Neil Turner's Blog

Blogging about technology and randomness since 2002

iTunes size difference

Screenshot of two iTunes downloads
The top download is iTunes 5.0 for Mac OS X. The bottom download is iTunes 5.0 for Windows XP/2000. Notice the difference in size – the Windows version is nearly 2 1/2 times bigger than the Mac version.
Still, I totally dig the iPod Nano – if I didn’t already have a Mini I’d consider it. And notice how the iPod Mini has disappeared from Apple’s web site…


  1. I think it might have something to do with the fact that 1) the windows version is bundled with QuickTime (I’m not entirely sure if it is on the Mac version too, but I presume not) and 2) it probably can rely more on features built into the OS on the Mac. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but thats just what makes sense to me.

  2. I dig iTunes 5 (still no gapless though) and the Nano looks so awsome.
    I look at my iPod Mini 4GB and feel so insignificant right now.
    Ring for the girl or iPod Nano, ring for the girl or iPod Nano…

  3. I was looking at getting an iPod Mini and like you say it’s disappeared from It’s still available from the Apple online store but you actually have to search for “mini” and find the iPod Mini in the search results. Odd!

  4. Perhaps Apple is taking the bigger is better policy.

  5. The “Nano” is replacing the Mini… That was short lived!

  6. Alsotop: You’re probably right but it’s still a huge jump from iTunes 4.9 which was about 20MB. I think it’s because iTunes 5.0 now includes QuickTime 7.0, which has been officially released for Windows. Still, 32MB is *huge* for a music player, even if it is a good one.

  7. Winamp still for me. I have a lot of my music on CD, so iTunes doesn’t work well for me, well, not that I’ve found out.

  8. Ah, a Winamp fan like me!

  9. The fact that iTunes for Windows needs to have all the graphically gimmickery embedded (instead of pulling from the mac OS) doesn’t help either.
    And you think they’d give us the CHOICE to download and install Quicktime.
    I think I’ll buy an iPod Mini in a month or two, you know, when they’re down to about £20!!

  10. It’s simple, stylish, small, (s)extensible…

  11. Thing is, on Windows I’m a Winamp user – iTunes is overkill for what I need and sucks up resources. On a Mac, though, iTunes is unparalled. It’s still a bit of a resource hog but then the Mac is in a better state than my laptop.

  12. Neil, wait until the Intel based Mac’s come out and they have to support both platforms (assuming that they need to, they may not, I’m no Mac developer). Assuming they need to put both executable images in the file, it will easily be as big.
    I agree with Alsotop. QuickTime is included, and I’m guessing that the developer isn’t the kind of Windows developer that the guys who wrote WinAMP are. Gordon is correct too. If it used the default Windows L&F I suspect it would be smaller, not very pretty, but smaller.
    I would use WinAMP myself, except, I have way more music than will fit on my iPod, and need a way of managing what get’s stored on my iPod easily. WinAMP’s interface has improved greatly over the years, but I’m a little worried about being able to sync the tracks I want onto my iPod as opposed to all the tracks.

  13. Dave: good point. All indications are that most Mac apps will be ‘dual code’, having both PPC and x86 code in them, so I imagine they will be double the size.
    Still, I wish iTunes was like Winamp in terms of efficiency, but it does do well on other counts.