digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Dear Apple: Why does iTunes library management suck so bad?

simra.net — Ok, this is itunes version 7. Not 0.9. Could an intelligent Apple engineer explain to me why it is so hard to implement these seemingly straightforward features...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • simra, on 10/10/2007, -59/+38P.S. Are all these issues specific to windows users?
    • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -14/+12No - at the place I work at there was a user who just got a mac - ripped all of their CD's to iTunes AND copied the songs from the CD's THEN iTunes created doubles of both of them to "organize" their music collection. It filled up a 100 GB hard drive pretty quickly...
      • mikev, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26you can prevent itunes from organizing your collection, i think it's the first thing you're asked when you first run itunes....
        • carve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Really? It never asked me. How do I do it? If only iPhoto would do the same
        • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10there is this thing called 'preferences'
        • Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The option is in preferences, but never offered the choice on first run on Mac platforms that I have used.
      • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah erm, tick organise then DELETE ORIGINAL.
      • cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ironically, the iTunes SDK has an example (one of two) that simply goes in and deletes references to missing files. It's almost like they don't bundle this into iTunes, just to make that example script more valuable. In truth though, iTunes lets people script their own features into the system (both Mac and PC) so much that Apple probably shrugs at most feature requests and points to the iTunes scripting websites out there. iTunes also supports plugins, though that goes further than I'd take it.
      • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1iTunes-->View-->Show Duplicates-->sort by date added--->delete.
        • graduate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That only shows songs with the same name, despite the fact that they may have different underlying files - e.g. live versions, compilation version, studio album etc etc. It doesn't take the album title into account and it therefore totally useless.
    • mittortz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21I can't really figure out why everyone is digging you down, it's a legit question...
      And actually, I think at least some of the problems are specific to Windows. I remember, when I used to use a Windows machine 6 months ago, always having to redirect iTunes to a moved file, no matter how small the move. It was a pretty big pain.
      But now on the Mac, I just moved a bunch of songs around, opened up iTunes, and they all played fine. When I checked the "Get Info", everything was correctly labeled with the new location.
      So, in addition to your question being legit, I think there is a point to be made here - some of these issues don't exist on OS X.
      • Mythological, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14So then I guess everyone who has an iPod or wants to get one should just switch on over to OSX, huh? *rolls eyes* If iTunes is SUPPOSED to work on Windows, then it should... no bugs, no library *****, nothing. If they want to make it a Mac-only app, they should just do it... if not, then make ***** work correctly on Windows, too.
        • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -15/+111st off you sound like a troll.
          2nd, Mac uses a different file system from Windows. Alias's to files go directly to the file, no matter where they appear in folders. Moving a file on HFS only takes a milli-second because the actual location on the hard drive isn't changed, it just 'appears' to have changed, if you follow what I am saying. Windows works differently, taking a long time to move large amounts of files, and doesn't have the same feature set as HFS.
          • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Who's sounding like a troll here?
            1) Alias's aren't used by default by iTunes, Windows nor OSX
            2) Windows/NTFS supports what OSX calls alias, it's called subst, but since iTunes doesn't use this functionality, it's irrelevant.
            3) All filesystems just change the index-table when you move a file on the disk. No FS physicaly moves the file from one area to another, 'cause dirs or more generally space isn't physicaly mapped, not by NTFS nor HFS+ nor any FS that I know of.
            4) Although NTFS and HFS+ are different, feature-wise they're pretty much the same.

            So you we're saying? Please, don't speak if you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.
        • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5"So then I guess everyone who has an iPod or wants to get one should just switch on over to OSX, huh?"

          Yes.
        • AlphaZedAZ1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Though I recommend switching to OSX period, I can't say that iTunes is that much better on the Mac. Most of the points made seem to be pretty legit to me. Despite the overall quality of the software, the amount of aggro experienced managing music is unnecessarily high and could & should be reduced.
          • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is one of those articles on Digg that I just can't relate to. I've used iTunes since Day 1 and I have never had any major frustrations with it.
            This article just seems to follow the "mountain out of a molehill" model whereby a blogger/writer/whatever picks some some issue or inconsistency in a piece of software and tries to make a case for how it makes said software almost unbearable to use or in this case "sucks so bad".
      • euphoriadj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2actually I have had all of these problems happen when I was change from one mac to another or when I had to rebuild a drive. I still have ghost mp3's from my last upgrade to a desktop system to hold all my music for my Ipod.
        It is not an HFS+ issue just a itune DB one.
      • scragg0x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cause he said "windows", keyword for any short sighted digger to bury
    • jpkones, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17I dugg you up Simra, but for the record, this is why you're being dugg down - it provides an interesting glance into cognitive processing on digg:
      1) User sees headline or reads blog post - both are SO spot on, and it's an issue people are passionate about, thus user says to himherself: "lord YES- i *hate* this about iTunes"
      2) User the first comment, which is yours, and doesn't realize it's from the same person who posted the article.
      3) User sees "specific to windows" and reads it as some mac fanboy robot saying "NO - itunes rules! it probably only does this on WINDOWS"
      4) User still feeling empassioned (see step 1) lashes out thinking "NO, these are NOT specific to windows - i gots these problems too son" and they strike back at the source of the beef, digging your comment down.
      That's what it happening. Scientifically pretty cool huh?

    • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10iTunes is one of the major reasons I am getting an Archos 605 wifi 160GB instead of a Touch after owning 3 iPods - I just cant take iTunes anymore, its just ridiculous.

      Well, that, and for the price of a 16GB ipod touch I can get a 4.5" 800x480 screen and 160 GB of storage.

      I will be so happy when I dont have to update the software *every time* I use it, and just be able to drag and drop audio and video in whatever format its in without any transcoding nonsense, be able to copy the songs OFF the device whenever I want, manage it from any computer without 'authorization', stop waiting forever for the device to 'EJECT' (I cant stand that 'do not disconnect' message!)... argh.

      • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What is an Archos 605 wifi 160G? Nevermind, just read CNETS review. Enjoy it, looks like ass though.
        The good: With top-notch video resolution, incredible viewing angles, and integrated support for wireless movie downloads, the Archos 605 WiFi is the best of its breed.
        The bad: Battery life is only average. Many users will need to shell out extra for software and hardware accessories they'll wish were included.
        The bottom line: The Archos 605 WiFi portable video player is one of the best mobile distractions money can buy.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can you download podcasts from it? If so, im sold.
        • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yep - and you can buy audio and video from a bunch of difference sources over wifi - no itunes required.
          the new wifi itunes store is really cool, but i never buy drm content - its great for finding and checking out new music though!
      • ismith, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2unfortunately, it's not something you can carry around in your pocket. This is why iPod > Archos for many people. If I want an 8" screen I might as well buy a used iBook 12" for the same price as your Archos, and then I have even more in a slightly thicker but much more functional package.
        • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah size isnt not an issue for me, as my use will be for watching video on a daily train commute, and I keep everything in my briefcase. My train seats are not big enough to comfortably unfold even a small laptop (metro north nyc) - I had considered a tablet but they are all too underpowered as I do a lot of virtual machine development.

          I actually bought a touch yesterday, have the archos on order, and will return the one I dont like. The touch is indeed cool (the interface and font rendering are just gorgeous), but again I need to transcode video, which is a huge minus - I actually spend more time ripping and transcoding then I do watching, which is just wrong. The shimmery blacks are a turnoff, but the brightness is outstanding.

          However, I found Safari frustrating to use compared to my Blackberry Opera Mini browser or even the built in Blackberry browser, as although the Safari display is gorgeous, for mobile use being able to use one hand and having the content reformatted for the screen is way more functional (not to mention having EVDO speeds everywhere).


    • ACrazyGerman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A real simple fix is to get Winamp.
  • tracydanger, on 10/10/2007, -23/+20One thing that could be helpful is adding a feature to smart folders - all songs that are checked or unchecked. From this article, I wonder if the author simply didn't import songs properly and then ended up with the current mess he has.
    • ShadowPt2, on 10/10/2007, -9/+33"From this article, I wonder if the author simply didn't import songs properly and then ended up with the current mess he has."

      Exactly. Half of these complaints in the article and on this comment page itself would be solved if they imported their songs correctly. I'm not the biggest fan of Apple, but iTunes can be great for managing your library. (organizing it, tagging it) It's dead simple.

      If anything, on Windows I found it's a great combo with Winamp. (or VLC on OSX) Use iTunes for managing your music library, Winamp for playing random MP3s and other audio files. (and Media Player classic for videos)
    • woogley, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16actually, I have implemented these in my iTunes library. Just create a smart playlist (call it "Checked Songs") and use the following parameters:

      - "Name" is not (blank)
      - Match only checked songs

      the first parameter is just a space filler really. It just needs to be value that will match all songs.. how many songs don't have Name specified?

      secondly, you can create your "Unchecked Songs" playlist with the following parameter:

      - Playlist is not "Checked Songs"

      you can really do alot with the smart playlists if you take a few minutes to see what variables are available to you. maybe it's just the SQL programmer inside of me..
      • ShadowPt2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Definitely, that's one of the things that I love about iTunes: smart playlists. They can be incredibly useful for several different situations.
      • lat47, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Woogley - that's a really user friendly way of managing your songs. Quality software iTunes is not.
      • aadsfasdf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3- Playlist is Music
        - Match only checked songs
      • cgomez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ditto. In managing music for a smaller iPod, I just do "Genre is not Podcast" and choose only match checked songs.

        It's not very difficult and smart playlists are ridiculously extensible to many applications.
    • Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed, he just doesn't take any sort of care at all when he is moving his songs from volume to volume.

      Secondly, he says "if my stinking external drive gets a new drive letter everything's A-OK. Instead I have to fix every single song by hand..." What kind of backwards OS is he using that assigns a letter to a drive?! Why doesn't it just use the volume name? Didn't Vista finally fix this stupidity in Windows?
  • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -53/+38iTunes is very painful to manage, Apple usually gets UI things right but iTunes has been terrible since day 1.
    • astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18Which is why no one uses it.

      Oh, wait a minute...
      • SPARTACVS, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19Oh wait a minute... that's because the latest iPods have a firmware that prevents it's use with long standing alternatives...
        • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Only about 1% of iPod users have the new iPods. What was your point?
        • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Because I'm sure Apple is blocking 3rd party apps on purpose, as opposed to them just rewriting the whole firmware for the new interface and not bothering to update every tiny unsupported app out there that interfaces with it.

          Chill, give it a few weeks, these 3rd party apps will be updated...
      • carve, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I don't use it. If only you could manage songs without doing a full sync, it'd be great. I have a ton of music and a laptop though, so my songs live only on the iPod and an external drive. If I get a new CD, I have to add songs individually with floola, since a full sync would wipe out everything that is already there.
    • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11While there are a few improvements I'd like to see, I don't see how iTunes is all that terrible. I'm managing 14K of items w/o much difficulty. Perhaps this is a Windows vs. Mac experience, but I think the UI is pretty straight forward.
      • ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm with you, I've been using it since version one and have never had a problem.
    • wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the only reason I use iTunes is because someone made a good vista gadget for it and windows media player doesn't shuffle through more than 2000 songs without repeating an entire string of songs. I guess iTunes just has a better randomizer >_>. oh also, easy for syncing ipod.
  • basye, on 10/10/2007, -97/+14Buried for being another atheist Windows whiner.
    • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -15/+49I think you mean buried for criticizing all mighty Apple?

      You're Sad.
    • wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14@basye
      wait what does not believing in any religions have to do with this...at all!?!
      RELEVANCE *****, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
      • satx, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1The whole "[insert word here] *****, do you speak it?" meme has already been used today on digg, in the Fart in My Duck comments. Buried.
      • samryan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Look at the big ***** brain on satx! That's right, the metric system!
  • ploke, on 10/30/2007, -7/+57I just want the ability to make smart folders filled with full albums, not just songs
    • ericdano, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6What would be the difference between that and a playlist filled with Albums? I mean, you can make a folder, with multiple playlists that are created via rules........
      • dereo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1But I want a playlist of the last 20 most recently added albums, without combining albums in one list :(
      • ploke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1a smart folder/playlist or whatever it is called would have albums in it based on rules. I could fill it with albums rated 3+ stars that I haven't listened to in 1 week up to a limit of 20gigs, or 16gigs, or 8 gigs, or 4 gigs —starting to see how this is useful?
    • burntfire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I just added Album*** to the comments section of all the songs that were from an album. Only took me twenty or so minutes for 60GB of music.
      • phronko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is that on an iPod, you can't browse playlists by Artist. So if you make a smart playlist with only the "Album***" commented songs, you're stuck browsing through it by song title. Not exactly the ideal way to look through full albums.
    • monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Then do it, rtard.
    • saltydog4791, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I agree. I was hoping to use album rating somehow to make this work for me, but once again Apple does not understand the album mismanagement issues they have in iTunes. so sad for a company I am such a huge fan of.
      • Dorepoll, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I want the ability to remove Podcasts from my Recently Added
        • aadsfasdf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14right click > edit smart playlist > + > podcast is false
    • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I want iTunes to be able to add the 100 or so mp3's it won't even play. They work fine in any media player but iTunes. It also misreads all the mp3 tags. So I have to use winamp with my ipod (whcih i don't mind it's WAY faster than *****)
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe they're WMA or some other format mistakenly labeled as MP3? iTunes has never had a problem reading all the ID3 tags on my MP3s from various sources...
    • phronko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is my biggest problem with iTunes too. I've found a bit of a workaround that makes it easier to browse full albums separately from albumless singles, using the Compilation features of iTunes and the iPod. I wrote the details here: http://phronko.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-to-keep-full-albums-separate-from.html
  • deadbaby, on 10/30/2007, -14/+236I find it amazing that iTunes still can't monitor a directory and automatically import new items. Maybe it does and I just don't know how? It boggles the mind you have to do this manually.
    • quomen, on 10/30/2007, -12/+125It also pisses me off that if I move or rename a folder, I have to indicate the new directory for EACH SONG. If you delete those songs and re-import them, you lose all your album artwork and ratings. So stupid...
      • amoo3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2You can edit songs directories as a group. Its up somewhere on the iTunes help page, i remember watching the vid.
      • SilentSpyder, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14Maybe I'm understanding wrong but why should do you need to reorganize folders? iTunes takes care of all the folders. I haven't looked at my music folders in ages. It's all done with iTunes and playlists. You have to get out of that pre-iTunes mentality. Smart Playlist are your friend.
        • anjinash, on 10/10/2007, -10/+27Blow me. I move between several OS's, some which do not have iTunes available. Why let iTunes take over my carefully constructed and painstakingly tagged music collection anyway? Pre-iTunes mentality? Bitch, please... I like to have control over my own files.
        • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Whil I agree that folder structure shouldn't matter to me, it actually does because that's the only portable and compatible way of managing music (and data in general) with all sorts of systems. Like anjinash I move between the big three OSes and different MP3players, and the only thing that can glue it all together is a good folder structure, good filenames, good tags and not allowing some random program to alter all that. I'd like a universal music-db standard, but iTunes is far from it. I see it like the whole ODF/OOXML debate: I want a truly portable format before I invest. I don't think iTunes will still be there in 20 yrs, but I definitly want to be able to browse my music then. The only reasonably portable way of organising then it a sane folderstructure.

          Guess I'm thinking post-iTunes here.
        • execute85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love these kind of responses.
          "I need to do X."
          "Why would you want to do X. That is stupid. Here's a way to do Y."

          Can't people just say they don't know the answer? Or that they have nothing to contribute.
    • garbanzo, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7It does automatically import new items. When you put in a CD or buy a song from the iTMS. There shouldn't be a need for anything beyond that unless you are getting your music by unusual means.
      I'm guessing it's for the same reasons that taking music back off of your ipod is not supported.
      • shadesfox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well, I buy things from Magna Tunes. So, when I buy it and down load it what happens depends a lot. On my Mac with iTunes I have to manually add the music to the library. With my Linux machine with Amarok, even if I buy the music on the web page, I just have to download it into my music folder and Amarok discovers. It will be so awesome when KDE4 is ported to Mac and I never have to use iTunes again.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4To be fair I noticed this when I had eMusic, which is quite legal (nor even very unusual). That said, with Applescript you can create a watched folder that imports songs.
        • anjinash, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Yeah, write an Applescript for a feature that should already be in the f'n program. Slick programming, that is.
      • salimai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It seems like you're suggesting either that other online music stores don't exist, or that people shouldn't be using them.
        And what about people who - for whatever reason - use other software to rip their CD's? Maybe they only use iTunes for syncing their iPod, and use another audio player for actually listening to music while on their computer.

        The "unusual" means you mention don't seem so unusual to me..
      • KeepSwinging, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Whenever I download something from Limewire, it automatically imports, iTunes is way better then windows media center or winamp, there isn't anything else i'd rather use
    • Neil, on 10/10/2007, -21/+15I could care less if things didn't get auto added. I like that. I don't want all my random sound bytes to be added into iTunes. I like that when I add something to iTunes, it puts it in the nice artist, album, folder. I don't like random stuff to be added, until I tell it too.

      This article was the stupidest thing ever written.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's why you tell it which folders to monitor. I have tons of stock Audio that I use for projects but none of it shows up in WMP because WMP isn't monitoring my Documents folder. It only monitors my Music folder.
    • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -12/+69iTunes is not a file manager, it is a database. I have "Keep iTunes Music folder organized and Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library" checked. When I add something to iTunes library, I effectively give control of the (copied) file to iTunes. If I want to change anything about the file, I do it within iTunes. Simple as pie.

      14,000 items and counting.
      • ohnnyj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I don't have nearly as many items (~2,000) but I agree, I have had only minor problems with iTunes by letting it keep my files organized. There is a rare occasion when iTunes gets it wrong and I have to manually go in and fix it but that does not happen often.
      • reefsurfer226, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4word dude same setup as me, except i just have 9,000 items....
        although do you ever get doubles of files when you have these settings check? because when i "add to library" i some times get doubles
        • NinjaDuck12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Are there any .m3u playlist files in the directory? If there are, iTunes adds the files and then reads the .m3u and adds all the songs associated with it.
      • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Very true, if you're handing your music files over to iTunes ("Keep organized" option ticked), then frickin' let iTunes handle your music. It does an excellent job of keeping everything nicely filed away, as long as you tag your music correctly. And if you have even just 1000+ songs, you DO want to tag your music meticulously.
        If OTOH you do not hand the control over to iTunes ("Keep organized" unticked), then don't be surprised to screw up iTunes' database by randomly moving the files away from the location where iTunes expects them.

        iTunes certainly does have its faults, but if you screw with these basic ideas there's little iTunes can do to rescue your collection. Pro tip: If you do need to move your collection:
        1) Let iTunes organize the files
        2) In Options > Advanced, select a new directory for iTunes to keep your music in
        (nothing will happen at that point, only newly added music will be stored there)
        3) Select Advanced > Consolidate library (iTunes will copy all files to the directory designated in 2))
        4) Delete the stuff in the old directory
        5) ???, Profit, In Soviet Russia, your mother etc.
        • mcduckov, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't trust iTunes at all. Before I installed it I let blowfish zip and encrypt all my music so I could be SURE iTunes could not mess with my collection. The part where you delete the old directory sounds like bending over and giving iTunes total control.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1bury - wrong thread level...
    • dgp1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Dude, it just occurred to me that on a Mac you could use Folder Actions and probably an Automator script to do that! It would be awesome.
      • mediaphile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Yeah, it's easy actually. Just go into Automator, select iTunes, and add the "import file to library" action to the workflow. Then save it as a plug-in for folder actions, choose the folder that you want to be your import folder, and save it. Then any file you add there will automatically be imported to iTunes after a moment. Simple.
        • trappermark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least in Automator as I have it, this only works for AIFF or WAV files.
    • runeasgar, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Sounds to me like this guy's problems are pretty much all related to poor management of his own music.. and so he's pissed at iTunes for being incapable to compensate for it. I never have any problems with iTunes.. it has worked and does work great.
      • gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This all may be true, but these features have existed for years in competing MP3 players (Music Match Jukebox for example). There is no excuse for apple to continue to ignore the feature set except design arrogance.
        • bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Actually, no. Building great software doesn't mean "implement all competitors features."
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -34/+22I use a mac and itunes is painful, i hate how it forces you go keep the music on your harddrive if you ever want to go back and make changes to it later. For instance, i download somesongs, put them on my ipod, then delete the song folder, later, i decide i want to rename them, or change something, i can't. Next, i want to be able to plug my ipod in anywhere and put songs on it, not " your itunes is synced with another library erase and sync?" ***** no, i want your songs and mine. Next, why can't i just use my ipod as a jumpdrive and just paste the folders with the songs over to it, so i dont have to keep my music on my harddrive?
    • Lyph5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Because that is the terms that Apple agreed to with the RIAA.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10 Why are people digging down all of these rational criticisms? I understand people love Apple but this is just stupid, the kind of thing you see on video game forums.

      • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Because it's NOT a rational criticism. It's digitallysick overlooking an obvious & discoverable feature.
        • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know i can "manually " manage, but its still the same thing, music has to be on your harddrive if you want to make changes to the songs or playlists later.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Its because the fanboys have some sicko emotional dependencies with apple corporation. Its really quite disturbing to see them forming such an emotional connection with a corporation whos only goal is to make money.
        • ronmexico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't have a job do you? It's probably only to make money you greedy sicko.
      • SilentSpyder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Why would you move a song to your ipod and then delete the original in the computer? Second, it's DRM. We all hate it but that's way the RIAA has it. You think they'd let Apple make an ipod a pirating device. Anyway there's always Senuti and other third party programs that will allow that sort of thing.
        • SkullWolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Maybe we don't all have 160GB (with the new iPod classic) or more to dedicate to double-storing our music. I know when I bought an iPod the main draw was storing my music collection on it and taking it with me wherever I go. If I want to play songs on it, I'll plug it into my computer.
          • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And what happens if you lose or break your iPod?

            What kind of a moron do you have to be not to keep a copy on your computer?
          • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What kind of moron do you have to be to waste 80gbs of space with "backup" music on your laptop, humm
        • Gustav, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If it's DRMed, then why does it matter if you can copy it to other iPods? It won't be playable...it's DRMed....
        • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're under the mistaken impression that non-US-citizens should have to put up with whatever the RIAA thinks of. I have nothing to do with those ****ers, so I don't see any reason why I should accept this crazy US-centered business, or why I even know about it.
      • Gustav, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It was like that before the iTunes Store.
    • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Click on your iPod in the source list. Check 'Manually Manage Music & Videos'
      Drag the music you want onto the iPod (in the source list).


    • ExSlashdotter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Uhh, you realise you can just turn sync'ing off, right? Manual mode lets you drag/drop from your iPod just like you're describing. Drag/drop within iTunes, but drag/drop nonetheless.
    • tdhurst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So they don't make it simple to share songs. Think the RIAA might have had something to do with this?
    • carve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I totally agree. I was shocked to find these flaws when I got my macbook and ipod. I have a 80 gb ipod, and my harddrive is used mostly for photo and video editing, so I don't want to keep the music on it. No choice with itunes. I use floola instead, although it is lacking in other ways.

      iTunes is crap, although not as bad as iPhoto
    • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In this thread: People not bothering to read anything whatsoever, instead using the time to complain.
    • pitlord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How did you expect to rename a file that is in a folder you deleted?

      When you delete the folder the file is gone.

      Duh!
      • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i expected to rename it on my ipod itself, where the file is contained, i don't feel i should have to keep my music on my harddrive and on my ipod at the same time
  • iCallShotgun, on 10/10/2007, -60/+329Although I agree iTunes could be better, it's not ***** terrible like everyone above seems to think. Seriously iTunes could be much much worse, it could be like the Zune software.
    • gmprunner, on 10/30/2007, -42/+158I personally love the iTunes software, I've never had a problem with it. Maybe I'm just not power-user enough?
      • amoo3, on 10/10/2007, -14/+39Indeed. I find iTunes perfect for my music usage. Nothing more than a few minor gripes. Then again, I don't own an iPod...
      • ExSlashdotter, on 10/10/2007, -13/+36Agreed. But what do I know? I'm just an audio engineer with a 240GB music (legitimate) library... 320kb AAC + AppleTV just can't be beat as far as I'm concerned.
      • bradleyland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Most people I've run in to that hate iTunes are the type of person that wants to go in and manually organize their music into their own custom structure.... although I have no friggin clue why. Personally, that's exactly the type of tedium I'm interested in offloading to a computer.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can do that with iTunes as well. I'm one of those people, and the "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" option is always the first thing I turn off in iTunes. Other critical options to check are 1) turn off "Copy files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library", 2) for importing, check the "Use error correction when reading Audio CDs" option, 3) for importing, set "Import Using:" to AAC (for best sound quality), set "Setting:" to "Custom...", and in the next screen, set the bit rate to 160 or 192 kbps, and check the "Use Variable Bit Rate Encoding" option.

          With those options set, you're all ready to use iTunes with optimal results.
    • KMartSheriff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46My biggest beef is the Sound Checker. Some of my songs are louder/quieter than others, and sound check does a terrible job of fixing this. I wish so badly iTunes had something that could level every song out to the proper sound level.
      • timdorr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3It does. Right click a song (or even multiple ones) and Get Info on it. Under the Options tab you can set the volume adjustment on a per-song basis.
        • aadsfasdf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How is this solving the problem? You might as well have said just keep adjusting the volume on the ipod.
          • mediaphile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because you only have to do it once.
      • staan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sound check is terrible, because iPods play the song back at the wrong volume. They play it, literally, an order of magnitude louder than they should.

        The bug has been present since Sound Check was added, and is still there with the 5.5g iPod. I haven't tried an iPhone / touch / classic, so I don't know about those.
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Literally an order of magnitude louder? The songs are TEN TIMES louder than they should be?
        • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Please don't use the word "literally" unless you know what it means.
      • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, unfortunately iTunes SoundCheck is quick, but quick and dirty. Use iVolume if you want it done right, just takes a whole lot longer.
        http://www.mani.de/en/software/macosx/ivolume/index.html
      • jdpixel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For windows I use MP3Gain (freeware and open source) http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/ - normalizes without degrading qualitiy - read the faq.

        Pain to do your existing library - but becomes an automatic response when you get some new music.
        • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thanks for that, MP3Gain looks good.
    • bovox, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19It could also be as bad as Amarok. The intuitive action of double clicking on a song should start playing that song. In Amarok it adds it to the playlist instead, forcing you to double click it a second time just to hear the song. Stupid.
      • thepxc, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5I disagree. If I have a playlist, I want it to play and I want it to play in the order I have it. It's ***** stupid to have a double-click supersede my playlist instead of supplement it.
      • thepxc, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I disagree. If I have a playlist, I want it to play and I want it to play in the order I have it. It's ***** stupid to have a double-click supersede my playlist instead of supplement it.
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -17/+24The Zune software is actually better in a fair few ways. It automatically monitors folders, for one.
      • SPARTACVS, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Well I think your words are lost because I doubt the OP has ever actually USED the Zune software, he was just fishing for some +1s.
        • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2and he got a ton of them...
          • SPARTACVS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, so his manipulation and fanboy-pandering succeeded. Well I guess it was perfectly justified then.
      • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12Well estvir, since apparently you're the only one who actually *uses* the Zune software, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

        I'm sure it's just fantastic. Just like the Zune. Heh.
        • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't use it, if I'm actually listening to music on my PC (Which is incredibly rare these days) I'll tend to use iTunes or my second choice tends to be WMP.
        • Tishiablo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What's wrong with the Zune? ...
        • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Millions of people use the Zune software. You realize the Zune software is merely a reskinned WMP 11, right?
      • tavio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4i agree i have less problems with ZUNE . It just seems to work all the time... weird
      • supermajic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2God Damnit. I bet you've never even used the Zune software. Silly mindless Digg users. I don't even have a zune and I use the zune software because it has been the best media management system I have seen. It looks nice, monitors folders, and still uses M4A.
      • jtjdt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I think you'd only need folder monitoring if you Pirate music. The way Apple looks at it, is the only music going into iTunes should be from CD or the iTunes Music Store.
        • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2so, emusic is pirating music?
        • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your logic is retarded and I thought we all hated other companies/groups for assuming people are pirates. So once again it comes down to Apple being as worse as others? Awesome.
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4iTunes = Realplayer
    • Tony611, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15I've had zune software for 4 months and itunes for 2 days

      zune pros:
      drag album art
      great organization
      folder monitoring
      group tag editing

      sucks for:
      synching from and to zune is a living hell
      craptastic conversion feature
      album art looks like *****

      itunes is nice, but am I missing something with the album art feature? Is there no way to just drag album art onto it or copy and paste? Whats the point of coverflow if most of my album art is MIA? Not saying zune is better, but its certainly not bad. Don't trash it if you haven't used it.
      • hokiewalrus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yes, you can add your own album art in iTunes. Select the album or songs or whatever and "get info". Go to artwork and click "add" or double click on the Artwork area if you've selected more than one song. Ta-da.
        • Tony611, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5well I'll be damned
        • staan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can select files and drag images to the item artwork / mini video player as well, if you have it visible. (little up arrow, rightmost of the bottom left buttons)
        • awalles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2...wow and in less then 12 clicks too!!!
        • polyphonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4uh way less than 12.. in os x you can drag drop the artwork from a web page into the artwork square under get info.
        • childermass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1or just drag it to the little box on the left when you're viewing the album, no need to even go into "get info."
      • jeffchuck, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Please add to your sucks list the fact that they make you install what is essentially a second copy of Windows Media Player.
        • PepeGSay, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Yeah... cause that's such a burden...
        • Tishiablo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Please add to your list that Itunes is essentially a second copy of QuickTime.
      • nomad255, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i never have a problem syncing. what problems are you having? I Drag the album i want to the sync list and hit the sync button. No problem with album art. I actually like the Zune software. The only thing i would put on the sucks list is that its a incredibly slow memory hog.
    • pyromonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Maybe I'm just weird, but I ended up using the Zune software more than my actual Zune.
      I'm always getting new crap, and like listening to my new stuff more, so the "Recently Added" feature is really nice. I pretty much just left that up as my library, if Itunes had a feature like that I'd be happy.
      Guess I can always go back to Winamp, all the features I need plus I can sync my Ipod up to it.
    • IareKEVLAR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I have used zune software. I am forced to with my zune.

      I have considered selling my zune, and buying an ipod just because of itunes.

      It is that bad.
    • secleinteer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5This is why I hate programs that overmanage my music, and yes iTunes (on Windows) IS terrible. Winamp on Windows, Amarok on Linux - those are the best players for those two OSs. iTunes is probably the best player on OS X, but I don't use ***** operating systems like OS X, so I wouldn't know.
    • Niz1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i agree with you but there is nothing wrong with improvement!
    • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How is the Zune software/WMP 11 worse? It most ways it functions identically to iTunes.
  • Psygnosis, on 10/10/2007, -24/+9If iTunes had proper support for OGG I'd probably be using it right now
    • sg7791, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11iTunes plays anything that quicktime does, I'm sure there's a plugin somewhere.
    • avihappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10My iTunes does OGG just fine.
      http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/
      • CptnObvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Last time I tried that it played Vorbis files but it couldn't read the tags which makes it pretty useless as a music management app... maybe that has been fixed though
      • Psygnosis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So iTunes can read OGG tags now? I thought it could just play the music, but none of the metadata was added to the library. What's the point of using iTunes if all it sees is the filename?
      • mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That has never worked for me for some reason. Not in Windows, neither in OS X.
    • choy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7yeah you and the 0.02% of people that use it (though 90% of linux people)
    • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I miss FLAC support. I they'd add that I'd be over in a sec.
      • readerofbooks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0im already there but if FLAC support was added and the program features updated a little bit then i would be happy, but even as things are now itunes if the best program for mac hands down for music management, but im scared to even try and run it in Vista & XP a mac program in a Microsoft environment might act as microsoft office acts in os x

        • digitalarcanum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1what, you mean be a reliable piece of software? I know it's Microsoft and I know how you mac kids love to make fun of them, but office works delightfully well.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't see why you would use OGG over AAC. But lets not get into a HA listening-test here ;)
  • sg7791, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3Well... it is free software after all. There are plenty of alternatives... although I don't know how much longer that's going to last, the new iPods are iTunes only. So, in a way, I agree. If Apple is going to force me to use this software, then I want it ironed out.
  • gnslngr1919, on 10/10/2007, -12/+42My only gripe is that iTunes doesn't recognize different versions of the same song as being different. If I try to see all of my duplicates iTunes shows me the album version and live version of my songs. And it even shows covers of songs by different artists in the dupe section. That's just dumb.
    • garbanzo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26Sounds to me like the problem has more to do with the tags on your songs not being done very well than iTunes.
      • Naga10, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Actually, no, he's right. I have live versions of songs with the proper name, and with the date of the concert as the album (place, too, but that's irrelevant). iTunes is telling me I have >60 duplicates, when they're clearly not. It's not the tagging, it's iTunes.
        • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Yes, because being in a different album doesn't make a song different. The normal way of tagging live recordings 'Title [Live]'. If you get songs from iTunes, they're tagged like this. If you get songs from eMusic, they're tagged like this. If you use less legal means, they're usually tagged like this too.

          If iTunes were to check the album as well, It would miss a huge number of duplicates (there's no point in having a song twice because you got both the album & the single, is there?) Though it does bring up my one major pet peeve with iTunes (and other media players I've used) - you can only set one album for each song, when so many songs are released multiple times.
        • gnslngr1919, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I legally downloaded Paul McCartney's new album from iTunes. Then I downloaded the 5 song live thing he did from iTunes. It still shows me both versions of the songs.
          Also, I legally downloaded The Who's Who's Next. It has two versions of Behind Blue Eyes on it with different song lengths but iTunes still shows both of them to me in the dupes window.
      • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15to be fair, it should be checking for file length too, or even implementing a MusicBrainz-esque "fingerprinting" type thing. But then, thats not what iTunes is for. iTunes assumes all your music is correctly tagged because you either bought it from iTMS or ripped it using iTunes (with Gracenote tagging).
        • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But checking song length doesn't always work, sometimes songs are split up differently (secret tracks, different albums, &c.) Though it would be cool if it integrated musicbrainz
          • mediaphile, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's an interesting abbreviation for etcetera. Kind of archaic, no?
          • nasalspray, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Even more interesting is that:

            A) et cetera is two words for the love of god, and
            B) the word used to describe his/her usage ("archaic") appears almost at the top of the wikipedia article about the phrase "et cetera"...

            Surely it's a coincidence, though. After all, "archaic" is such a common word in colloquial English.
        • chidade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seconded. The MusicBrainz data would be a million times better than the Gracenote stuff they have there, complete with lack of uppercase letters, misspellings and in some cases, just the wrong songs altogether.
    • cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It *does* recognize dupes. The thing is, songs with the same name, but different tags aren't exactly dupes. So the same song with a different tag will be imported again. Since I realized this, my problems with dupes have gone away.
  • code2joy, on 10/10/2007, -21/+0Because it's written in Objective C
    • astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9iTunes is not written in Objective C. It would be a lot less awkward if it was. Yet, despite its Classic Mac OS roots, it's still the best music/podcast jukebox software available on any platform.
      • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1objective C makes things quite a bit more akward.
  • dyranios2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Some valid points here, I take many of these issues into consideration before importing music into my library so it is not too much of a problem but still wish they would overhaul it.
  • jhonizzle, on 10/10/2007, -28/+23is it just me or does this sound like someone hasn't played around at all almost everything listed is something that i've found a way to do...SHIFT key helps and then Command + Shift...for starters...just me ok
    • simra, on 10/30/2007, -4/+22Are you saying there's a way to select and delete by 'file not found'? If so, please share. Likewise, is there some secret command-shift combo when consolidating to ensure there's only one copy of any given song on the HD? Is there some magical way to automatically resolve broken links when importing?
      • selkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't know about on Windows, but on OS X iTunes is completely scriptable, in fact I just looked through my script folder and found a 'Delete dead tracks' script. I've added a few of my own (automagically convert make tags from a filename artist - song etc) so I'm not sure if this is a default script. iTunes scripts are extremely powerful, just visit this site: www.dougscripts.com and you'll get everything you could ever want.

        Here's the delete dead tracks script. Open script editor, copy paste and save into ~/Library/iTunes/Scripts

        property required_version : "2.0.3"

        tell application "iTunes"
        activate
        -- VERSION CHECK
        set this_version to the version as string
        if this_version is not greater than or equal to the required_version then
        beep
        display dialog "This script requires iTunes version: " & required_version & ¬
        return & return & ¬
        "Current version of iTunes: " & this_version buttons {"Update", "Cancel"} default button 2 with icon 2
        if the button returned of the result is "Update" then
        my access_website("http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/")
        return "incorrect version"
        end if
        end if

        display dialog "This script will remove every track, whose cooresponding file is missing, from the Library." & return & return & ¬
        "This action cannot be undone." buttons {"Remove Tracks", "Cancel"} default button 2 with icon 2

        display dialog "Beginning process." & return & return & ¬
        "One moment…" buttons {"•"} default button 1 giving up after 1

        set the stored_setting to fixed indexing
        set fixed indexing to true
        tell source "Library"
        tell playlist "Library"
        -- delete (every track whose location is missing value)
        set the counter to 0
        repeat with i from the (count of tracks) to 1 by -1
        if the location of track i is missing value then
        delete track i
        set the counter to the counter + 1
        end if
        end repeat
        end tell
        end tell
        set fixed indexing to the stored_setting

        display dialog "Process complete." & return & return & ¬
        (counter as string) & " tracks were deleted." buttons {"OK"} default button 1
        end tell

        on access_website(this_URL)
        ignoring application responses
        tell application "Internet Explorer"
        open location this_URL
        end tell
        end ignoring
        end access_website

        Hopefully Digg won't murder the indenting.
        • cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whoa! Cool script! Thanks much for posting this. I don't have any dead links at this point, but there's a few other chores I'd like to automate. I'm encourage to try now...
    • mattacular, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0its just you
  • tw0bit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5number 5 is a very good suggestion...it could clean up anyones music folder
  • transitive, on 10/10/2007, -22/+6I bought a Sansa e280 mp3 player instead of an iPod nano specifically because I hate iTunes and wanted a good player that lets me manage my file library with basic drag/drop folders. It works great and I don't have to deal with any of the iTunes crap or apple's DRM crap. It also cost about 100 bucks less then the equivalent iPod and does exactly the same things and has the same amount of memory.
    • bovox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10The Sansa is also butt ugly, has a nonintuitive UI, and can't play video.
    • choy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's also bigger, bulkier, IMO poorer user interface and navigation and believe it or not some people like to sync. iTunes isn't perfect and the Sansa isn't for everyone (though if you have a small library and just want to drag and drop it's porbably better0
    • mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5man sorry to say this but I heard Sansa's players through good quality headphones at CeBIT'07 and man the sound quality is absolute *****.
  • sdlvx, on 10/10/2007, -32/+7Apple is too busy making iTunes look "hip" to add productive features.

    When an open source project does what Apple needs, Apple will take their code and ***** all over them. Then, they will cram this Open Source FREE (as in free to distribute) code into a proprietary program for proprietary hardware.

    Apple can't code anything worth a damn on their own. They only get places if they're "borrowing" from the open source community.

    When are you Apple fanboys going to admit that the majority of the reasons why you love Apple (OS X Security) doesn't even come from Apple, but it comes from someone else?
    • Mac101, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9You kid are a moron. Buried for stupidity. But dont worry theres an army of Apple fans that will gladly bury you.
    • Kazaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You're right. Aperture doesn't exsist.

      Dragging music files and folders onto my iTunes icon is too much work.

      What is this Final Cut Pro? Bah, that was made by a child in his basement that Apple decided to take!
    • digitalarcanum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm digging him up, and not out of spite, but because for the most part this is true. OSX is based off mach/darwin i.e. linux, i.e. open source. Apple has made some nice things, yes but the fact of the matter is that they have stolen from the open source community and have given nothing but scraps of code back.

      Take a look in the past. most people claim microsoft steals a lot of ideas for their OS, but do any of you remember the windows 2000 source code leak? the only thing there that was borrowed from anything open souce was the tcp/ip and it was properly accredited.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -25/+72hmm, he messed up his music library and wonder why iTunes won't fix it for him?

    And did he read the feature set of iTunes, they support MP3 and AAC period.
    • Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20In addition he sounds like he is attempting to use iTunes as some kind of window on to his file system, as opposed to what it is - a database. Let iTunes organize your music, and treat its data as a black-box and it works fine. Start moving directories around inside its data box and watch things break.
      • rorrison, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yeah, it's a database. So what? When I add some mp3 files to my collection -- why can't iTunes notice and add them to the database? Why do I have to add them manually? I use iTLU (iTunes Library Updater) which takes some of the pain out of it, but it's slow and really should be built in.
        • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So? Instead of dragging music into your music folder, drag it onto the iTunes icon and have iTunes file it away for you. It's a slight adjustment of your behaviour from the good old Winamp days, but it works wonders.

          Or if it's too late, click File > Add to library > Choose your library folder and iT will import any files it finds that aren't already in the database.
          • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1so, iTunes is a "window on to his file system" ??
            ::see ggparent.

            you are all very confusing.
          • sneeka2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, the confused one is you. It's a database, that's why you DON'T manually fumble with the way it's storing things.

            Your filesystem is a database as well. That why you use the API available to your operating system to store files on your harddisk, instead of manually rearranging bits on the physical drive, 'cause that'd frag your FS in no time.
    • mrvociferous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You are both morons. Yeah, he moved things around, but what kind of stupid software (especially software dealing with 1000's music files) makes you try and find your "missing" music files tracking down the original one by one. This is a really annoying feature in iTunes. I've lost all of my music library (twice) because I've switched hard drives. The first time, I relinked everything, but this time, I won't do it. And I've stopped using my iPod as a result. If part of the wonder of the iPod is supposed to be this great software that lets you organize music and playlists better than anything else, why does it seem like a big part of it is stuck in 1992?
  • b00ks, on 10/10/2007, -9/+44Its funny as hell that this made the first page, because for the last 2 hours I have been manually deleting dupes from my hard drive. I am currently on the letter K.

    My cluster came from using windows and switching to a mac and using an external hard drive. Somehow I had the "copy files to the itunes library" thing checked. So it duped that on my external and my harddrive. Blah Blah blah.. you get the point.. needless to say in some folders I have three copies of the same damn song. Its really damn lame. That author brings up some damn good points.
    • adairnic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11you know where all the music is on your hard drive right? just trash your library and make a new one...just make sure you select "keep files" when it asks.
    • TastyLamp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4View > Show Duplicates?
    • leftfishjet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4What are you people doing to end up with duplicates? Why would you import/buy the same album multiple times and then complain about it when you do?
      • b00ks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The main problem that I encountered was that I manually managed my tunes, and I did not realize itunes did the same thing. So I had files in my itunes library and my mp3 dir. This happened on my pc and my mac. So when I attempted to consolidate my music, this is what i ended up with.

        I do not understand why its a default for itunes to copy ***** to the itunes dir. I like to manually manage my folders, its easier that way.. bah..
    • jtjdt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you bought your Mac at a retail store, you can just have a mac Genius transfer all your iTunes stuff from windows to your new mac for free.
  • combatchuck, on 10/10/2007, -14/+34Point 2 is a problem with the Windows file system. If the path changes, Windows has no way to track it. HFS+ uses unique file IDs, making it possible to track links and shortcuts throughout the file system. NTFS and FAT32 have no such feature, so tracking a broken path is pretty much impossible.
    • frozenelf, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Windows Media Player doesn't seem to have a problem tracking renamed and/or moved media files.
    • purpmint008, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Inaccurate. NTFS has that feature. As proof, anyone running Windows can go to start > run > services.msc and see that there is a Distributed Link Tracking Client. Additionally, go to start > run > gpedit.msc and under User Config/Administrative Templates/Start Menu and Taskbar there are two options that allow you to turn off search-based and tracking based systems that clearly refer to file IDs.
      • SkullWolf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14The only reason this guy could be getting dug down is due to mac zealots.
    • airphloo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Yeah, this is *****. I am a Mac user but previously I used Musicmatch on a Windows machine and it had no problem fixing broken links. This was back in 2004. iTunes still requires you to fix every broken link manually - even on HFS+
      • SonicRush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow I haven't thought about Musicmatch Jukebox in forever. Now THAT was some crappy software....
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9ok. BUT, if it is a Windows issue, then Apple should be aware of it and FIX IT. But then, iTunes on Windows has always been an afterthought, not so much "it just works", more "it kinda works..."
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Erroneous, sir. File tracking worked fine on XP with my Creative music software (which wasn't all that good, actually, but at least it had THAT ABSOLUTE-MUST-HAVE FEATURE!),
    • combatchuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I guess I was wrong, then. I wasn't aware that NTFS had that feature. In that case, there's really no excuse.
    • Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't why combatchuck is being dugg up for a comment that is blatantly wrong.
    • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gotta love the Apple section. A guy makes totally incorrect claims about a deficiancy in the Windows operating system and has more diggs than the guy who responds and corrects the errors.
  • adairnic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+63damn, just trash your library, choose the option "keep files", and then drag and drop your files back into iTunes. If your music is that disorganized in the folders on your hard drive, hopefully you have enough space to let iTunes organize them for you and then you can trash the originals.

    PS. I would have left this comment on your blog, but gimme a break, login name?
    • simra, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That's the best advice I've found anywhere- start from scratch...

      Ps: yeah, that's the default drupal lock-down which I've been meaning to change but have been too lazy to fix. If you've got a drupal.org account it should work, though.

    • ec92009, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You do that and you lose all you star ratings (which in my case determines what's alway / sometimes / never synced to my iPod). You also lose the volume normalization and the gapless detection (although that gets rebuilt automatically albeit very slowly)
    • phronko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Play counts too. I use these for playlists of music that I haven't heard or skipped in the last 6 months. Losing them would suck ass.
  • BayAreaKing, on 10/10/2007, -9/+75I like iTunes. It keeps all my music organized and does everything I need. Tip for some people (pirates): We all know that when you download albums, they're all messy. There's too many underscores, there's a bunch of random letters, etc (you get the point). What I do is enable "copy songs to library when adding to library" What this will do is rename all your files and take off all of those messy things and it will grab the album art off their store. You delete your old files and you're left with a very organized music library. Also, why use the sync feature on iPods? Just automatically manage music and you can get all the music you want off you're friend's library.
    • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Exactly, I do this as well. Doing it this way keeps it VERY organized and neat.

      Dugg.
    • MissionSix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2been doing this as well and it works great. although I've ran into some space limitations on my 30 gig ipod with sync enabled so I just uncheck older songs I don't want on my ipod and that frees up enough space for the new stuff.
    • justinjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do this but find that it only works if the song has it's tag info correct; if it's wrong, itunes makes a huge mess of getting it in the right folder
      • cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, as I mentioned above (somewhere) The same song with different tags (or the same tags, but different song length or file name) are treated as new files and will be added. By default, the same track with the exact same file anme and tag won't be imported twice.
    • queraxus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Not from OInk. All the tags are there as if I ripped them myself. Bless you Oink. Bless.
      • readerofbooks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1only the best!
        • creoleplane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1too bad oink's admins are a bunch of arrogant jackasses. theres far better ways than p2p anywho.
    • tmjoen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another clever thing to do, is drag the folder/files you're importing onto the PLAYLISTS tab on the left (right on top of the text).
      It will then create a new playlist with the songs you just imported - making it much easier to tag/edit if the tags are screwed up.

      Not sure if this works in Windows, but it works in OS X - and has saved me a lot of headaches.
    • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes, but I can add my songs to ANY other media player's liobrary and they work fine, not in iTUnes. It just messes everything up. I've even ahd it happen with legitimate CD's RIPPED WITH ITUNES. it completely ***** up all my AC/DC cd's I ripped. said like (randomsquaresymbol)AC/DC(randomsqaresymbol)
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1iTunes "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" function seems to be completely broken. The way it organizes music is by sticking the song file in a folder named (album name), in a second folder named (artist name). The problem arises when we have songs part of a single album, with different (artist name) info for each song. This happens on compilation albums, where different artists perform each song, and it happens in albums where certain songs feature guest artists, and the (artist name) value is something like "(artist name) featuring (secondary artist name)". What happens in this situation is iTunes will split up the album, make a new artist folder in the iTunes music library for each different (artist name) value, and then make (album name) folders in each of those, and split up the songs into one of the various set of folders it created.

      I don't really see a good method of allowing simple automatic organization while being able to account for compilation albums, guest artist features, and different artists with albums sharing the same name. I guess the solution from a data management point of view would be to assign a unique ID to each "album", and be able to define which songs are part of this album, and then organize all the songs within that album under a single artist name folder.

      It's possible that the "Part of a compilation" option in each individual song's info might be the ticket for this, but I haven't personally explored it. One problem there is that I would still like albums with featured artists to be organized under the main artist name, and not under some catch-all "Compilations" artist folder...
  • ispshadow, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8This article is dead on. I got really happy tonight knowing I could now run Itunes on Ubuntu with the newest build of Wine. Installed a slightly older version (newest one bails for some reason).

    Guess what? It still reeks in every department this article discussed.

    /Still looking for a better solution on Ubuntu..still searching....
  • Fkm7b5c, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2Hi,
    I agree on the incapability of iTunes on the organising of its songs. Maybe the software designers are unqualified to implementing such features, and they are still learning programming in school. They are art students after all...
  • gage006, on 10/10/2007, -26/+40You know why I like iTunes?
    Because I use Winamp.
  • speaker219, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17http://duggmirror.com/apple/Dear_Apple_Why_does_iTunes_library_management_suck_so_bad/

    Also, OGG in iTunes: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/138840.html
    • seventoes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Woah, duggmirror cought something?!
    • swankboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why does simra's web hosting suck so bad?
  • afosterw, on 10/10/2007, -25/+7Winamp!! It really whips the llamas ass!

    What is that sound I hear? Oh it's a stampede of fanboys getting ready to downmod my comment.
    • Peavey, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0Wow four people.

      Just watch that stampede go by...
  • sclifford, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18A*******men, simra is dead-on. My current iTunes library has been with me for two laptops now. It currently lives on a nearly full 160GB external drive. Finding broken media, smart importing, and better management tools are long overdue.
  • john2kx, on 10/10/2007, -27/+2people actually use iTunes?
    • john2kx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow, at least 25 people apparently do.. that's sad.
  • Narwaffle, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5http://duggmirror.com/apple/Dear_Apple_Why_does_iTunes_library_management_suck_so_bad/
  • Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -11/+37You could always try a Zune. Wait...no, stick with iTunes.
  • Wang, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3Dear Apple, why is the iTunes UI so unintuitive? Honestly, the number of iPod owners I have spoken to who were unable to work out how to delete items from their iPod through iTunes is beyond a joke :)
    • Peavey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's easy. You enable the feature to not sync items that are unchecked in the media library, or you enable manual syncing.

      Voila! Problem solved!
  • merbot, on 10/30/2007, -5/+52I would like it for iTunes to be able to load within 5 seconds of me clicking on the icon instead of waiting and pondering if i hit the icon at all, also please do something about the RAM issue why does it take 12 megs to play a song and have to load up 2 different processes just for itunes and the album viewing thing, if i browse all my albums im up to using 400 megs of RAM please fix your ***** apple
    • DavisCollins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I have noticed this on Windows, but on OS X it loads pretty snappy. I wonder if it is built differently or it just runs better on OS X.
      • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12it is both built differently AND runs better on OSX. On OSX it is integrated into the operating system, as is Quicktime. It uses CoreImage for its coverflow etc. It is the inequivalent to Windows Media Player running DirectX etc on Windows. Port Windows Media Player to OSX and you'll have the same problems, it will be buggy, bloaty, slow.
        BUT
        Since iTunes is a requirement for using an iPod, Apple have a responsibility (to themselves, more than anyone else) to have a fully working version on all platforms. If their Windows version is crap, it will put people off using iPods, because it will cast a bad shadow over the company's "it just works" philosophy.
        • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More accurately, it's not integrated into the OS, rather the components iTunes uses are part of OS X. On Windows, iTunes has to basically carry a copy of all the OS X code it needs with it. These components probably aren't optimized for Windows.
    • objbuilder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Also, osx loads an itunes quickstart program when you log in.
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I don't know what you mean by "quickstart", but if it means it loads when you start up the computer, that's not something I'm particularly interested in. I just want it to load quickly when I DO click the stupid icon and I'd like for it to not take up almost half my system's memory.
  • antdude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Server is down! Cached copy: http://duggmirror.com/apple/Dear_Apple_Why_does_iTunes_library_management_suck_so_bad/
  • JEWestbrookJR, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4I thought that my library was fine. Then I picked up an iPod classic today and when I went into cover flow view, on some album each song showed up as a separate album with a cover for each track. It took a little tinkering but I got it fixed. Seems like as you upgrade, it should get easier to streamline. Not more difficult. But I still can't complain. An hour later and I had my ***** all nice again. Oh... and in case you were worried or anything, apparently 50 cent gots some dope ass webcamzzzz
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14 Just look at all of the techies who are frustrated and pissed off by itunes. These are people who build thier own computers and rarely have to read instructions for anything and still have a hard time figuring this crappy program out.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5compared to other Media Management software, iTunes is child's play. RTFM, there's only about 5 pages.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1 So because other management software is even worse that makes it all OK? For the most part these programs aren't even necessary and are just a clunky substitute for dragging and dropping files in folders.
    • 5Twelve, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I wouldn't really say it's figuring the software out it's having to put up with doing almost everything manually. I used to have to spend a couple hours a month getting my library back into shape. The program is just a pain in the ass to use.
    • pitlord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Meanwhile, millions of technically ignorant are using iTunes with their iPods and loving it. I guess being stuck in a Windows mindset makes simple programs like iTunes difficult to operate.
    • mrvociferous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You are all morons. The point of good software isn't supposed to make me think "*****, if only I was using "computer type X." Good software (especially for a product that is marketed to millions of people using millions of different configurations) is supposed to be easy. If I copy my music library over to a new hard drive (because God-forbid a drawback of iTunes and the iTunes music store is me buying too many songs/movies and now my old hard drive is too full) I shouldn't have to spend a couple hours a day for the next month trying to relink 5000 songs and videos. That is just stupid. Especially in this day and age of computers.

      Face it, the iPod is great, but iTunes sucks ass.
  • misbehavior, on 10/10/2007, -16/+31I disagree that it sucks. I've got a decent sized library (8000 songs) and use it often. I can't say I have any major complaints with iTunes.
    It works great for me and keeps getting better.

    • ericdano, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Yup. I have a library your size with an addition of a 0 at the end, and iTunes works great. The author is really stupid.
      • mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And I have a library your size if you remove two zeroes from the end, and iTunes still works great.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I love iTunes, and I'm a non-iPod owning Windows user. It is very slow though, but that's more about its reliance on Quicktime, which isn't very.. quick. On Windows, anyhow. Apple should re-write the Windows version, combine iTunes and Quicktime into one program.
      • Twee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You can't download QuickTime as a standalone app anymore. You can only get it with iTunes. So I think they're in the process of combining QuickTime and iTunes.
        • lavchan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not true. QuickTime has always been bundled with the Windows version of iTunes. Also, www.apple.com/quicktime
    • RobSaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Same here. I totally agree. iTunes works great for me too. Fair enough there is the occasional frustration, but all in all it works fine. iTunes was designed to be the home of your music. Not just a tool to fill your iPod, so I don't understand why people wanna delete the files from their hard drive once it's on their iPod. Do they never listen to music from their computers? If you keep your music organised in the first place, there's no need for complaint.
      I feel some people just feel the need to vent when Apple won't do EVERYTHING for them, just the way they want them to.
      • datenshi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I used to use my iPod exclusively with a laptop that had a 20 gig hard drive. There wasn't *room* to keep all my music on the computer. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are still in this boat. For anyone who needs to save HD space, deleting music files is a pretty convenient way to do it.
        • Twee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hope you at least back up your music to a CD or DVD in case your iPod dies. Why don't you make the investment of $100 to get a 120 GB laptop hard drive?
      • Swift2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Or put your tunes on an external drive and change the preference->Advanced to find that library instead of the default location. Done.

        I really think iTunes works best if you just let it add the tunes where it wants, how it wants. "Smart folders" are a great feature. Explore that. Ripping the average CD that's in the big DB in the sky is no problem. Limeware Rerords (kaff, kaff) are sometimes difficult to find the data on. New search module for the really pesky stuff: Google. Its new music features always can bring you to a page where you can find a discography of the band's albums, with track names, numbers, etc. Very often, there's an acceptable jpeg for the cover, and you can manually paste it.

        I think there must be bugs in the Windows version that aren't in the Mac version, because very few Mac users complain. Part of it is that it must work differently from
    • cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've only got 5600 (which before this digg, i thought was a lot), but I've had no problems with the library feature. In the past i've had an occasional problem with syncing more then one ipod on XP. But, they weren't really that big of deal. I'm anal about organization, and iTunes, really seems to help with that.
    • pradaaddict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+510,324 songs and counting. iTunes has never been an issue and if your library looks like the bloggers then you are just plain lousy at organizing music. It's quite simple with iTunes. all you need really do is download the album from CD, Torrent, or iTMS then drag it into iTunes and grab the album art. It's not rocket science....
    • bungoman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0try having a library of 30,000 songs and tell me it works just fine. once you hit a certain threshold itunes becomes slow to the point of being almost useless. if it wasnt for my ipod i wouldn't use it.
  • maxputer, on 10/30/2007, -11/+31This is quite funny... I have always really liked the iTunes interface... some valid points I suppose... but on a whole I still really like iTunes... much better than any other media library software I have tried on PC's or Mac's... not perfect but still the best I have ever used.
    • gangeKilla, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Have you tried wmc, vlc, foobar2000, Mediamonkey, Cowon media center - Jetaudio, winamp 2.9, jriver media center and for a pretty interface Songbird? Each one of these I'd rock before itunes. This isn't to bash apple, just one piece of ***** software they make.

      But seriously if you think itunes looks good try Songbird or customized foobar2000. Very sexy.
      • readerofbooks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2any mac programs on that list?
        • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1VLC and Songbird runs on OSX. Aside from that.... nope. iTunes has pretty much got a monopoly on that platform. And people complain about WMP on Windows.... i ask you...
          • cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1VLC is an interesting and useful media player. Not so much for organizing a library. Songbird has media library features but every version I've tried is pretty buggy. I'll try it again soon.
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1VLC and Songbird most certainly do -- I'm using them right now...
          Haven't looked for the other, but google will answer that one pretty quickly.
        • maxputer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1VLC I use a ton on both my PC's and my Mac... but as a Library Management tool? You got to be kidding me... ? VLC is awesome as it will play any file, thanks to the open source libraries... but for organizing album art and meta tags? Are we talking about the same application? or the same thing in terms of "media library"... ?
  • jewcantdenyit, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7i use mediamonkey, im surprised no one mentioned it. i find it great for organizing a large library and has a lot of advanced features and great community.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I prefer Helium Music Manager, that is one awesome piece of software. Shame you have to pay for it. So I'll stick with the free iTunes.
    • yfph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree with the original poster in that mediamonkey has all of the features the blogger whined that iTunes lacked. Plus, iTunes pretty much died on my system (core2duo, 2gigs of memory) when trying to handle 50,000+ mp3s, whereas Mediamonkey handled them with ease. Mediamonkey also has an extensive community offering up several unique addons. Besides $20 is not too much to pay for a lifetime license, especially to reward those who wrote a pretty nice piece of software. It is probably one of the very few programs that I have ever purchased.
    • kwilliam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2MediaMonkey is indeed excellent. I'd highly recommend it.
  • edru, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8one of those is pointless, hes bitching about telling it where to find media if relettering a HDD, big deal, just go into prefs and tell it the new location, bam fixed for all of them
  • c0n724ll10n, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Anyone that uses the Sync feature should just use manual. I don't know why anyone would use Sync in the first place.
    • adairnic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it is easier. adds new music when you have it, or manages a large library to fit your smaller iPod.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I used to use manual. I stopped.

      For example, sometimes I leave my iPod in my car. If I rip a new disc and want to put it on it, I have to go get it, or else write myself a note to add it to the iPod next time I have it with me at the computer.

      Instead, I have a playlist which is "songs on iPod". If I want to add a song to the iPod, I just drag it to that playlist. I can do this even if the iPod isn't around. Then next time I connect the iPod, it syncs to that playlist automatically, copying the song over.
      • drakino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Use smart playlists for this. Make one that uses date added, and set it to however long, and that will ensure your iPod gets your recently ripped songs.

        Smart playlists are one of the better features of iTunes, and really help to also automatically sync your music to a smaller iPod device.
    • SkullWolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I wish i could use manual mode on my iPhone : (
    • tommertron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hear hear. I don't know why some people swear by manual copying so much. I download a lot of new songs at different times - I don't want to have to remember to add all the new stuff to my iPod every time I plug it in. I just plug it in, and it syncs my whole library. Why wouldn't I want my whole library on there?
  • emt1451, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Why does your server suck so bad?
  • airphloo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13My biggest complaint with iTunes is how difficult they make it to share the same music across different user accounts on the same computer. I have come up with a solution that works great for me but it is a real chore to explain to my friends and family who have switched to Apple for its ease of use.

    Also when iTunes is switching from one track to the next, why does it take almost 5 seconds to stop playing the next song after I have hit pause? iTunes seems to require a ton of processing power to switch from one track to the next.
    • tadunne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think there much wrong with iTunes I think a lot of people have trouble when they don't let itunes organise the music, but you are right sharing between accounts is a little difficult. I would like Apple to introduce a server based version of itunes so all music can be kept in one computer. Sure you can share libraries, but that's a read only solution. It would like nice to put some music on my laptop and have it automatically sync with a main library on my desktop so all my music is in one place for easy backup. Of course the laptop would have to have some kind of cache so music can be listened to off-line, it would almost be like turning the laptop into an Apple TV? Maybe in ilife 2009 we can get itunes pro?
  • dereo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I manage about 100GB of media with iTunes and I think it's great. I don't think that it should be the only media player that you can sync with an iPod. But honestly, can you think of any other software that you would rather use with your iPod?
    • abajaj2280, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1yeah, J. River
      It's a nice app.
      • dereo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3really??? any reason besides it being a nice app?
        • offput, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Is there any reason other than an application being good to use it? Moron
    • Sairgem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Amarok, I use Linux. :) Just glad I have an older ipod so I can still use third party software.
    • SkullWolf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Yeah, a file browser so I can drag/drop.
    • Philbert, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3WMP 11 or at least like SkullWolf said, a file browser
    • Ellipsys, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Media Monkey. AmaroK. Winamp (5.5beta). I have an iPhone that I would just love to be able to copy and paste files to, for that matter!
    • creoleplane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anything but iTunes. Winamp organizes my library of over 600 gigs of media much better than iTunes ever could, not to mention the fact that it actually plays my .shn and .flac files. When I had and iPod I used it with Winamp religiously. Being able to copy songs off of my 400 dollar device was a nice feature iTunes was lacking. Then I installed rockbox and had drag and drop, which is what apple should have done in the first place. They keep there products to locked down, and often times featureless to PC users.
  • websyndicate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4works for me but I do wish when i have extrnal drive hooked up it would show the music and when eject it doesnt so you dont get those stupid question marks all the time.
    • bigmahlman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3just dont have itunes open when your external is not pluged in!
      its great!
  • astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Meanwhile, all other music jukebox/library software on the planet wished it had these kinds of problems.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Wished" as in past tense, yes. They all overcame these kinds of silly basic-functionality problems years ago.
      Really, it's a classic mono-culture problem: on Mac, there is iTunes, period, and people assume that it is the be-all-end-all solution for that platform, so Apple feels no pressure to improve on their product.
      Under other OSes, there are bazillions of media management apps, and they all keep pushing each other forward and forces contunuous improvements. Some of these apps bleed over into OSX turf, but they still sit in the shadow of iTunes.

      ...and, of course, on top of this are Apple's on-again, off-again attempts to ensure that iTunes is the only way to interact with your iPod, which doesn't help.
  • abajaj2280, on 10/10/2007, -20/+17I'm s