As I said before my main beef isn't with iTunes (weirdly enough runs fine on 64bit...) it's with the store and the awful UI/UX it entails.

http://app-store.appspot.com/?url=viewG ... scache%3D1

THAT is a better UI than the current store FFS

You'd better believe it!

Ditto. it works well on my MBP.

What narks me is the total lack of iPod support on linux. Nothing I've tried works.

I just put "ipod" into the ubuntu software centre and it came up with a few options. Whether they work or not, of course, I don't know.

Well I got it this morning, been loading it up with free apps.

The only complaints so far.... the app store interface sucks
The screen sometimes doesnt pick up touches for fast movements

Other than that I really like it, not as a music player but portable gaming device

I use my iPhone as a gaming device for the most part. Makes the daily commute less unbearable.

Thats what I find so frustrating, Heather.

Apple don't market or sell iphones and ipods exclusively to Mac users, and its all well and good that itunes works flawlessly on a Mac, but I'm sure they could produce something better for windows (or all OSes). There are enough examples of software on the market that work on multiple operating systems.

This isn't a general anti-Apple rant, I love my iphone - it's an incredible piece of kit, I just wish I wasn't locked into such a cumbersome media interface.

Have you actually tried iTunes on a mac? I do think that a crappy Windows version may actually put off many from switching to macs.

It's Safari that most put me off a Mac. If that's their idea of font rendering, then my poor eyes just couldn't cope.

You could always try Firefox or Opera or even Chrome?

They all use the Windows profile default fonts, where as Safari uses it's own blurrovision Splont - on Windows.

I'm assuming it's based on the Mac fonts, in which case I imagine other browsers which generally respect your profile settings (rather than ignoring them and doing their own fizzy Apple flavoured thing like Safari on Windows) would not be any different running on the same Mac.

However, this is supposition rather than deduction. I know Mozilla use the profile fonts on Linux and Windows, so I don't see why it would be different on a Mac. I don't know that it isn't.

This goes back to Apple's roots in DTP.
Windows likes to use fonts that sit in neat little grids, which is great for your terminal display, but useless for laying out text that normal people in the real world want to read on paper.
So, Apple chose to accurately display fonts instead of hammering them into into little rectangular grids. Instead, the display is more faithful to the printed output.

I'm tired and probably not explaining it properly, but that's more or less the long and short of it. FWIW, I find Windows text display very hard work on the eyes for any extended period. YMMV, of course.

Which is so very obviously 100% the wrong choice for a device that is so very rarely going to be used to master a printed copy.

I want to read the writing on the screen. I couldn't give a hoot what it would look like on a different medium I'm never going to see it on!

If I was mastering a printed copy, I'd use a WYSIWYG application. Screen fonts are for screens, print fonts are for print. If it's on my screen and it won't be printed, use the correct damned font I can actually read without getting a migraine! Screens have pixels, so nail them down FFS!

Who is to say that the iPod will not have the ability to print in future?