Mac apps on Windows suck. Here's why.
Yet another browser.
(Credit: CNET Networks)iTunes is a bad Windows app. It's slow and it's a horrible resource hog. On the Mac, though, it's another story. The app taunts Windows users.
And now, Apple is going to bundle a redundant Windows browser, Safari, with iTunes. Who cares? Users won't--or shouldn't. Safari may be faster than IE, but it has no plug-in support, as Firefox (and even IE) does. It does have tabs. Big deal.
Safari is a runtime for iPhone developers, as other writers have covered here and here. If you develop a site for the Safari browser, it will also work on the iPhone, according to Steve Jobs. It's an iPhone app validator. It's not a browser that people need to use.
Yet they will, and some will be smitten by Safari's unobtrusive design, fancy roll-up interface features, and possibly its speed. They'll wonder why their Windows PC doesn't have the same (non-Windows) look and feel. And they'll think, If only I had a Mac, then all my apps would be this nice.
But if Apple was really serious about bringing good apps to the PC, it'd release good PC versions of iLife and Final Cut for Windows. Those are what Windows users need. The current apps do not make Apple a friend of the PC, the recent Jobs/Gates lovefest notwithstanding. iTunes is a store and a (bad) control panel for iPods. And Safari is a platform for developers. Neither are good Windows apps. Both are, though, good marketing platforms for selling more Macs.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
you're going to give a reason why Mac apps on Windows suck, and you said
what you thought about iTunes for Windows, but you didn't mention
QuickTime, and when it came to Safari all you mentioned was that it lacked
plug-in support. Well, you may wish to check the details before you post --
plugins are indeed supported.
See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/safari/download/plugins.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/safari/download/plugins.html</a>
Personally, I think it's great that Safari has come to the Windows for a number
of reasons-- one being that Mac users using Safari will have a better
experience on the web now that Windows-based web developers will be able
to test their sites in Safari easily.
So, if your reason why Mac apps on Windows suck is simply because of the
motivation behind them, I suggest you go outside, soak up some vitamin D,
and not worry about how perverse it is to make software for one operating
system with the intention of leading the user to buy another OS, another
piece of software, or mobile device. ;)
If that's not the reason, then please, by all means, clarify.
giving away Java, "just to make you happy", etc etc etc ....
Of course "Apple writes software only because they want to sell you
hardware." (and software too), that's the all true story.
Safari is, at first, "a sort of" sdk for the iPhone - for sure. But it is also a sign
to show that Apple is capable of developping the fastest PC browser where
Microsoft left IE on mac a few year ago ....
Now , blaming Apple for releasing a PC version of Safari and whishing at the
end , a PC iLife/FInal Cut version " .... whaou ...
You want iLife/Final Cut ? Go and buy mac you won't be disappointed; I
sware.
It will be hard for Safari to win much share on Windows. It?s hard to displace the default. I was GM of Netscape, so have some first hand experience on this...
I blogged about this in Jan when the rumors first surfaced - click on the link below if you?re interested in more.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/safari-for-windows-and-the-power-of-the-default/" target="_newWindow">http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/safari-for-windows-and-the-power-of-the-default/</a>
What do you think
doesn't support plugins? Thats like saying don't buy a sports car because it has
no stereo or air con. This is a beta, and is not a final release, and already people
are jumping the gun. And for your information, iTunes on the pc doesn't suck
anywhere near as much as real player, I have have had issues with memory leaks
and such forth, but really thats no different to any other media player.
even has a chance to evolve...
are using Windows 98. Safari is a beta, and I can see it become a great PC app.
be one of the best written, bugless music players available. Someone has an
obvious grudge against Apple. Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em! You can keep using
the horrible WMP for your needs, but millions of us others will use Apple apps.
Also, why would you expect Apple to write all of their iLife and FC apps for
Windows? It's an inferior platform. Apple's just giving everyone a taste of the
other side so that they can finally see what they are missing!
substandard. I go to submit and this wonderful webware page doesn't work. Oh
well, I guess maybe the author figures he knows enough about bugs that he can
comment on them all.
What language is it written in? Presumably the original was written in C, which works fast.
As far as safari goes, I could care less except that the next update of iTunes will be that much bigger.
Just my .02
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9728298-2.html?tag=blog" target="_newWindow">http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9728298-2.html?tag=blog</a>
mjg
www.code4life.com
on Windows is because of Microsoft's own complicated, expensive, and monolithic policies and
decisions that were moronically and arrogantly imposed on consumers who wanted to play media
on their computers. As a monopoly, Microsoft had no incentive to give users a decent media
application which is largely why Media Player has been a joke until relatively recently.
What is conveniently forgotten in the history of Windows media players is that Apple gave Windows
users something Microsoft neglected to include in its OS and was actually charging for, a free app
for ripping and burning CD's. When iTunes was released the only way to do that on Windows was
to purchase a $30 MP3 encoder from a variety of MS partners because MS chose not to bundle it
with their OS.
So no, iTunes doesn't suck. If not for iTunes Windows users would be stuck paying a royalty for
ripping CD's.
As for browsers, there's no reason that anyone should be using IE on the Windows platform when
superior browser alternatives exist. IE has a long track record of shortcomings, both legal and
technical, that are difficult to defend. How long have tabs been a feature of IE? How many security
bugs have plagued IE users? How long does it take for the program to load up? How long does it
take for the program to exit? How many times a day does it crash? The list goes on. The answer
to all these questions is far too many times and far too long to be acceptable. Heck, IE has rejected
conformity with web standards because MS wants users and businesses to be under its bubble and
get a piece of the pie for every transaction made. And for all the laurels heaped on MS for giving
IE an open plug-in architecture, where's the plug-in to give it a useable, consistent, and intuitive
toolbar and menu? IE's development has been stagnant, flawed, and disappointing to be justified.
So yeah, IE users should definitely dump IE in favor of either Safari or Firefox if they're smart and
care about the quality of the technology they use. It's the only way to hold Microsoft accountable
for its lethargy in developing a decent app. Maybe by the time IE 10 comes along they'll have a
better browser that is more Apple like in its design values.
However, SAFARI/r/ does need some serious tweaking before general release to the Windows universe -- it does not display common text such as: toolbars, menus, sub-menus, or content text. Great graphics, but only graphics are displayed on my HP Media Center running XP/SP2. It is NOT good publicity for Apple/r/ in its present form.
I think Steve Jobs is reading a little bit too much of his own publicity, and now has this delusion that he, um... passes... ambrosia...
I have had no problems, so all of these issues really dont effect me at all. As soon as replay-music releases a recorder for Vista I will be even happier.
- I've tried WMP and iTunes and iTunes is better
- by Sylectra June 18, 2007 5:18 AM PDT
- I guess you could say I am more of a PC user than a Mac user, but I have spent about as much work time on both platforms and prefer PCs. Because of my bias, I bought the PC-based 30 GB MP3 player "iRiver" and used it with Windows Media Player for about a year. What I learned was that it froze up a lot and that WMP was not easy to use. What's more, the songs I bought on iTunes couldn't be used on my iRiver because of proprietary formats and DRM. After DRM caused a couple of lockups during sync that required the formatting and reloading of all the songs on the iRiver, my husband gave me a 30 GB iPod and I switched to iTunes (still on a PC). I love it. Not a single problem - ever. Period. Not one lockup, not one complication. I store my songs as MP3 format because I hate the whole idea of DRM and proprietary file format. Anyone that says iTunes for Windows is terrible probably isn't using the software as effectively as he could be. Sorry. As a PC lover who reluctantly came to Apple hardware, I have to say I am happy!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (25 Comments)