[jmincey]

"...so far it seems your only view is that you are upset over the VERSION NUMBER..."
Of the two of us, who is the authority on the opinions of Jeff Mincey? First, I'm not upset full stop. Second, my gripe (and I'm saying this now explicitly for the third time) is NOT with the version number but only with the lack of features for what I think many people rightly expected would be a major new release and not a minor or incremental one.
Now, even though you and minderbinder (in his post below) love to argue against a point I've never made to start with, my suggestion to you is that you devote your energy to posting comments about iTunes itself (the topic of this thread) rather than on the posting habits of Jeff Mincey (not the topic of this thread). Minderbinder might consider doing the same.

[minderbinder]

"it seems your only view is that you are upset over the VERSION NUMBER"
How DARE apple follow a version with the number that comes next?!?!?!?!
Isn't the solution obvious? Undoubtedly Apple should have invented a new number to come between nine and ten.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce...iTunes version 4.Frog.

[bigpoppa]

The other story is that iTunes and Apple have somehow worked out a deal to get some of Madonna's catalog (long time holdout) licensed!

[dak]

"it seems your only view is that you are upset over the VERSION NUMBER"
How DARE apple follow a version with the number that comes next?!?!?!?!
Um, 5.0 in version numbering isn't necessarily "the number that comes next".
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but version numbering is not the same as the decimal system. First of all, sometimes there's more than one dot. The numbers after the dots are for smaller incremental updates. Since it's not a decimal system, each number between dots is a separate integer, not a tenth or hundredth... So for iTunes, for example, a small maintenance update might have been 4.9 -> 4.9.1. Also, a jump to the next major number can come at any time. (A product can easily go 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.0.)
But a typical features update (not a whole new version) would simply be 4.10
Yes, that's right, Four point Ten. If simple improvements kept coming, it'd be 4.11, 4.12, etc...
You increase the first number when you have a whole new version of a product -- or you want people to think you do. iTunes 5.0 should be the one with all the cool new stuff, like integration with the supersecret Apple Tivo box.

[sqlrob]

In reply to:

---

How DARE apple follow a version with the number that comes next?!?!?!?!
Isn't the solution obvious? Undoubtedly Apple should have invented a new number to come between nine and ten.

---

uhh, use 10? It's not like Apple doesn't include other things that use the same numbering scheme in OS X. Nothing's wrong with 4.10. It's a version number, not a decimal one.

[tallscot]

you can set itunes to automatically import a CD when you insert it and also set it to import and eject. that makes importing your CD collection easier and faster.
It had this at 1.0, I think. I know it had this feature a couple of years ago because that's exactly how I ripped my whole CD collection a long while back.

[jdb8167]

I don't find this version to be an incremental update at all. The inclusion of the new search bar functionality alone makes it worth the time to download. I have thousands of tracks and I have a hard time finding what I'm looking for a lot of the time. The new search should make it easier for me to find things.
The other major feature is the improvements to the randomness. I haven't tried it yet but with a 5 GB original iPod this feature is very valuable to me so that I can get more variety out of my limited selection.
I'm hoping they fixed some bugs with Podcasts too. I haven't had enough chance to try out most of the new features but this looks great.
You might want to consider that Apple is being very careful with changes to iTunes because they have about 80% of the market right now. The last thing they want to do is make a mistake and lose some of that market share. Keeping the UI on iTunes as similar as possible while adding useful features means that there are no jarring UI gaps.

[minderbinder]

"Nothing's wrong with 4.10."
For geeks, that's true.
But mainstream folk (read: iTunes users) get confused by that. Have we forgotten the tiger release where apps failed because programmers didn't do version checks correctly and interpreted x.10 as being older than x.9?
Anyway, that's beside the point. Which is that some folk have their panties in a bunch because apple dared roll the odometer with a release that didn't rock their world.
It's a version number. Who really cares what it is as long as apple continues updating the software on a regular basis?

[tallscot]

Based on the published changes and new features in iTunes 5.0, I find it most disappointing. It feels more like a dot-something incremental release than the sweeping change I (and many industry pundits) had been speculating about in 5.0.
Well, let's get away from this "how many features a DOT release should have versus a whole number release" argument. The version number means nothing. Look at OS X 10.4 versus 10.0 and I think you'll see a lot more features and changes than what .4 meant years ago.
Let's just go with your point that you wanted more beefier features. I'd agree with you there.
I want iTunes to go out and get my album art for me. It doesn't. I have to use AppleScript to do that, which is lame.
iTunes doesn't let me browse by anything other than genre, artist, album. Why not give me the ability to make those three main columns in Browse mode anything I want?
iTunes doesn't let me put multiple artists for the same song (duets).
iTunes doesn't do something every Windows player does -- it doesn't monitor folders for added song files. You have to manually add them, and that's lame. iTunes should use Spotlight to give me all the songs on my hard drive and/or my LAN and when someone adds a new song, it shows up automatically. This allows people in a studio (LAN) to have a central server for the music and everyone's libraries update automatically.
Somebody already mentioned the ability to play without seams. iTunes isn't the best at this (WinAMP is).
iTunes needs more burning features. I'm guessing Apple doesn't want to because they want me to buy an iPod and not burn at all, but I don't need an iPod. I need to burn a disc now and then.
How do I create a custom order of my songs and then burn that order complete with albums? What iTunes lets me do is burn by Album and I get a folder for each album, but I can't create a custom playlist and still have albums (album is a feature on MP3 disc players that lets you jump between albums). So what if I want an album called "Tallscot's rock tunes" and another one titled "Tallscot's mellow tunes"? I would have to manually change the album name of all the songs I want to those title names...or I could use Toast.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this (and thanks!)
iTunes is a very good player, but there are some basic features missing that are really handy that are included in Windows players like WinAMP. But iTunes is free, so I'm not going to complain too much. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ashley_Easter]

Pity about the Folders not syncing to your iPod - I suppose within a few weeks / days there'll be an iPod firmware update. Here's hoping. Petition Apple for it?
Aside from that, I like the look and the new features, aside from the fact that you can't CHOOSE wether or not to include Podcasts in your library listing. (Even though I concede that this makes logical, consistent sense.)

[lkalliance]

Actually, 4.9.5 was suggested, and I'd suggest that 4.10 would be legitimate version numbering. Jeff's point is that if Apple is going to release 5.0 instead of 4.10 or 4.9.5 or what have you, then one would expect some major new features.
But iTunes number seems to follow the beat of its own drummer, anyway. If I recall correctly, the iTMS wasn't a full version number, and that would be a big new feature. So what do I know?

[Railbird]

A moose bit my sister once. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Peter Cohen]

So is she a were-moose now?

[lkalliance]

Mynd you, thse mse bytes can be prytty nsty, you know.