Itunes 10 needs at least OSX 10.5, costumers crying foul - Polidicks

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;30004011]You can, when you're made to believe that DX10 features substantial changes in graphics that DX9 can't do (which is an outright lie) and spend 1000 - 2500 bucks on a copy of vista and "specially crafted" hardware for DX10 when the only real change from DX9 to DX10 is 2 characters in it's name. [/quote] Have you ever developed anything using DX10? No. Shut up. [quote]And when DX9 Crysis runs far far better and looks just as nice as DX10 Crysis, courtesy of windows vista (which is required because XP can't do DX10 because <<insert corporate lie here>>.)[/QUOTE] Then get 7. And XP can't do DX10 [b]because the entire OS would need to be changed for it to be compatible[/b].

I find it funny that everyone in the thread so far is using Windows. :v:

Can't these lazy shits just bootcamp XP and just install the latest itunes on that Or is bootcamp something new to Leopard?

[QUOTE=Zet;30004411]Can't these lazy shits just bootcamp XP and just install the latest itunes on that Or is bootcamp something new to Leopard?[/QUOTE] lol, installing a whole new OS just for itunes?

I don't understand the uproar because of this. An OS upgrade at Apple is dirt cheap.

OP, you're kinda right... but that doesn't make it any less of a completely and utterly massive dick move on Apple's part.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;30004011]You can, when you're made to believe that DX10 features substantial changes in graphics that DX9 can't do (which is an outright lie) and spend 1000 - 2500 bucks on a copy of vista and "specially crafted" hardware for DX10 when the only real change from DX9 to DX10 is 2 characters in it's name. And when DX9 Crysis runs far far better and looks just as nice as DX10 Crysis, courtesy of windows vista (which is required because XP can't do DX10 because <<insert corporate lie here>>.)[/QUOTE] I don't think you understood what I said. DX10 is fluff and not a necessity. You [I]need[/I] iTunes for it to have your iPod and iPhone and whatnot, to work properly. I didn't [I]need[/I] dx10 to play crysis 3½ years back. Today is another story. Because xp has slowly been phased out over time. And certain games need vista/w7 to work, like Just Cause 2 (correct me if I'm wrong). But as mentioned, this happened over a longer period. And not like a dick slap in the face. Like with iTunes.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;30003698] So's my car. [/QUOTE] Bad comparison. Ten years in computer technology is like: [img]http://hobbykids.com.au/dev/nt4br09v/uploads/2011/05/horse2.jpg[/img] to [img]http://www.crossley-motors.org.uk/history/1920/18-50.jpg[/img] to [img]http://www.2011-tesla-research.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-chevy-volt-car-1.jpg[/img]

itunes 10 doesn't support 10.4 which is 6 years old. it does support 10.5 which is 3 years old and can be installed on powerpc and intel macs. what's the problem?

:bravo: Apple!

[QUOTE=Contag;30006337]Bad comparison. Ten years in computer technology is like: [img]http://hobbykids.com.au/dev/nt4br09v/uploads/2011/05/horse2.jpg[/img] to [img]http://www.crossley-motors.org.uk/history/1920/18-50.jpg[/img] to [img]http://www.2011-tesla-research.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-chevy-volt-car-1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Bro the first one has much better AI than the two others.

[QUOTE=Contag;30006337]Bad comparison. Ten years in computer technology is like:[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/microsoft-says-74-percent-of-work-pcs-still-use-windows-xp-exte/]Which is why XP is still good enough for the vast majority of businesses to hold out on upgrading past?[/url] A few features some IT tarts get excited over and fluff like native touch support do not revolutionary changes make.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;30010512][url=http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/microsoft-says-74-percent-of-work-pcs-still-use-windows-xp-exte/]Which is why XP is still good enough for the vast majority of businesses to hold out on upgrading past?[/url] [/QUOTE] did you actually read the article you posted? [quote] We've heard the reluctance to upgrade is due to a reliance on older software and the cost of additional IT[/quote]

lol, Apple. Making everyone buy hip overpriced bullshit since the iPod.

[QUOTE=toxicpiano;30010754]did you actually read the article you posted?[/QUOTE] That means that the changes in Windows Vista and 7 aren't good enough for businesses to make the effort of switching. Duh. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FlapadarV2;30004342]Have you ever developed anything using DX10? No. Shut up. Then get 7. And XP can't do DX10 [b]because the entire OS would need to be changed for it to be compatible[/b].[/QUOTE] As I said before, OpenGL 4 works on XP and it has the same features as DirectX 11.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;30004011]You can, when you're made to believe that DX10 features substantial changes in graphics that DX9 can't do (which is an outright lie) and spend 1000 - 2500 bucks on a copy of vista and "specially crafted" hardware for DX10 when the only real change from DX9 to DX10 is 2 characters in it's name. [/QUOTE] DX10 made very substantial changes, you just don't see many of them because it was mostly stuff that developers get wet over instead of consumers [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30015584] As I said before, OpenGL 4 works on XP and it has the same features as DirectX 11.[/QUOTE] Why are you comparing OpenGL to DirectX, they're different libraries entirely

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30015672]DX10 made very substantial changes, you just don't see many of them because it was mostly stuff that developers get wet over instead of consumers [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] Why are you comparing OpenGL to DirectX, they're different libraries entirely[/QUOTE] No, they are essentially completely same in their use. Thing is that OpenGL is doing on XP what supposedly couldn't be done and REQUIRED the OS upgrade change. In other words, DX10 being impossible on XP is a smoking heap of bullshit.

It is pretty obvious that DX10 only required Vista so that people would buy it. DX10 was deliberately made in such a way that it couldn't run properly on XP for that reason and that was known at the time of release. What are you trying to prove? One graphics API that will run on a different OS to another graphics API can do similar or equivalent things to it? Sure the majority if not all of the graphics features of DX10 can be run on XP using different methods i.e. OpenGL but that doesn't mean DX10 is possible on XP. It would have been possible if it was made that way.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;30015807]No, they are essentially completely same in their use. Thing is that OpenGL is doing on XP what supposedly couldn't be done and REQUIRED the OS upgrade change. In other words, DX10 being impossible on XP is a smoking heap of bullshit.[/QUOTE] DX10 features would have been possible on XP but Vista was out at the time and had changed a bunch of shit with how drivers worked so they coded it with their latest OS in mind There was a legitimate reason for DX10 being Vista only, this isn't the case with iTunes 10 Nothing in iTunes interacts with hardware and drivers the way a graphics library does

oh my god i'm sorry for bringing it up i was just saying that apple business practices are pretty much across the board for all companies and saying that microsoft is not the greedy one is a silly thing to say

10.4 came out in 2005. Considering you can upgrade to Snow Leopard for $20, I don't see why the heck this is a problem. Except for those with PowerPC hardware. And why did this even just start, iTunes 10 came out this past September.

Oh no, the horror of having to spend £20 on Snow Leopard! It isn't that expensive to begin with, and in comparison to the prices Microsoft charge it's basically peanuts. I fail to see why people are complaining with having to upgrade when it's laughably cheap.

[QUOTE=Browser;30003395]XP is 11 years old. OSX 10.5 is a little over 3 years old. That's a bit of difference.[/QUOTE] Don't say anything if you don't know what you're talking about. OS X 10.5 is a little over 4 years old. You can still run iTunes 10+ on it. OS X 10.4 (which you can no longer run iTunes 10+ on) is a little over 6 years old, and a majority of OS X 10.4 users are (probably) on PowerPC hardware; or else there's no reason whatsoever to not upgrade to Snow Leopard.

DX10 requires certain features to be present in the display driver model of the OS. Changing that in XP would mean changing the entire Kernel. IE: It would no longer be XP. DX10 literally [b]cannot[/b] function in XP, and if you think otherwise you're an idiot. Get off of the bandwagon. On Vista and 7, The DX9 API has to literally be emulated in order to function. It even has a custom build of DX9 called DX9EX that doesn't require emulation and exposes the new features available with the updated display driver model (At the cost of compatibility with older applications).

[QUOTE=dude2193;30002523]Um no. Microsoft is phasing out Windows XP because its 10 years old, why dont you complain that Adobe dont support IE 6 in flash 10 ? On all fronts XP needs to die, and its not to make money... plainly because its outdated technically, eg no TRIM support for SSD drives. Insecure, people have had 10 years to perfect exploits etc. And lastly.. its 10 fucking years old![/QUOTE] Shit, time to move out of my house, it's over ten fucking years old! Anyway, once I can upgrade my system I'll get Windows 7.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30019891]Shit, time to move out of my house, it's over ten fucking years old! Anyway, once I can upgrade my system I'll get Windows 7.[/QUOTE] 10 years in the computing industry has a lot more implications than that. Most people entering Computer Science (Bsc Hons) will learn things at the start of their degree that will be completely outdated by the end of it (4 years)

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;29995749]Oh wow, that isn't unpredictable for Apple but it's still surprisingly horrible. And people claim Microsoft is greedy.[/QUOTE] Steve Jobs is the biggest con artist ever... He changes his products every year and charges huge prices for them (not everything) also, as far as im aware, he donates little to charity.. Yet Bill Gates, (yes he doesnt really do much anymore) donates shitlaods of money to charity and is even giving like 99% of his money to charity when he dies. He also brought the PC into frution by selling computers really cheap so almost everyone could afford them.. Spot the bad guy..

Buying new computers... Pfff... Wait while I go to the store to upgrade my stuff to the best of the best for the price of 1 outdated computer that basically gets thrown to the trash when its far behind on specs. Serves them right.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;30067797]Steve Jobs is the biggest con artist ever... He changes his products every year and charges huge prices for them (not everything) also, as far as im aware, he donates little to charity.. Yet Bill Gates, (yes he doesnt really do much anymore) donates shitlaods of money to charity and is even giving like 99% of his money to charity when he dies. He also brought the PC into frution by selling computers really cheap so almost everyone could afford them.. [b]Spot the bad guy[/b]..[/QUOTE] Both ? Bill Gates did some truly despicable shit on early-Microsoft, i suppose he's just trying to make up for acting like a money-grubbing asshole for his whole life with the charity thing (if that's true). So the difference between the two is that you don't feel like killing bill gates when he opens his mouth in public. Other than that, they're pretty much the same.

Just upgrade, Jesus. I hate it when people refuse to upgrade but then get all pissy because their shit is now obsolete. [B]"Fuck Valve, HL2 won't run on Windows ME. :arghfist::saddowns:"[/B]