PDA

View Full Version : iTunes 10.5 Beta is 64-bit, and... Cocoa?




MacRumors
Jun 11, 2011, 10:19 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/11/itunes-10-5-beta-is-64-bit-and-cocoa/)


The beta version of iTunes 5 released to developers last week is the first version (http://www.neowin.net/news/itunes-105-for-mac-brings-64-bit-fullscreen-support) of iTunes to run in 64-bit mode. The distinction is perhaps a bit minor for an app like iTunes, but has been the source of much discussion over the years. What's perhaps of more significance is the belief that this 64-bit support must mean that iTunes has been ported from Carbon to Cocoa, though that line seems to be rather blurred.

The primary advantage afforded 64-bit applications is the ability to address more than 4GB of memory which can be a distinct advantage for applications which use large data sets. Adobe, for example, received some criticism in 2008 (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/03/adobe-photoshop-cs4-to-be-64-bit-for-windows-32-bit-for-mac/) that their Photoshop products were slow to adopt 64-bit mode on the Mac. 64-bit Photoshop for Mac ultimately arrived with CS5.

The reason for the long delay was the fact that Apple dropped support (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/13/leopard-drops-carbon-64-bit-support/) for 64-bit mode in Carbon back in 2007, requiring developers to port their existing Carbon applications to Cocoa in order to take advantage of 64-bit mode. This primarily affected older applications such as Photoshop and iTunes which had existed prior to Mac OS X and were still using Carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)), Apple's legacy API. Meanwhile, Cocoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_(API)) was Apple's native API for Mac OS X and offered some additional user interface advantages. For better or worse, many users saw Cocoa applications as superior to their Carbon counterparts due to historic baggage of many of the Carbon applications.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/itunes_10_5-500x319.jpg

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/itunes_10_5.jpg)
The latest iTunes 10.5 developer beta does run in 64-bit mode in Mac OS X Lion, but still runs in 32-bit mode in previous versions of Mac OS X. Discussions in the forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1166298), however, point out that there is still some debate about the "Cocoa vs Carbon" status. Despite the changeup, iTunes reportedly feels very similar to the previous versions, and doesn't come with dramatic changes. So those hoping for a complete revamp will be disappointed.

A couple of notable changes, however, include the fact that iTunes for Lion now supports Full Screen Mode and also returns the close/minimize/maximize buttons to their usual horizontal location.

Article Link: iTunes 10.5 Beta is 64-bit, and... Cocoa? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/11/itunes-10-5-beta-is-64-bit-and-cocoa/)



cmaier
Jun 11, 2011, 10:24 PM
Many day old news.

haruhiko
Jun 11, 2011, 10:24 PM
typo on the first line: "iTunes 5 beta"


I just went to activity monitor and found that my iTunes 10.5 beta is still running in 32-bit mode..... because I'm running Snow Leopard ;)

jayhawk11
Jun 11, 2011, 10:25 PM
The latest iTunes 10.5 developer beta does run in 64-bit mode in Mac OS X Lion, but still runs in 32-bit mode in previous versions of Mac OS X. Discussions in the forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1166298), however, point out that there is still some debate about the "Cocoa vs Carbon" status. Despite the changeup, iTunes reportedly feels very similar to the previous versions, and doesn't come with dramatic changes. So those hoping for a complete revamp will be disappointed.

I didn't realize that switching to Cocoa resulted in a palpable difference in an Application's UI :p

ryanpfw
Jun 11, 2011, 10:27 PM
What does it mean specifically that it has full screen mode? I'm looking for an alternate to Front Row using the Apple Remote with Lion.

DaGreat01
Jun 11, 2011, 10:32 PM
What does it mean specifically that it has full screen mode? I'm looking for an alternate to Front Row using the Apple Remote with Lion.

Full screen as in it will move to it's own space removing the dock and menu bar at the top. It won't change into a front row type thing. In fact, if I remember correctly, they completely removed front row from Lion.

WiiDSmoker
Jun 11, 2011, 10:33 PM
I got a feeling that everyone that is hoping for Itunes 64 to fix all the problems with the application; but I believe it's just that the application is a complete code nightmare. Piling crap upon crap.

I digress...I hope it turns out to be a winner here.

iindigo
Jun 11, 2011, 10:40 PM
I didn't realize that switching to Cocoa resulted in a palpable difference in an Application's UI :p

Actually, it does. If you go back to Xcode 3.2, open Interface Builder, and create a Carbon application window, the set of widgets it gives you to work with is largely different than when creating a Cocoa window. Also, the way the system draws windows is different between Cocoa and Carbon - for instance, Cocoa stretches the titlebar's gradient across the width of the titlebar while Carbon tiles it.

And of course, features that we've taken for granted in Cocoa applications are not present in Carbon counterparts - at least without extra effort on the developer's part. These things include spell checking, grammar checking, the Command-Ctrl-D dictionary popup among several other things.

Also, while it's not true in all cases, many carbon applications have ancient codebases with years of code fragments and bloat scattered throughout, sometimes leading to a more "clunky" experience for the user.

ryanpfw
Jun 11, 2011, 10:46 PM
Full screen as in it will move to it's own space removing the dock and menu bar at the top. It won't change into a front row type thing. In fact, if I remember correctly, they completely removed front row from Lion.

You are remembering correctly. I was hopeful that full screen mode come somehow be tapped into by a program like Remote Buddy and allow for control from the Apple remote.

BlackMangoTree
Jun 11, 2011, 10:47 PM
What does it mean specifically that it has full screen mode? I'm looking for an alternate to Front Row using the Apple Remote with Lion.

XBMC or Plex

BlackMangoTree
Jun 11, 2011, 10:48 PM
I got a feeling that everyone that is hoping for Itunes 64 to fix all the problems with the application; but I believe it's just that the application is a complete code nightmare. Piling crap upon crap.

I digress...I hope it turns out to be a winner here.

What problems ? It's fast and everything works well.

Warbrain
Jun 11, 2011, 10:49 PM
Actually, it does. If you go back to Xcode 3.2, open Interface Builder, and create a Carbon application window, the set of widgets it gives you to work with is largely different than when creating a Cocoa window. Also, the way the system draws windows is different between Cocoa and Carbon - for instance, Cocoa stretches the titlebar's gradient across the width of the titlebar while Carbon tiles it.

And of course, features that we've taken for granted in Cocoa applications are not present in Carbon counterparts - at least without extra effort on the developer's part. These things include spell checking, grammar checking, the Command-Ctrl-D dictionary popup among several other things.

Also, while it's not true in all cases, many carbon applications have ancient codebases with years of code fragments and bloat scattered throughout, sometimes leading to a more "clunky" experience for the user.

If there's any application that completely exhibits this it's iTunes. It's been a mess of an application for a while now and moving to Cocoa can only mean good things. This explains why my experience with iTunes is much better in 10.5 than earlier versions.

res1233
Jun 11, 2011, 10:50 PM
Actually, it does. If you go back to Xcode 3.2, open Interface Builder, and create a Carbon application window, the set of widgets it gives you to work with is largely different than when creating a Cocoa window. Also, the way the system draws windows is different between Cocoa and Carbon - for instance, Cocoa stretches the titlebar's gradient across the width of the titlebar while Carbon tiles it.

And of course, features that we've taken for granted in Cocoa applications are not present in Carbon counterparts - at least without extra effort on the developer's part. These things include spell checking, grammar checking, the Command-Ctrl-D dictionary popup among several other things.

Also, while it's not true in all cases, many carbon applications have ancient codebases with years of code fragments and bloat scattered throughout, sometimes leading to a more "clunky" experience for the user.

You mean "it can". I'm sure they'll change the UI radically at some point, but they probably wanted to get the kinks out of what goes into simply porting the existing UI to Cocoa. Apple tends to value stability. It's like porting Mac OS X from PowerPC to Intel. It's the main reason Tiger lasted longer than the other versions of Mac OS.

nagromme
Jun 11, 2011, 10:56 PM
I didn't realize that switching to Cocoa resulted in a palpable difference in an Application's UI :p

The reasoning is sound:

1. iTunes needs a reorganization and new UI (it’s cluttered and bloated by the past; with the iOS device panes being especially cringeworthy with their nested non-sizable scrolling elements). Apple is not hesitant to change an app’s UI: look at iMovie, and iPad’s iOS 4 Music, and even the Finder over time.

2. Rewriting the app as Cocoa would include building a UI.

3. Why spend time/money to re-create the flawed (and quirky) old UI so precisely if you’re doing a rewrite anyway? It could be done, but it would be very odd.

Therefore, the lack of UI change IS solid evidence for this not being a major rewrite, and this not Cocoa. So, with 64-bit being evidence that it is, we have a mystery.

My guess: it’s still Carbon-based, even if third-party Carbon apps can’t be 64-bit. Maybe even some weird hybrid. But a new UI will come eventually.

stormj
Jun 11, 2011, 10:58 PM
Shouldn't this be trivially easy to figure out? Please explain to me if I'm wrong, but an application using Cocoa should be easy to detect by spending a few minutes in a debugger or even a hex editor, right?

OK... iTunes 10.5 is referencing some AppKit classes if you search through it in a Hex Editor. Doesn't that mean it's at least partially Cocoa? (Other than nib files, I've never seen a reference to any NS* class in a Carbon app, and even then only NSObject -- not NSNumber, NSAutoreleasePool, NSBezierPath, etc. as you can find mucking around in iTunes 10.5)

Anyway, other than whiners at Adobe, no one cares that Apple doesn't follow the same "rules" as outside developer, and, as such no one cares if they are making 64-bit Carbon apps.

Update: Transitioning to Cocoa doesn't mean they would necessarily have to change a thing. I guess you can decide whether the version increment skipping 10.4 means that much.

Nielsenius
Jun 11, 2011, 11:10 PM
I know this is only a beta, but I'm going to say this flat out: iTunes 10.5 is crap. Full screen mode is glitchy. Traffic lights don't perform properly when iTunes is behind another application (no scroll over effect). Not all of the scroll bars have that "rubber band/springy" effect. And, a host of other minor issues. Basically, it feels subpar for a native application.

cmaier
Jun 11, 2011, 11:23 PM
I know this is only a beta, but I'm going to say this flat out: iTunes 10.5 is crap. Full screen mode is glitchy. Traffic lights don't perform properly when iTunes is behind another application (no scroll over effect). Not all of the scroll bars have that "rubber band/springy" effect. And, a host of other minor issues. Basically, it feels subpar for a native application.

Not only is it a beta, but it's a beta designed only for developers to test their stuff. Chill.

benthewraith
Jun 11, 2011, 11:30 PM
Full screen as in it will move to it's own space removing the dock and menu bar at the top. It won't change into a front row type thing. In fact, if I remember correctly, they completely removed front row from Lion.

But I loved the trailers section of Front Row. :(

swingerofbirch
Jun 11, 2011, 11:31 PM
I think the iTunes Store needs a rewrite too (new design). And if you've checked out the new Purchases area in iTunes 10.3 in the iTunes Store, it's very clinical, database-like looking. Even worse is when you go to Account and look at your history of past purchases. The way things are organized doesn't make any sense to me. It's all a very clunky, bad web-like experience, versus having the benefit of being shrouded in software.


The main sections of the iTunes Store are OK, but oftentimes the Buy button won't work for me if I use the hover-over feature, and I have to click on the item and then Buy (I've had this experience across a couple of Macs). I also feel like the design is a little too . . . I'm not sure, really! I know I liked the old iTunes Store design more, even though I can't remember it. It was less web-page like. It also didn't have the horizontal sliding elements which tend to trip me up when I'm scrolling.

Also, Apple used to make some great iTunes Essentials collections that would stay on top of the most current music in various genres. They also had some great mixes with W Hotels for a while. If you go to iTunes Essentials now, it's a jumbled mess, and there's no way to sort through all the compilations well, and they don't seem to be making fresh mixes, they more do everything and the kitchen sink mixes hoping people will buy songs just because they were from the 90s, etc. They aren't like the hand-mixed selections they used to create and update on a regular basis. The most editorialized section of iTunes--which is something I look for: tastemakersóis the free songs of the week, where they introduce you to new stuff.

Going to the iTunes Store now you're just bombarded with Billboard top 10 material.

As far as the iTunes software I miss the old "Nuclear" looking burn buttonĖI know it's old school. I also miss a dedicated button to turn on the visualizer.

dagamer34
Jun 11, 2011, 11:47 PM
The reasoning is sound:

1. iTunes needs a reorganization and new UI (itís cluttered and bloated by the past; with the iOS device panes being especially cringeworthy with their nested non-sizable scrolling elements). Apple is not hesitant to change an appís UI: look at iMovie, and iPadís iOS 4 Music, and even the Finder over time.

2. Rewriting the app as Cocoa would include building a UI.

3. Why spend time/money to re-create the flawed (and quirky) old UI so precisely if youíre doing a rewrite anyway? It could be done, but it would be very odd.

Therefore, the lack of UI change IS solid evidence for this not being a major rewrite, and this not Cocoa. So, with 64-bit being evidence that it is, we have a mystery.

My guess: itís still Carbon-based, even if third-party Carbon apps canít be 64-bit. Maybe even some weird hybrid. But a new UI will come eventually.

Finder went from Carbon to Cocoa in OS X 10.6 without any major changes to the UI, just a few tweaks here and there. When they did say at WWDC 2008 is that it let them do things like play a video right on the desktop through the thumbnail without much hassle. My guess is that iTunes needs to be Cocoa-enbled in order to get a full screen view.

RMo
Jun 11, 2011, 11:50 PM
The reasoning is sound:
My guess: itís still Carbon-based, even if third-party Carbon apps canít be 64-bit. Maybe even some weird hybrid. But a new UI will come eventually.

These are my thoughts exactly. Apple doesn't provide a Carbon interface to 64-bit features of OS X ... but since they themselves wrote the OS, it doesn't mean they can't write one for themselves and use it in iTunes. This might also explain why it only runs like this on Lion; it's probably a lot of work to write and heavily dependent on very specific things about the underlying OS.

ryanpfw
Jun 11, 2011, 11:58 PM
XBMC or Plex

Plex tends to screw up the tags and isn't as easy to set straight as iTunes, and anything I buy through the iTunes store won't play on either, so I'm hopeful I can use a single application.

Kar98
Jun 12, 2011, 12:17 AM
LOL, I had actually forgotten about the buttons. I've put them back to where they belong, into a horizontal arrangement, ages ago:

Put this into terminal:

defaults write com.apple.iTunes full-window -1

JoeG4
Jun 12, 2011, 12:19 AM
Wanna place bets on PPC support going away? :(

arkmannj
Jun 12, 2011, 12:24 AM
Full screen as in it will move to it's own space removing the dock and menu bar at the top. It won't change into a front row type thing. In fact, if I remember correctly, they completely removed front row from Lion.

I'm thinking that it will become an App store purchase...

commander.data
Jun 12, 2011, 12:47 AM
My guess: it’s still Carbon-based, even if third-party Carbon apps can’t be 64-bit. Maybe even some weird hybrid. But a new UI will come eventually.
I don't see why a hybrid 64-bit Carbon-Cocoa program is weird. In fact, it seems to be Apple's recommended transition method for Carbon developers.

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/Carbon64BitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html%23//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004381-CH1-SW1

Most APIs in Mac OS X v10.5 are available to both 32-bit and 64-bit applications, but some APIs commonly used by Carbon applications are not. In particular, the APIs used to implement a Carbon user interface are generally available only to 32-bit applications. If you want to create a 64-bit application for Mac OS X, you need to use Cocoa to implement its user interface.
It's always portrayed that Carbon never got 64-bit support, but based on Apple's documentation, it's not an all or none decision. It seems like most Carbon APIs were transitioned to 64-bit, just that Carbon UI APIs remained 32-bit, so it isn't possible to make a completely Carbon 64-bit application.

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/Carbon64BitGuide/PortingTo64Bit/PortingTo64Bit.html%23//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004381-CH3-SW1

Because most Carbon UI functions are not available to 64-bit applications, you have two possible development paths. You can continue modernizing and improving your Carbon UI with the expectation that your application will remain a 32-bit application for the foreseeable future. Apple plans to support and maintain the 32-bit Carbon Human Interface Toolbox, although Apple will not be adding any significant new features to these APIs. The other development path is more challenging and also potentially more rewarding in the long term. You can develop a 64-bit version of your application, using Cocoa to implement your UI. As you do so, consider going one step further and implementing other parts of your application using Cocoa.
It seems like the only requirement for Carbon applications to be 64-bit, is that they implement their UI in Cocoa. The back-end code can largely remain unchanged. Redoing non-UI Carbon code in Cocoa is a "one step further" option, but not necessary for 64-bit support.

64-bit iTunes could presumably be done just like this. A new 64-bit Coca UI, admittedly one that looks the same, and the existing Carbon back-end spruced up with 64-bit compatibility. This method actually makes the most sense to save work since Carbon code seems to be considered easier to port to Windows than Cocoa, so the 64-bit Carbon backend can be shared between OS X and Windows and only the UI needs to be different/rewritten for each platform.

drtimhill
Jun 12, 2011, 12:48 AM
The article says the main reason for 64-bit is access to a larger (virtual) address space. In fact, that's mostly true for things like database servers. For apps like iTunes there is little advantage to the larger address space.

The big gain for regular apps like iTunes when going to 64-bit is access to additional processor resources (registers) that lets the app run most efficiently, typically about 10% faster than the same 32-bit app, though there is some loss because it can take longer to handle 64-bit values when a 32-bit one would have been just as good.

Just an fyi.

--Tim

MrNomNoms
Jun 12, 2011, 12:55 AM
The article says the main reason for 64-bit is access to a larger (virtual) address space. In fact, that's mostly true for things like database servers. For apps like iTunes there is little advantage to the larger address space.

The big gain for regular apps like iTunes when going to 64-bit is access to additional processor resources (registers) that lets the app run most efficiently, typically about 10% faster than the same 32-bit app, though there is some loss because it can take longer to handle 64-bit values when a 32-bit one would have been just as good.

Just an fyi.

--Tim

IIRC, another benefit was ASLR but that has since been expanded to include 32bit and 64bit applications which will hopefully roll onto greater security in Lion. The thing that confused me about Snow Leopard is why they didn't make some major breakage with when they had the chance; if you're going to go 64bit then why not go for gold and push better security even if it breaks some applications in the process? or was it simply a matter of chewing off things in small chunks as to avoid choking (aka Windows Vista)?

peopleinatree
Jun 12, 2011, 12:58 AM
iTunes 10.5 is not Cocoa... or at least not fully Cocoa. Cocoa apps are dock aware; meaning when you pull their window title bar below the dock and let go it will move the window title above the dock. iTunes 10.5 does not exhibit this behavior.

commander.data
Jun 12, 2011, 01:01 AM
The article says the main reason for 64-bit is access to a larger (virtual) address space. In fact, that's mostly true for things like database servers. For apps like iTunes there is little advantage to the larger address space.

The big gain for regular apps like iTunes when going to 64-bit is access to additional processor resources (registers) that lets the app run most efficiently, typically about 10% faster than the same 32-bit app, though there is some loss because it can take longer to handle 64-bit values when a 32-bit one would have been just as good.

Just an fyi.

--Tim
One micro-architecture detail that most people don't know is that Macro-Ops Fusion does not work on Core 2 Duo (Merom and Penryn generation) processors when in 64-bit mode. Macro-ops fusion allows Intel CPUs to decode more instructions at a time for processing and is the "+1" in Intel's 4+1 instruction decoder width. When Intel first introduced Macro-Op Fusion they claimed it can work on 1 in 10 instructions in an instruction stream and could potentially lead to up to 11% increase in performance over not having Macro-Op Fusion. 64-bit OS weren't popular back then, and Core 2 Duo didn't support Macro-Op Fusion when in 64-bit mode. This was fixed starting with Nehalem.

Discoverer
Jun 12, 2011, 01:18 AM
I am not a developer, however, I decided to try it out. I have to say that I like it a lot. It is much faster for me than the latest release version. And, I think it looks nicer too.

PurrBall
Jun 12, 2011, 01:44 AM
iTunes 10.5 is not Cocoa... or at least not fully Cocoa. Cocoa apps are dock aware; meaning when you pull their window title bar below the dock and let go it will move the window title above the dock. iTunes 10.5 does not exhibit this behavior.

Heck, 10.5 isn't even menu-bar aware- mine always starts above the menu bar.

jeanlain
Jun 12, 2011, 02:13 AM
iTunes 10.5 is not Cocoa... or at least not fully Cocoa. Cocoa apps are dock aware; meaning when you pull their window title bar below the dock and let go it will move the window title above the dock. iTunes 10.5 does not exhibit this behavior.
The search field has the contextual menu of Cocoa text fields (spelling, grammar, etc.). So the iTunes 10.5 main window is Cocoa.

stormj
Jun 12, 2011, 02:45 AM
iTunes 10.5 is not Cocoa... or at least not fully Cocoa. Cocoa apps are dock aware; meaning when you pull their window title bar below the dock and let go it will move the window title above the dock. iTunes 10.5 does not exhibit this behavior.

It's at least part Cocoa.

Scan through it in a hex editor. It's at least *partially* Cocoa. It's full of references to NS* classes.

A lot of the things that "Cocoa" apps do automatically are just nice things that some of the classes set up for you. It's entirely possible to create an app that uses features of the Cocoa API without that for whatever reason, or that they're using a custom version.

stormj
Jun 12, 2011, 02:50 AM
IIRC, another benefit was ASLR but that has since been expanded to include 32bit and 64bit applications which will hopefully roll onto greater security in Lion. The thing that confused me about Snow Leopard is why they didn't make some major breakage with when they had the chance; if you're going to go 64bit then why not go for gold and push better security even if it breaks some applications in the process? or was it simply a matter of chewing off things in small chunks as to avoid choking (aka Windows Vista)?

There are actual differences at the machine language level with 64-bit code other than just access to 64-bit addressing. This is not because it's 64-bit, but because that's when they put it there. Intel 64-bit code on the mac is more secure it (mostly) prevents things like self-modifying code and has a faster sys call function, etc.

Bokito
Jun 12, 2011, 03:21 AM
It seems like they use a Cocoa wrapper for the whole application and completely transitioned the UI part to Cocoa. The whole application will make the switch to Cocoa eventually. I guess Apple's attempt to rewrite iTunes completely was unsuccessful and so they got onto this path.

I hope iTunes will be a little more 2011 with the changes coming. The PC version is way snappier than the Mac version. The Mac version only runs good on a Mac Pro, probably for their multithreading which seems to resolve some programming limitations in the current iTunes.

JackieTreehorn
Jun 12, 2011, 03:32 AM
A slightly unrelated post: how does one uninstall iTunes 10.5 beta? I want to go back to 10.3.1 so I can enjoy my iWow plugin.

ipedro
Jun 12, 2011, 03:47 AM
10.5 is of course just an intermediate update meant for Lion (hence the point increment). The overhaul will come when iCloud is released in the fall.

With iCloud taking the syncing duties away from iTunes, Apple will be presented with an opportunity to simplify the app to its core function of a media player.

As for the full screen mode, I'd like to see an iOS 5 iPad music app like UI. Really simplified and optimized for interchangeable operability via mouse/remote.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 12, 2011, 03:50 AM
The big news is that either they fork the source and support a continued Windows with Carbon or they will re-release the Mach-o/Yellow Box Runtime for Windows so they can provide the same source code in 64 bit.

This would then require only security updates for earlier releases that includes 32 bit legacy on Windows.

gnasher729
Jun 12, 2011, 04:28 AM
I know this is only a beta, but I'm going to say this flat out: iTunes 10.5 is crap. Full screen mode is glitchy. Traffic lights don't perform properly when iTunes is behind another application (no scroll over effect). Not all of the scroll bars have that "rubber band/springy" effect. And, a host of other minor issues. Basically, it feels subpar for a native application.

And you are either in breach of an NDA or using a pirated application.

Lesser Evets
Jun 12, 2011, 04:29 AM
A couple of notable changes, however, include the fact that iTunes for Lion now supports Full Screen Mode and also returns the close/minimize/maximize buttons to their usual horizontal location.

iTunes has supported full-screen mode for years, maybe forever. What it needs to do is not black out a second monitor, thus rendering the computer useless while playing a movie.

Apple has a series of small, annoying problems with iTunes which it hasn't corrected forever. Example: can't play podcasts through as a list; it only plays one and resets everything. Why?

I wonder if anyone from Apple actually uses the basic program and thinks about the consumer. There is so much other tomfoolery and doodaddery within the program that makes it look quite slick and fun, but which does very little to improve the basic function: playing music/video and customizing the play to accommodate the user.

roadbloc
Jun 12, 2011, 04:38 AM
At last. This is LONG overdue.

Now all they need to do is redesign iTunes from the mess it's become.

Atlantico
Jun 12, 2011, 05:28 AM
What happened to iTunes 10.4?

But really, since the Music Store was introduced and the iPhone/iPad, iTunes has stagnated into becoming a connective vessel between the device and the computer - it's been a while since actually playing music or sound was improved or streamlined.

It is fast enough I suppose and Apple seems incapable of just writing a decent clean rewrite of iTunes (despite some 12 thousand employees on campus, some probably even capable of writing software) - possibly because it is largely irrelevant.

iTunes works "well enough", iPads/iPhones will not need the Mac to connect with with iOS 5 and the software engineers aren't working much on Mac apps anyway. So for reasons of convenience (i.e. to enable some of the "important" new features of Lion) iTunes 10.5 is partially written in Cocoa.

bigwig
Jun 12, 2011, 06:23 AM
Now all they need to do is redesign iTunes from the mess it's become.
That'll probably happen when iTunes gets native FLAC support.

goodcow
Jun 12, 2011, 06:39 AM
What problems ? It's fast and everything works well.

When plugging an iDevice into the computer makes iTunes freeze a $4,000 MacPro for about ten seconds, it's neither fast nor working well.

goodcow
Jun 12, 2011, 07:09 AM
And you are either in breach of an NDA or using a pirated application.

Who the hell cares. You're on a website whose purpose is to post news about people leaking information.

zedsdead
Jun 12, 2011, 07:20 AM
When plugging an iDevice into the computer makes iTunes freeze a $4,000 MacPro for about ten seconds, it's neither fast nor working well.

+1

Let's hope that the rewrite itself will be a surprise at the fall keynote. iTunes needs some serious attention.

Visually, I cannot stand the yellow playback section at the top. Why is it still look like something from the early 1990's like the screen of an old Gameboy?

Sbrocket
Jun 12, 2011, 07:25 AM
Shouldn't this be trivially easy to figure out? Please explain to me if I'm wrong, but an application using Cocoa should be easy to detect by spending a few minutes in a debugger or even a hex editor, right?

OK... iTunes 10.5 is referencing some AppKit classes if you search through it in a Hex Editor. Doesn't that mean it's at least partially Cocoa? (Other than nib files, I've never seen a reference to any NS* class in a Carbon app, and even then only NSObject -- not NSNumber, NSAutoreleasePool, NSBezierPath, etc. as you can find mucking around in iTunes 10.5)

Anyway, other than whiners at Adobe, no one cares that Apple doesn't follow the same "rules" as outside developer, and, as such no one cares if they are making 64-bit Carbon apps.

Update: Transitioning to Cocoa doesn't mean they would necessarily have to change a thing. I guess you can decide whether the version increment skipping 10.4 means that much.

There are a number of ways to look into this that don't involve a hex editor, I don't know why people jump on that approach. /usr/bin/otool, /usr/bin/strings, and /usr/bin/file among others can give you lots of information. Of course, iTunes links against both Carbon.framework and Cocoa/AppKit.

And NS* classes are not necessarily Cocoa. NSAutoreleasePool and NSNumber are Foundation. You don't need a Cocoa UI to use the Foundation collection classes or to subclass NSObject, hah.

My unscientific guess is that iTunes isn't so easily categorizable because its probably a single codebase for both OS X and Windows, which results in some oddities at the user interface level. Not to mention that they do a lot of things custom with iTunes and don't really stick with standard NSWindow and brethren behaviors.

I really doubt they ported over the HIToolbox to 64-bit *just* for iTunes without giving it to third-party developers, though, which would mean iTunes would have to have a Cocoa UI.

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 07:25 AM
Shouldn't this be trivially easy to figure out? Please explain to me if I'm wrong, but an application using Cocoa should be easy to detect by spending a few minutes in a debugger or even a hex editor, right?

Or simply using otool -L ;)

iTunes 10.3 :


$ pwd; otool -L iTunes | grep -i carbon
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 152.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 152.0.0)

Schtumple
Jun 12, 2011, 07:27 AM
At last. This is LONG overdue.

Now all they need to do is redesign iTunes from the mess it's become.

I know right? It genuinely looks a bit off now, nothing quite syncs in place... Would love to see them put in the minimalist design ascetic they had up until a few releases ago.

Elijahg
Jun 12, 2011, 07:41 AM
Another quick way of seeing if an app (the UI at least) is Carbon or Cocoa, is to put the app in the background, and try right clicking in one of its windows. If you get a contextual menu without the app coming to the front, it's Cocoa. If the app jumps to the front when you right click, it's Carbon.

Obi-Wan Kubrick
Jun 12, 2011, 07:55 AM
I think that removing the app store from iTunes and moving it to the MAc App store would make iTunes less bloated. Music and video store make sense for "Tunes" but the rest of the iphone/ipad apps would all make more sense in the mac store.

However, that wouldn't work for the Windows users so never mind.

Wayfarer
Jun 12, 2011, 08:07 AM
Found screenshots of what iTunes looks like full screen in Lion:

http://mac-and-i.blogspot.com/2011/06/wwdc-itunes-105-beta.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KuGD1UXC8EE/Te1Usq4xI2I/AAAAAAAAAwY/7qhulvkBZgo/s320/Screen+Shot+2011-06-07+at+00.23.47.png

tomasf
Jun 12, 2011, 08:09 AM
Whether or not iTunes 10.5 is Cocoa depends on your definition, but let's check instead of speculating. It's easy to attach a debugger (returning from ptrace calls to avoid NOATTACH) and inject F-Script Anywhere. Using FSA, you can navigate the view hierarchy.

It turns out that iTunes 10.5 is Cocoa in that it uses AppKit windows containing views. The toolbar in Preferences is even an NSToolbar, and after enabling customization using FSA, you can even move the items around! Views in the main window seem to be NSView wrappers ("ITBackingHostView") for something implemented in C++ ("ITView"), presumably to be able to share code with Windows (for which I guess they use another wrapper).

So yes, it is Cocoa. Partially wrapping non-native controls.

bretm
Jun 12, 2011, 08:30 AM
+1

Let's hope that the rewrite itself will be a surprise at the fall keynote. iTunes needs some serious attention.

Visually, I cannot stand the yellow playback section at the top. Why is it still look like something from the early 1990's like the screen of an old Gameboy?

It looks like an old iPod of course. And it's anything but yellow. Check your screen.

tkermit
Jun 12, 2011, 08:35 AM
10.5 is of course just an intermediate update meant for Lion (hence the point increment). The overhaul will come when iCloud is released in the fall.

With iCloud taking the syncing duties away from iTunes, Apple will be presented with an opportunity to simplify the app to its core function of a media player.

I think you're forgetting about all of the regular iPods out there though. None of them support iCloud. And neither do older iOS devices. Also, Wifi-Sync will still have to go through iTunes.

diamond.g
Jun 12, 2011, 08:51 AM
I think you're forgetting about all of the regular iPods out there though. None of them support iCloud. And neither do older iOS devices. Also, Wifi-Sync will still have to go through iTunes.

They could just stick to the older versions right?

Anthony La
Jun 12, 2011, 09:07 AM
Whether or not iTunes 10.5 is Cocoa depends on your definition, but let's check instead of speculating.
Entirely Cocoa it is not. It still uses Carbon APIs and hell, I don't even know if it's simply Carbon with Cocoa elements or vice versa. (It's possible, after all.)

But you're right in that it is using Cocoa widgets. To an extent. The NSToolbar is a good example. I also tried command-clicking widgets while iTunes was in the foreground (you'd be able to tell if the elements were Cocoa using this) - I could hit the play button, pause button, scrubber and other things without being switched to iTunes! So some of this stuff is Cocoa, at least.

The main window seems to be a hybrid - it isn't a standard window, or at least not everything is. For example, the close/minimize/zoom widgets are inconsistent in behaviour (they don't rollover when iTunes is not the active application) and design (they appear to be subtly darker than the standard Cocoa widgets). If you ran iTunes in Lion DP3, you'd notice that the full screen widget is inconsistent with the standard widget. To test, I deleted iTunes.rsrc - the widgets (along with a lot of other stuff) could no longer and drew white over the window buffer - so these widgets are being drawn from a Carbon resource file.

Oh, and the title bar text isn't native either. Lion title bar text is slightly embossed - iTunes' has a shadow.

tkermit
Jun 12, 2011, 09:15 AM
They could just stick to the older versions right?

I guess so. But as long as Apple needs to actively support those older versions anyway, I don't really see them creating additional work for themselves by offering an entirely new player-and-cloud-sync-only version of iTunes. It would be messy for consumers as well, to be forced to interact with different versions of iTunes depending on the iDevice they're using.

newfoundglory
Jun 12, 2011, 09:43 AM
I don't believe it. I think Apple have actually done it... and made it a Cocoa application (at least partly anyway!) I have just upgraded from iTunes 10.3.1 to 10.5b27 on Lion and it actually feels like and looks like a Cocoa app now. Interface definitely more responsive. I'm stunned :eek:

i can't see how iTunes can ever be 100% Cocoa, as it would make maintaining iTunes on Windoze a nightmare! I get the feeling its a Cocoa UI with Carbon sitting underneath. I can't see how it could have been done any other way.

pmz
Jun 12, 2011, 10:33 AM
Actually, it does. If you go back to Xcode 3.2, open Interface Builder, and create a Carbon application window, the set of widgets it gives you to work with is largely different than when creating a Cocoa window. Also, the way the system draws windows is different between Cocoa and Carbon - for instance, Cocoa stretches the titlebar's gradient across the width of the titlebar while Carbon tiles it.

And of course, features that we've taken for granted in Cocoa applications are not present in Carbon counterparts - at least without extra effort on the developer's part. These things include spell checking, grammar checking, the Command-Ctrl-D dictionary popup among several other things.

Also, while it's not true in all cases, many carbon applications have ancient codebases with years of code fragments and bloat scattered throughout, sometimes leading to a more "clunky" experience for the user.

Wow thanks for that clarification. I knew most of that, but did not know that old Carbon apps did not have access to spell check/dictionary. Has Apple hard coded them into iTunes to have them there, or have they been absent all this time?

faroZ06
Jun 12, 2011, 11:29 AM
What's the point of 64-bit iTunes?! From my understanding, 64-bit is really only advantageous in large applications like Photoshop and Final Cut. When I get this, I'm running it in 32-bit mode. 64-Bit iTunes is a big waste of RAM. :eek:

ChromeAce
Jun 12, 2011, 11:29 AM
I've been waiting for this change for a long time. With 130,000+ tracks and dozens of active Smart Playlists, iTunes has slowed to a crawl for me whenever I edit any song tag... I actually get to stare at a beachball for 30 seconds each time. A larger address space should help solve this issue.

faroZ06
Jun 12, 2011, 11:44 AM
I've been waiting for this change for a long time. With 130,000+ tracks and dozens of active Smart Playlists, iTunes has slowed to a crawl for me whenever I edit any song tag... I actually get to stare at a beachball for 30 seconds each time. A larger address space should help solve this issue.

Oh yeah, I guess if you have so many smart playlists, iTunes would benefit from 64-bit. However, Apple should make the default 32-bit because I doubt anyone needs 64-bit if they don't use that many smart playlists, and 64-bit uses extra RAM.

CarlHeanerd
Jun 12, 2011, 11:45 AM
It may be Cocoa but, working with the application daily, scrolling still feels like Carbon. It's still kinda choppy and here's no "rubber band" effect when you reach the end of a scroll area. Also, general animations are choppy. Going fullscreen with an iTunes video still isn't graceful, it just "flashes" into fullscreen, no "zoom" effect like QuickTime X.

bigwig
Jun 12, 2011, 11:47 AM
64-Bit iTunes is a big waste of RAM. :eek:
RAM is cheap.

DoogH
Jun 12, 2011, 12:00 PM
What's the point of 64-bit iTunes?! From my understanding, 64-bit is really only advantageous in large applications like Photoshop and Final Cut. When I get this, I'm running it in 32-bit mode. 64-Bit iTunes is a big waste of RAM. :eek:

There's no penalty to upgrading to 64-bit, for the most part. In addition, if your computer is using all your 32-bit registers and visible ram, then 64-bit applications will gain in performance from multitasking. Honestly, they just want all applications to be 64-bit, because it doesn't take much effort and only helps the OS as a whole.

deannnnn
Jun 12, 2011, 12:02 PM
I'm just happy the traffic lights are back in the correct orientation.

Kar98
Jun 12, 2011, 01:16 PM
RAM is cheap.

Yeeeeeeeees, but some Apple computers make it impossible to upgrade RAM any further. Either limited by the chip set, or other physical limitations.

asdf542
Jun 12, 2011, 01:31 PM
Yeeeeeeeees, but some Apple computers make it impossible to upgrade RAM any further. Either limited by the chip set, or other physical limitations.
32-bit iTunes currently can access up to 4GB of RAM as it is. Machines limited to 4GB's or less will see no difference in memory usage with 64-bit iTunes because 32-bit applications can already access all of their available RAM.

The only time 64-bit iTunes will make a difference in memory usage is when you have more than 4 GB's of RAM. Even then, the chances of iTunes EVER needing to use more than 4 GB's of RAM is essentially nil.

jonnysods
Jun 12, 2011, 02:34 PM
I'm hoping that if this is true that there will be less beachballs. iTunes has needed updating for a while now, glad to see them do this in a point update instead of waiting for 11.

newfoundglory
Jun 12, 2011, 02:42 PM
Cocoa is far more significant than 64-bit. It will be interesting to see how iTunes 10.5 performs on a G4 running 10.5.8

I wonder if there will be good performance gains on about-to-retire PowerPC hardware?

Sjhonny
Jun 12, 2011, 03:10 PM
Finder went from Carbon to Cocoa in OS X 10.6 without any major changes to the UI, just a few tweaks here and there. When they did say at WWDC 2008 is that it let them do things like play a video right on the desktop through the thumbnail without much hassle. My guess is that iTunes needs to be Cocoa-enbled in order to get a full screen view.

How comes a game like AoE II is even able to work in full screen? (It's written for OS 9). There were and still are other ways to achieve full screen modus than working with cocoa.

Bear
Jun 12, 2011, 03:16 PM
Cocoa is far more significant than 64-bit. It will be interesting to see how iTunes 10.5 performs on a G4 running 10.5.8

I wonder if there will be good performance gains on about-to-retire PowerPC hardware?An interesting question, however a more interesting question is when does Apple stop updating iTunes for PowerPC systems?

I suspect we're getting close to that point. Maybe not 10.5, but soon after in all likelihood.

Sjhonny
Jun 12, 2011, 03:16 PM
... the chances of iTunes EVER needing to use more than 4 GB's of RAM is essentially nil.

Most Indeedly. The only applications (that I use) passed the 2 GiB mark are: System Preferences (for some reason, when keeping it open at the screensaver tab it can reach up to 3 GiB), AutoCAD (6 GiB record - a drawing consisting of roughly 600 000 elements ... ), Photoshop (7.5 GiB + 60 GiB paged - 'rendering' perspective out of 21 12MP photo's).

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 12, 2011, 03:21 PM
Found screenshots of what iTunes looks like full screen in Lion:

http://mac-and-i.blogspot.com/2011/06/wwdc-itunes-105-beta.html

Image (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KuGD1UXC8EE/Te1Usq4xI2I/AAAAAAAAAwY/7qhulvkBZgo/s320/Screen+Shot+2011-06-07+at+00.23.47.png)

So it still has the crappy black & white icon interface they introduced a few versions ago that almost everybody on earth hates except Mr. Jobs and his church. Yay. :rolleyes:

What's the point of 64-bit iTunes?! From my understanding, 64-bit is really only advantageous in large applications like Photoshop and Final Cut. When I get this, I'm running it in 32-bit mode. 64-Bit iTunes is a big waste of RAM. :eek:

I think you misunderstand. 32-bit app support will probably be removed entirely in 10.8 so Apple is moving towards this. They've already eliminated 32-bit CPU support in Lion and removing all 32-bit app support is the next logical progression in order for Apple to keep telling everyone OSX is the most advanced OS in the world despite the total BS that it is in context of 3D graphics and keeping said APIs up-to-date, etc. But then Mr. Jobs has always had an odd idea of what advanced means. He'll move one area of the OS as far as it can go and to hell with the consequences with backwards compatibility with older software, etc., but then leave OpenGL on version 2.x for a half decade, letting all gaming support rot in hell unless it's a phone app, etc.

Of course, the consequences for moving say the iOS app store to the primary Mac app store and away from iTunes would not only have consequences for Windows users, but it would render all Leopard machines obsolete over-night with no ability to support iOS devices. That will probably happen anyway since I doubt support for PPC will last much longer in iTunes and Intel users are expected to upgrade come hell or high water to the latest OS version if it means dumping Rosetta support, etc. that would leave them to conclude that Lion is a POS and an utter waste of time and money to move to except for the fact that a lot of newer software will not run on their older machine any longer (and oddly most older software will eventually stop working as well, leaving OSX with a tiny-middle ground of software while Windows supports most of everything made in the past 12 years).

mdriftmeyer
Jun 12, 2011, 03:59 PM
So it still has the crappy black & white icon interface they introduced a few versions ago that almost everybody on earth hates except Mr. Jobs and his church. Yay. :rolleyes:



I think you misunderstand. 32-bit app support will probably be removed entirely in 10.8 so Apple is moving towards this. They've already eliminated 32-bit CPU support in Lion and removing all 32-bit app support is the next logical progression in order for Apple to keep telling everyone OSX is the most advanced OS in the world despite the total BS that it is in context of 3D graphics and keeping said APIs up-to-date, etc. But then Mr. Jobs has always had an odd idea of what advanced means. He'll move one area of the OS as far as it can go and to hell with the consequences with backwards compatibility with older software, etc., but then leave OpenGL on version 2.x for a half decade, letting all gaming support rot in hell unless it's a phone app, etc.

Of course, the consequences for moving say the iOS app store to the primary Mac app store and away from iTunes would not only have consequences for Windows users, but it would render all Leopard machines obsolete over-night with no ability to support iOS devices. That will probably happen anyway since I doubt support for PPC will last much longer in iTunes and Intel users are expected to upgrade come hell or high water to the latest OS version if it means dumping Rosetta support, etc. that would leave them to conclude that Lion is a POS and an utter waste of time and money to move to except for the fact that a lot of newer software will not run on their older machine any longer (and oddly most older software will eventually stop working as well, leaving OSX with a tiny-middle ground of software while Windows supports most of everything made in the past 12 years).

Either you don't get the concept of system-wide OpenGL 3.x [a first in the industry] that is being added or you think OpenGL ES 2.0 is more advanced than OpenGL 2.x--it's only a subset of the full 2.x stack.

Yes, Apple isn't releasing 3.3/4.1 drivers until they have system-wide support for 3.3.

oiuh151
Jun 12, 2011, 04:08 PM
So it still has the crappy black & white icon interface they introduced a few versions ago that almost everybody on earth hates except Mr. Jobs and his church. Yay. :rolleyes:
Get used to it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5479355085_fdbb633c5b.jpg


I think you misunderstand. 32-bit app support will probably be removed entirely in 10.8 so Apple is moving towards this. They've already eliminated 32-bit CPU support in Lion and removing all 32-bit app support is the next logical progression in order for Apple to keep telling everyone OSX is the most advanced OS in the world despite the total BS that it is in context of 3D graphics and keeping said APIs up-to-date, etc.

Doubt it, Apple would have to purge and remove too many apps already in the Mac App Store and those using the current latest versions of iLife or iWork would be boned when they upgrade to 10.8.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 12, 2011, 04:15 PM
There are a number of ways to look into this that don't involve a hex editor, I don't know why people jump on that approach. /usr/bin/otool, /usr/bin/strings, and /usr/bin/file among others can give you lots of information. Of course, iTunes links against both Carbon.framework and Cocoa/AppKit.

And NS* classes are not necessarily Cocoa. NSAutoreleasePool and NSNumber are Foundation. You don't need a Cocoa UI to use the Foundation collection classes or to subclass NSObject, hah.

My unscientific guess is that iTunes isn't so easily categorizable because its probably a single codebase for both OS X and Windows, which results in some oddities at the user interface level. Not to mention that they do a lot of things custom with iTunes and don't really stick with standard NSWindow and brethren behaviors.

I really doubt they ported over the HIToolbox to 64-bit *just* for iTunes without giving it to third-party developers, though, which would mean iTunes would have to have a Cocoa UI.

Foundation is part of Cocoa. Just because they extended Foundation to incorporate Carbon APIs during doesn't mean Foundation doesn't come from the NeXT Frameworks--I used to support them at NeXT and Apple, every day.

Cocoa is just a modern name given to the ever expanded nature of the Development Frameworks as a whole. They incorporated those Carbon APIs and once they made the decision to end of life those Carbon APIs they've been transitioning Cocoa back to it's roots--ObjC with C, and C++ through ObjC++ and other extension to interact that include Ruby and Python utilizing their specific MVC Model, and Hybrid Models.

Burton8219
Jun 12, 2011, 04:56 PM
I'm running Lion right now and want to take the plunge and see how 10.5 runs... before I do so is there an easy way to revert back to 10.3 if I find I don't want it anymore?

ten-oak-druid
Jun 12, 2011, 09:23 PM
I can't imagine switching to Windows because it can't run itunes very well and I have so much invested in that app.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 12, 2011, 10:17 PM
I can't imagine switching to Windows because it can't run itunes very well and I have so much invested in that app.

The Run-time for Apple OS X apps won't be a problem being ready for Windows. Most likely Apple will only extend the run-time specifically tied to iTunes.

mac9000
Jun 12, 2011, 11:09 PM
So it still has the crappy black & white icon interface they introduced a few versions ago that almost everybody on earth hates except Mr. Jobs and his church. Yay. :rolleyes:



I think you misunderstand. 32-bit app support will probably be removed entirely in 10.8 so Apple is moving towards this. They've already eliminated 32-bit CPU support in Lion and removing all 32-bit app support is the next logical progression in order for Apple to keep telling everyone OSX is the most advanced OS in the world despite the total BS that it is in context of 3D graphics and keeping said APIs up-to-date, etc. But then Mr. Jobs has always had an odd idea of what advanced means. He'll move one area of the OS as far as it can go and to **** with the consequences with backwards compatibility with older software, etc., but then leave OpenGL on version 2.x for a half decade, letting all gaming support rot in **** unless it's a phone app, etc.

Of course, the consequences for moving say the iOS app store to the primary Mac app store and away from iTunes would not only have consequences for Windows users, but it would render all Leopard machines obsolete over-night with no ability to support iOS devices. That will probably happen anyway since I doubt support for PPC will last much longer in iTunes and Intel users are expected to upgrade come **** or high water to the latest OS version if it means dumping Rosetta support, etc. that would leave them to conclude that Lion is a POS and an utter waste of time and money to move to except for the fact that a lot of newer software will not run on their older machine any longer (and oddly most older software will eventually stop working as well, leaving OSX with a tiny-middle ground of software while Windows supports most of everything made in the past 12 years).

I guess 64-bit is the future, but I'd have to stay 32-bit on my 2006 iMac. You can essentially use 64-bit to throw RAM at the CPU problem, right?

drtimhill
Jun 13, 2011, 01:01 AM
iTunes has supported full-screen mode for years, maybe forever. What it needs to do is not black out a second monitor, thus rendering the computer useless while playing a movie.

Apple has a series of small, annoying problems with iTunes which it hasn't corrected forever. Example: can't play podcasts through as a list; it only plays one and resets everything. Why?

I wonder if anyone from Apple actually uses the basic program and thinks about the consumer. There is so much other tomfoolery and doodaddery within the program that makes it look quite slick and fun, but which does very little to improve the basic function: playing music/video and customizing the play to accommodate the user.

I think the basic problem is iTunes has just got OLD. I mean even the name ... "tunes"? what about movies, tv shows, the app store, podcasts? And why is all the content in the "Music" folder? Um, my TV Shows and Apps are under Music? This is a legacy of a past long gone, and iTunes needs to be re-thought from the ground up, especially in the "post PC" world where it is no longer the ring-master for iPhones and iPads.

--Tim

caspersoong
Jun 13, 2011, 02:24 AM
I wonder whether this will improve performance on Windows. If not, never mind and I am going to get a Mac.

Elbon
Jun 13, 2011, 08:34 AM
i can't see how iTunes can ever be 100% Cocoa, as it would make maintaining iTunes on Windoze a nightmare! I get the feeling its a Cocoa UI with Carbon sitting underneath. I can't see how it could have been done any other way.

Glad someone mentioned this. I was thinking the same thing.

Fukui
Jun 13, 2011, 09:35 AM
The search field has the contextual menu of Cocoa text fields (spelling, grammar, etc.). So the iTunes 10.5 main window is Cocoa.

Or,maybe its just the search field that is cocoa... you can mix them up as long as your using Carbon's HIView or Cocoas NSView to host those UI conponents.

diamond.g
Jun 13, 2011, 09:36 AM
Since iOS 5 will be PC free, do they still need iTunes for PC?

rhett7660
Jun 13, 2011, 10:07 AM
I am just glad they are bringing all of their software products up to 64 bit. Now if we can get the rest of the products up to date we won't have to worry about... when, or if. :)

Atlantico
Jun 13, 2011, 10:18 AM
The only thing I find shocking is that the iTunes 10.5 beta still supports Ping prominently.

Really Apple? You're sticking with Ping? :D

mdelvecchio
Jun 13, 2011, 03:44 PM
What does it mean specifically that it has full screen mode? I'm looking for an alternate to Front Row using the Apple Remote with Lion.

Plex.

mdelvecchio
Jun 13, 2011, 03:47 PM
... Basically, it feels subpar for a native application.

you mean, "Basically, it feels like a beta."

Mr. Wonderful
Jun 13, 2011, 05:24 PM
The only thing I find shocking is that the iTunes 10.5 beta still supports Ping prominently.

Really Apple? You're sticking with Ping? :D

Seriously. I'm ready for it to be dusted under the rug.

o'glory
Jun 13, 2011, 06:05 PM
The desktop client for iTunes needs a makeover! The iOS iTunes/iPod is incredible, its appearance and interface is stunning. Only if they could bring it to the Mac. Let's hope for a new iTunes interface for Lion. I use this application the most (besides Finder and Safari lol), I would love a new look!

dagamer34
Jun 13, 2011, 07:16 PM
It'll eventually be like Windows where Quicktime has largely died on Windows where it still gets developed on the Mac platform.

Burton8219
Jun 13, 2011, 07:30 PM
Anyone know how easy it is to revert back to 10.3 if I don't like it?

bLink-404
Jun 13, 2011, 10:11 PM
Running OS X Lion DP4 with iTunes 10.5 beta. iTunes just crashed and I pasted the crash log in Word and found 21 references to Carbon in it, but none for Cocoa. Not sure if that means anything (I haven't really perused an OS X crash log before).

Attached is the crash log.

cmaier
Jun 13, 2011, 10:22 PM
Running OS X Lion DP4 with iTunes 10.5 beta. iTunes just crashed and I pasted the crash log in Word and found 21 references to Carbon in it, but none for Cocoa. Not sure if that means anything (I haven't really perused an OS X crash log before).

Attached is the crash log.

See a lot of NS references in there.

bLink-404
Jun 13, 2011, 10:37 PM
See a lot of NS references in there.

Ahh I see. So it looks like it's a combination of both then?

cmaier
Jun 13, 2011, 10:40 PM
Ahh I see. So it looks like it's a combination of both then?

Could be.

PurrBall
Jun 13, 2011, 11:58 PM
Could be.

I also noticed a few OpenCL references when I inspected the process in Activity Monitor.

Fukui
Jun 14, 2011, 02:47 AM
Could be.

It is.

Looking at the app resources of even 10.1, most are cocoa windows, but the innards are carbon views, just look at some of the xml (.nib and .xib) user interface files.

So, its pretty obvious they are incrementally making it Ďfullí cocoa, but its not all there yet obviously.

MartiNZ
Jun 14, 2011, 06:58 AM
Since iOS 5 will be PC free, do they still need iTunes for PC?

Very good point. And not only that but if they would just split apart the stores from the app they could get away with no iTunes per se for Windows ... but then again, it would always be -something- that would be 'a nightmare to maintain for Windows' - dare I say typical Windows slowing down progress. Dare I? Oh I thought not :D.

diamond.g
Jun 14, 2011, 07:23 AM
Very good point. And not only that but if they would just split apart the stores from the app they could get away with no iTunes per se for Windows ... but then again, it would always be -something- that would be 'a nightmare to maintain for Windows' - dare I say typical Windows slowing down progress. Dare I? Oh I thought not :D.

The way I see it, if you have an old device, keep your old iTunes. New devices no longer sync in iTunes so it would be no longer needed.

MartiNZ
Jun 14, 2011, 04:28 PM
If they could just stop my boot camp Windows 7 saying my iPhone is a digital camera it would be a step forward. The cheek! Although file system access to camera roll in Windows is a nice touch.

AlphaSite
Jun 15, 2011, 09:57 AM
Have i just not noticed this for ages? or is this (http://cl.ly/1J2y1D253E2f1E2i1v3D) something new?

Or is it something from another app?

diamond.g
Jun 15, 2011, 10:11 AM
Have i just not noticed this for ages? or is this (http://cl.ly/1J2y1D253E2f1E2i1v3D) something new?

Or is it something from another app?

That has been there since 10.2 or 10.3