Why can't Apple make a good program... for Windows?
Now, this isn't something that effects Logan or the Samjamin Goldsmith Apparatus (Benuel?)... but Apple makes terrible, terrible programs for PCs.
As the longstanding founder of a non-profit that fixes the computers of my friends and family for free (cough cough), I — unfortunately — still have to deal with iTunes, QuickTime, Safari, Apple Updater and a half dozen other useless, processor hogging PC processes and programs.
It isn't that the software is different on a PC. The function and layout is more or less the same. The problem is that Apple programmers, well, think different.
They don't, for instance, have incremental software update packages. Which means that, when iTunes brings out a new version (that's pretty much all the freakin' time) you have to download and reinstall the ENTIRE program... and QuickTime too. (And for a while, Safari... but I digress.)
They also don't see a problem hogging your entire processor. Windows is, if nothing, a bloated, poorly-optimized OS. And yet, iTunes PC makes it look like an anoxeric ballerina. One time I clocked iTunes 7 taking up 40% of the processor and about as much of the RAM on a newer Core 2 Duo PC with 2 GBs of RAM. You might be wondering, what was iTunes doing? As far as I could tell, nothing. Just shuffling from a music library... but it was enough to nearly freeze the PC.
Finally, they don't seem to see a problem installing six seperate processes that automaticaly start when you turn on your PC. iPods and iPhones are great, but do you really want to make everyone install a helper for each both? Why not have those helpers install when they first plug in one or the other? Also, why does iTunes even need a helper? It's slow as hell (see above). And those other helpers and update processes... yeah. Maybe that works well on a Mac. But on a PC it just sucks.
Fortunately, you can turn off most of the worthless processes. Even so, iTunes will run slow and you'll want to shoot yourself every time it freezes.
Of course, it could all be part of the Switch campaign.
As the longstanding founder of a non-profit that fixes the computers of my friends and family for free (cough cough), I — unfortunately — still have to deal with iTunes, QuickTime, Safari, Apple Updater and a half dozen other useless, processor hogging PC processes and programs.
It isn't that the software is different on a PC. The function and layout is more or less the same. The problem is that Apple programmers, well, think different.
They don't, for instance, have incremental software update packages. Which means that, when iTunes brings out a new version (that's pretty much all the freakin' time) you have to download and reinstall the ENTIRE program... and QuickTime too. (And for a while, Safari... but I digress.)
They also don't see a problem hogging your entire processor. Windows is, if nothing, a bloated, poorly-optimized OS. And yet, iTunes PC makes it look like an anoxeric ballerina. One time I clocked iTunes 7 taking up 40% of the processor and about as much of the RAM on a newer Core 2 Duo PC with 2 GBs of RAM. You might be wondering, what was iTunes doing? As far as I could tell, nothing. Just shuffling from a music library... but it was enough to nearly freeze the PC.
Finally, they don't seem to see a problem installing six seperate processes that automaticaly start when you turn on your PC. iPods and iPhones are great, but do you really want to make everyone install a helper for each both? Why not have those helpers install when they first plug in one or the other? Also, why does iTunes even need a helper? It's slow as hell (see above). And those other helpers and update processes... yeah. Maybe that works well on a Mac. But on a PC it just sucks.
Fortunately, you can turn off most of the worthless processes. Even so, iTunes will run slow and you'll want to shoot yourself every time it freezes.
Of course, it could all be part of the Switch campaign.
posted by M S Martinez at 9/16/2008 11:35:00 AM
4 Comments:
I actually like Safari for my older slowish PC, it seems far less bloated than both iexplorer and firefox.
I do hate all the damn helpers that run for everything though.
PC suck. Don't fix them. Make family upgrade to what works - MAC-MAN!
Most likely, apple is not developing the program for windows, they're porting the unix version. There are lots of things that can go wrong with this sort of thing, my guess is that their database processes don't port well to windows, so they use a substitute that crawls, or even worse, conduct inefficient procedures every time itunes to interact with the software library. Something widely used like SQL works well and has lots of people who can program for it, but it can also be a nightmare to port cross-platform.
Quicktime has the same problem, on windows it chokes on regular video on machines that can play HD on software that is written natively.
My observation has been that apple relies on having extremely good design engineers and marketroids but skimps a bit on their software.
And to offer another perspective than Anon's, Macs really are just PC + branding & snazz. The commodity hardware is inter-changeable, and the OS is a polished version of a very good operating system.. but they're expensive, have lots of proprietary garbage (ipods could use regular USB instead of the serial connection) and make heavy use of DRM. The biggest difference between a mac and anything else is marketing. Instead of having your family upgrade their computers, which is most likely unnecessary (core 2 duo + 2gb ram is plenty fast), you can encourage them to use DRM-free music players that makes music managers like itunes completely optional. (eg Cowon, who makes cheap players with excellent hardware)
Yeah. No question about the bad port. The real issue is that, now that the majority of iPod users are on PCs, why can't Apple do a proper port and fix the issues? And open source, DRM free players are great in theory. But they still all own iPods. And, for whatever reason, they all seem to own content from the iTunes store. And I've yet to run into a stable alternative that allows full access to DRM'd Apple content. And the workarounds are beyond the average user. Hell, even the open source solutions are. I still have to write web code that's compatible with IE6. And I shouldn't have to.
Also, it's true that Apple hardware is just over-priced, off-the-shelf Intel product. But the decision of use Unix as the base for OS X was a wise move. That's the real difference between a PC and a Mac.
Post a Comment
<< Home