closer to breaking WP:3RR... (Reverted to this three times ... ) just an FYI... (I realize that linux edit is a bit dumb, but that is the rule...) Paul^C/_T+ 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are at it again AlistairMcMillan! From your own Reference 2: "iTunes 7.1.1 is recommended for use with most editions of Windows Vista" this doesnt jell with your claim "it is not yet officially supported" and this has to been removed. You are continually reverting and reinserting this phrase which MUST THEREFORE BE REMOVED and not reinserted by your reverts! I will be talking to Paul and others... 220.240.58.190 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Further: it IS ONLY the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista for which iTunes is not supported according to all of your References 2, 3, and 4 (are 3 and 4 the new ones that are supposed to support your claim!? haha). All you have to do is remove the "is not yet officially supported" on Vista in general rather 64-bit and you will get yourself out of hot water. Grow up AlistairMcMillan: you crack me up! :-D Dont you realise that I am really going to enjoy this if you keep it up!?... lol... 220.240.58.190 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets move the relevant paragraph and discuss it here rather than in the article itself. When we come to a consensus we'll move that version to the article.

iTunes is available as a free download for Mac OS X, Windows XP and 2000 from Apple's website. It is also bundled with all Macintosh computers. Apple and Microsoft are currently working to make iTunes compatible with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista. Issues still remain and it is not yet officially supported. Although some users have managed to install iTunes on 64-bit versions of Windows, this has never been supported by Apple.

This is the current version. After reading some of the references, it makes sense to change "not yet officially supported" because as shown here "iTunes 7.1.1 is recommended for use with most editions of Windows Vista, however, Apple is actively working with Microsoft to resolve a few remaining known issues." If it is "recommended" it is in some way "officially supported". I propose changing this sentence to "not yet fully supported". That should be a good enough compromise.

Also, regarding the 64bit support, while "has never been supported by Apple" may be true, that isn't what the reference says: "iTunes is currently not supported in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (the 64-bit version of Windows XP)". So, lets change the sentence to read "is not currently supported by Apple".

This would make the final passage read as follows:

iTunes is available as a free download for Mac OS X, Windows XP, and 2000 from Apple's website. It is also bundled with all Macintosh computers. Apple and Microsoft are currently working to make iTunes compatible with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista. Issues still remain and it is not yet fully supported. Although some users have managed to install iTunes on 64-bit versions of Windows, this is not currently supported by Apple.

Is this a good compromise or are there further issues you would like to discuss? Please respond here before making more changes to this paragraph in the article. Also, please keep the discussion to the content of the paragraph and references and not the actions or motivations of individual editors. Remember no personal attacks. Paul^C/_T+ 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Worksforme. AlistairMcMillan 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard from Mattjs, but I'll just make the change anyway. Paul^C/_T+ 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of the line "iTunes 7.1.1 is recommended for use with most editions of Windows Vista" I quoted (and you in turn Paul) I prefer the following:

"iTunes is available as a free download for Mac OS X, Windows XP, and 2000 from Apple's website. It is also bundled with all Macintosh computers. Apple and Microsoft are currently working to make iTunes compatible with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista, however issues still remain.[3] Although some users have managed to install iTunes on 64-bit versions of Windows,[4] this is not currently supported by Apple.[5]"

This version I would be perfectly happy and the diffences and reasons for this compared to yours I have already covered. I am even quite happy to have the "currently supported" replaced with "not officially supported" BUT ONLY for the last 64-bit versions line (which as it is currently drafted now conveniently covers both XP and Vista).

Given the other partisan editor of this paragraph (not Alistair but the other editor who dove in without warning or comment and reverted my change before) I would like to suggest that we nominate you as the adjudicator of the paragraph Paul and that niether myself or Alistair make changes there unless they are trivial and obvious or simply reverts of other partisan editors effective vandalism there. We can then discuss any controversial changes here and you Pual can finally approve them. That means that both I and Alistair should endevour to keep our "hands off" in future.

And many thanks for your work and help so far Paul and I will be happy if you simply go ahead, consider once more my suggested alterantive and then simply go ahead and put the paragraph you are happy with in: no more discussion or consultation required. Many thanks again. You are the sort of editor I like to see around here! Mattjs 08:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... how about:

iTunes is available as a free download for Mac OS X, Windows XP, and 2000 from Apple's website. It is also bundled with all Macintosh computers. Apple and Microsoft are currently working to make iTunes fully compatible with Windows Vista. Although some users have managed to install iTunes on 64-bit versions of Windows, this is not currently supported by Apple.

I like the "not currently supported" on the 64-bit piece because that is what is said in the references. I like this shorter version because it is clearer and since this is in the lead section it should state the issue as concisely as possible. Thoughts? Paul^C/_T+ 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I will run with that - most of the "issues" seem to have been resolved with the latest iTunes (even on my machine - although I am NOT quoting this as a reference here perhaps some of my own problems have been in part the result of a memory hungry Vista and iTunes (both) whilst simultaneously running other apps). So I would be happy with this version rather than the edit that is currently in place. No doubt the "Apple and Microsoft are currently working to make iTunes fully compatible with Windows Vista.[14]" will soon be resovled much to my surprise and Apple will then have the deserved credit of also having this sentence edited out at that time. (Actually the iTunes iPod Eject and Vista Device Removal still doesn't work correctly with the iPod not disconnecting etc... so...) Contarywise if they continue to leave Vista off of the download page they will have put up with this line being in the Wikipedia iTunes intro. All in all its a good compromise and a factually accurate rendition indeed! 220.240.58.190 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan, if you agree with this edit, can you add it to the article? Thanks. Paul^C/_T+ 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated the paragraph with the consensus version. AlistairMcMillan 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)