Apple Releases iTunes 7.3.2

[Paranoid Marvin]

Apple has just released iTunes 7.3.2 for both Windows and Mac.

 

The release notes are as follows:

iTunes 7.3.2 provides bug fixes to improve stability and performance.

 

You may either download it directly from the links below, or simply fire up Software Update.

• Mac version - 33.8mb
  
• Windows version - 47.7mb
  

As always, if you find something new, remember to tell us!

[BlackShadowWolf]

Yeah it screwed my Windows system up. Now whenever I open iTunes, it says there are Windows System components missing and it may not be able to launch, connect to an iPod etc. So I just erased it and put back on 7.3.1

[pyrates]

Yeah it screwed my Windows system up. Now whenever I open iTunes, it says there are Windows System components missing and it may not be able to launch, connect to an iPod etc. So I just erased it and put back on 7.3.1

 

And people say Apple Software Just Works.

[EFI]

And people say Apple Software Just Works.

 

On [real] Macs running OS X. Yes.

 

 

The guarantee does not exist on Windows . Heck, no guarantee for any software exists on Windows.

[cabron]

On [real] Macs running OS X. Yes.

The guarantee does not exist on Windows . Heck, no guarantee for any software exists on Windows.

 

:D :D thats a sadly thruth.

[Xenctuary]

The sorting bug with numbered artists has still not been fixed.

[pyrates]

On [real] Macs running OS X. Yes.

The guarantee does not exist on Windows . Heck, no guarantee for any software exists on Windows.

 

So it is Microsoft's fault that Apple's software doesn't work correctly on windows? Nice, way to pass the buck instead of saying that Apple should fix something in their software should a fault be found. If that is so, explain the vulnerabilities in the Safari 3 beta that were found to be in the final version of Safari 2 browser for OS X.

 

I can't stand it when companies don't take responsibility for programs that they create and especially when rabid fan boys try to do the same thing saying it's another companies fault instead of the company that makes the program.

 

This is exactly what happened when the vulnerability in the safari browser for the iphone was found to have vulnerabilities:

 

iPhone Security Flaw: Apple Faithful to the Rescue

 

I think this is extremely bad trying to always make something look good because when something comes up that should be fixed, trying to defend it is not what you should be doing. You are then saying that it shouldn't be fixed.

[EFI]

When a software is truly bad...and needs major work in trying to fix it....then its worth taking the time to nail the company in doing a better job at it. For Apple, in my opinion...this would be .Mac service.

 

Individuals who have the sole aim of finding all flaws with Apple without looking at their accomplished side is what is wrong. Flaws are different from exploits...sadly, 90% of the people, don't realize that...ESPECIALLY tech journalists. Once they come across someone who has found a flaw....they immediately think its an exploit and a virus readily is avaliable to take advantage of it. Yes, Safari as flaws, but there have not been any viruses from the result of exploits...as of now. This may or may not change in the future, but this is how it stands now. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, has had already several critical accounts of vulnerability already for a browser that did not even pass the Acid 2 test...and this is just skimmed through in the community. Why is it that Microsoft can get away wtih these...and when one Apple "flaw"comes along...such a big deal has to be made about it when its NOT EVEN an exploit?

 

By the way, the rabid fanboys reference was not necessary:

 

I can't stand it when companies don't take responsibility for programs that they create and especially when rabid fan boys try to do the same thing saying it's another companies fault instead of the company that makes the program.

 

 

Have you seen Windows Media Player and Office for the Mac?...and how visurally crappy and crippled Microsoft made it for the Mac version?

On the contrary, have you seen how equal Apple tries to be on the Windows side with Quicktime Player, and iTunes, and now Safari? And how close they are visually with the only barrier being the Windows UI restrictions?

 

Please...perhaps you should see which company is taking the time to support versions in other OSe's in quality...rather than just for the sake of signing an agreement 10 years ago.

[pyrates]

When a software is truly bad...and needs major work in trying to fix it....then its worth taking the time to nail the company in doing a better job at it. For Apple, in my opinion...this would be .Mac service.

 

Yet some continue to sign up for it no matter what. What does that tell ya?

 

Individuals who have the sole aim of finding all flaws with Apple without looking at their accomplished side is what is wrong. Flaws are different from exploits...sadly, 90% of the people, don't realize that...ESPECIALLY tech journalists. Once they come across someone who has found a flaw....they immediately think its an exploit and a virus readily is avaliable to take advantage of it. Yes, Safari as flaws, but there have not been any viruses from the result of exploits...as of now. This may or may not change in the future, but this is how it stands now. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, has had already several critical accounts of vulnerability already for a browser that did not even pass the Acid 2 test...and this is just skimmed through in the community. Why is it that Microsoft can get away wtih these...and when one Apple "flaw"comes along...such a big deal has to be made about it when its NOT EVEN an exploit?

 

Now those I don't like either. But when a legitimate exploit is found, trying to say it's not an exploit is not what one should be doing. But that is exactly what happened in the article I linked to. See my point? As for the virus or if the exploit was being used, that is easily to implement from the kit that you can buy that has a whole bunch of exploits in it that is now not just for IE but Firefox as well. Soon they will add Safari to it. I guarantee that. Apple is not immune despite what some people say.

 

By the way, the rabid fanboys reference was not necessary:

 

That is exactly what some users of Apple's products are though. You can't deny that. You may claim not to be, but others are. And they definitely stand out. I can't stand fan boys for anything out their that defend their company who they are biased for, to the degree that it is more faith then logic. That includes linux and Windows fan boys as well. I'm not either one.

 

Have you seen Windows Media Player and Office for the Mac?...and how visurally crappy and crippled Microsoft made it for the Mac version?

On the contrary, have you seen how equal Apple tries to be on the Windows side with Quicktime Player, and iTunes, and now Safari? And how close they are visually with the only barrier being the Windows UI restrictions?

 

Please...perhaps you should see which company is taking the time to support versions in other OSe's in quality...rather than just for the sake of signing an agreement 10 years ago.

 

And have you seen how Apple made Quicktime for Windows? They use the brushed metal look, not the native UI that Windows uses. Same thing with iTunes and now Safari. They both do the same thing on each other's OS. Maybe it's because it is free. I certainly don't recall Office for OS X using the Windows look, but rather it follows the UI guide lines that OS X sets out. That seems to be the difference here.

 

This is also why I don't use iTunes and Safari, and use QT Lite in Windows and I think it's called Totem Player when I'm in linux.

[EFI]

Yet some continue to sign up for it no matter what. What does that tell ya?

 

I blame the Apple store employees for that one...It's wrong, and I will admit that. I have been to Apple stores where I see the employees trying to sell .Mac services by claiming that it is better than Gmail/Pando. I feel sorry for those individuals who actually believe that {censored}. I personally will not get a .Mac account...primarly because you can get every single feature for free in other places...such as gmail for email, and Pando for online storage. Unless they seriously bump up the specs/features of the service...it looks like its not going to have a future.

 

Now those I don't like either. But when a legitimate exploit is found, trying to say it's not an exploit is not what one should be doing. But that is exactly what happened in the article I linked to. See my point? As for the virus or if the exploit was being used, that is easily to implement from the kit that you can buy that has a whole bunch of exploits in it that is now not just for IE but Firefox as well. Soon they will add Safari to it. I guarantee that. Apple is not immune despite what some people say.

 

Remember, I don't deny there is a vulerability...I just hate it when journalists, and later on Windows users (not aiming at you) make it out to be SUCH a big deal...as if OS X is all of a sudden going to come down in a flash. Titles (and I have seen this on numerous occasions) such as "OS X is no more secure than Windows"...and then in the article point to a single conceptual vulnerability...is what I hate above all things computer related. If individuals (windows users specifically) try to pull this off and claim that "ha ha" os x is just as bad as Windows (version inspecific)....I will go all out, and I guarantee that. But if someone can actually talk with some logic, and assess the vulnerability to its actual damage potential...then I would love talking with them...and most likely agree with them as well.

 

 

And have you seen how Apple made Quicktime for Windows? They use the brushed metal look, not the native UI that Windows uses. Same thing with iTunes and now Safari. They both do the same thing on each other's OS. Maybe it's because it is free. I certainly don't recall Office for OS X using the Windows look, but rather it follows the UI guide lines that OS X sets out. That seems to be the difference here.

 

I was talking feature to feature. Hence why I mentioned cripping the version for OS X. Moreover, Windows Media Player for OS X does not use proper cocoa guidelines either...it has the brushed metal interface, and stands out from the rest of the OS also. Its both ways for the UI, but for the features...I think Apple is much, much more equal. MSN messenger has been obsolete on OS X for the longest time...I believe its still in version 6. Windows media player is still in version 9 for OS X...while Windows gets version 11...while Quicktime is avaliable for Windows in the same version as OS X...and same with iTunes...and now recently Office 2008 was just delayed for OS X. Why should Mac users suffer this inequality? (even though there are better alternatives for both of them)....you get the point neverthless.

[funny_bala]

i think they discontinued the windows media player for mac os x

[Takuro]

Can anybody post a link to iTunes 7.3.1 (Mac)?

 

7.3.2 doesn't want to play nicely with my legally purchased videos. It just won't authorize my ownership of them. Apple definitely screwed up with this last release. Big time. I'm currently using iTunes 6 temporarily...

 

Oh, and the authorization bug doesn't exist in the Windows version. Ironic.

[pyrates]

I blame the Apple store employees for that one...It's wrong, and I will admit that. I have been to Apple stores where I see the employees trying to sell .Mac services by claiming that it is better than Gmail/Pando. I feel sorry for those individuals who actually believe that {censored}. I personally will not get a .Mac account...primarly because you can get every single feature for free in other places...such as gmail for email, and Pando for online storage. Unless they seriously bump up the specs/features of the service...it looks like its not going to have a future.

 

Then I would vote with my dollar and not get it. Then complain to Apple directly that until they fix the issues with it, that I wouldn't be getting it. Tell the sales people that.

 

Remember, I don't deny there is a vulerability...I just hate it when journalists, and later on Windows users (not aiming at you) make it out to be SUCH a big deal...as if OS X is all of a sudden going to come down in a flash. Titles (and I have seen this on numerous occasions) such as "OS X is no more secure than Windows"...and then in the article point to a single conceptual vulnerability...is what I hate above all things computer related. If individuals (windows users specifically) try to pull this off and claim that "ha ha" os x is just as bad as Windows (version inspecific)....I will go all out, and I guarantee that. But if someone can actually talk with some logic, and assess the vulnerability to its actual damage potential...then I would love talking with them...and most likely agree with them as well.

 

It only takes one though. But the main reason is the vocal minority of the mac community that had claimed for years that OS X doesn't have these kinds of vulnerabilities that Windows has. And now we're finding that it does. So blame them for some tech journalists acting the way they are. That vocal minority brought this on themselves.

 

I was talking feature to feature. Hence why I mentioned cripping the version for OS X. Moreover, Windows Media Player for OS X does not use proper cocoa guidelines either...it has the brushed metal interface, and stands out from the rest of the OS also. Its both ways for the UI, but for the features...I think Apple is much, much more equal. MSN messenger has been obsolete on OS X for the longest time...I believe its still in version 6. Windows media player is still in version 9 for OS X...while Windows gets version 11...while Quicktime is avaliable for Windows in the same version as OS X...and same with iTunes...and now recently Office 2008 was just delayed for OS X. Why should Mac users suffer this inequality? (even though there are better alternatives for both of them)....you get the point neverthless.

 

If I recall actually, Microsoft has retired windows media player for os x and bought the company that makes the flip4mac quicktime plugin, and then made it free.

[EFI]

Then I would vote with my dollar and not get it. Then complain to Apple directly that until they fix the issues with it, that I wouldn't be getting it. Tell the sales people that.

 

I could do that...but how many others will back me up? It's August 7th now...(the time of writing this)...we'll see what Apple themselves do about it (if they are going to do anything to .Mac service.

 

But the main reason is the vocal minority of the mac community that had claimed for years that OS X doesn't have these kinds of vulnerabilities that Windows has.

 

No, no. The vocal minority of the Mac community has claimed for years that OS X doesn't have these kinds of exploits that Windows has. That was what was always said. The vast majority (if they are knowledgable enough to know something about OS X) know that there are vulnerabilities. The claiming that OS X is far safer was only said in relation to the exploits. The tech journalists happen to think no different of vulnerability from exploits, and even some Windows users.

 

If I recall actually, Microsoft has retired windows media player for os x and bought the company that makes the flip4mac quicktime plugin, and then made it free.

 

That explains Media Player...but without pointing at Adium...why is MSN, which is still arguably the worlds most widely used instant messenger...lagging in terms of development on the Mac side? Why is Office 2008 planned to be released a full year later than when it was released for Windows?

[pyrates]

I could do that...but how many others will back me up? It's August 7th now...(the time of writing this)...we'll see what Apple themselves do about it (if they are going to do anything to .Mac service.

 

Well looks like you have a reason to get it now.

 

No, no. The vocal minority of the Mac community has claimed for years that OS X doesn't have these kinds of exploits that Windows has. That was what was always said. The vast majority (if they are knowledgable enough to know something about OS X) know that there are vulnerabilities. The claiming that OS X is far safer was only said in relation to the exploits. The tech journalists happen to think no different of vulnerability from exploits, and even some Windows users.

 

Just look at the number of patches Apple issues for OS X that is security related and it is no better then Windows is. The only difference being that Windows is a bigger target. But this here is exactly the kind of reaction that I expect from Apple users when a legitmate exploit is found. I think this is stupid to try to defend it. It's a security problem. No wonder Apple gets attacked. Their user base is what causes it.

 

Here's another example. Just how many Apple users would accept it without arguement when no other store would do something similar? Yes I know it was a joke. But just look at their reactions to it when some of them think it is for real.

 

And one more. Just look here at the number of people not even reading the story and misunderstanding it, saying that it was the woman's fault or that she should have used a credit card, or that she shouldn't be buying a mac if she can't afford one. These people are exactly why the Mac gets a bad rep for windows and linux users. If this was any other company, you wouldn't be able to find any one that would be defending it. But if it's Apple, the mac faithful need to defend it.

 

That explains Media Player...but without pointing at Adium...why is MSN, which is still arguably the worlds most widely used instant messenger...lagging in terms of development on the Mac side? Why is Office 2008 planned to be released a full year later than when it was released for Windows?

 

Well unlike windows media player and it's drm, you can use any other 3rd party msn messenger compatible client on the mac, so you're not completely SOL. But yes Microsoft should improve it's MSN Messenger for OS X if it sees a need that 3rd party compatible programs aren't meeting.