Recommended Posts

So after reading about the video support I wondered if I added a .mov file would it sync to my iPod. Thinking that if I added some video files, it might rob my ipod of disk space, that I need for music. But when I plugged it in, said it could copy, as it wasn't a supported file.

Next, I added some quicktime trailers to a library on another machine, so see if I could access them across the network. No joy there :(

After messing around with 4.8 for a bit it does feel a lot quicker than 4.7. It's only using 75 mbs of ram now as opposed to the 170 it was using in 4.7 and it is using almost no cpu power.. Thumbs up... still a lot of room for improvement but better.. Anyone know if it burns track titles on to cd's yet?

So basically... theres no point in updating if i dont have a ipod or use the music store?

585897070[/snapback]

It supports movies now although still limited and it loads much faster on my Mac. Why wouldn't you upgrade? It's free and it doesn't make iTunes worse.

It supports movies now although still limited and it loads much faster on my Mac. Why wouldn't you upgrade? It's free and it doesn't make iTunes worse.

585897078[/snapback]

Yeah I suppose so but I'd use .mov files with quicktime anyways... I guess I'll wait till it auto updates.

After messing around with 4.8 for a bit it does feel a lot quicker than 4.7. It's only using 75 mbs of ram now as opposed to the 170 it was using in 4.7 and it is using almost no cpu power.. Thumbs up... still a lot of room for improvement but better.. Anyone know if it burns track titles on to cd's yet?

585897068[/snapback]

170MB?!?! :blink: Man, that's a lot more than I've ever seen!

However, you're right about the speed boosts. Searching is insanely faster now. My guess is because of the Search Kit improvements in 10.4 being backported to the PC version of iTunes. So, I guess there's a little tiny bit of OS X running on your PC when you run iTunes :p

After messing around with 4.8 for a bit it does feel a lot quicker than 4.7. It's only using 75 mbs of ram now as opposed to the 170 it was using in 4.7 and it is using almost no cpu power.. Thumbs up... still a lot of room for improvement but better.. Anyone know if it burns track titles on to cd's yet?

585897068[/snapback]

When I used iTunes 4.7 to burn my audio cd's and it burned track titles, so I'm guessing 4.8 should too.

How's the ram usage with this update?  With 4.7, it was insanely high.

585898395[/snapback]

...

After messing around with 4.8 for a bit it does feel a lot quicker than 4.7. It's only using 75 mbs of ram now as opposed to the 170 it was using in 4.7 and it is using almost no cpu power.. Thumbs up... still a lot of room for improvement but better.. Anyone know if it burns track titles on to cd's yet?

585897068[/snapback]

Mine's at about 48MB atm.

4.7.1.30 ---> 4.8.31

oooo 1 build.?:sleep::

585895830[/snapback]

Umm... yeah, that's the 31st build of 4.8 which is different than what you were thinking (4.7.31). I'm guessing that you are not a developer eh? It means that they released 31 builds of 4.8 to QA before it was released for promotion.

I'm wondering if they released this iTunes by accident with the video feature enabled. It just doesn't seem to do what it is meant to do and there is no mention of the video capability on the Apple site.:huh::

585895916[/snapback]

Look at the first post. They already have at least one album with videos included as extras. So, no it is not a mistake.

First:

It's always nice with a new build - Thanks Apple :D

Second:

Well, they have seemed to fix a few "issues" and added some stuff BUT!

I have a music libary with some 100GB of data... All added into the neat little iTunes... Whenever I close iTunes my CPUload goes BALISTIC! (i mean 98%-100% load constantly for 3-4 minutes). I've been told that this has to do with iTunes writing "stuff" into its files in the libary (and that seems to be right) but Apple... Have you thought this through? This means that I can't use my computer for a few minutes each time I quit iTunes???

They should really let the user take care of the backup instead of forcing it by the application...

Oh...

I'm running AMD x64 (with WinXP x32) and 2GB of DDR2 RAM. Should be efficient (IMO).

Suggestions?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.