What??!! No 64-bit iLife suite or iTunes?

[Razeus]

I hear that Apple won't be doing a 64-bit version of iTunes (which is desperately needing a Snow Leopard like tune-up because it is slowwwww). Further more iLife won't be recieving any 64-bit upgrading?

That's strange they will be touting 64-bit OS in their marketing, but not have any 64-bit apps available at launch. You figure they would have their top 2 softwares ready to go in 64-bit modes.

Get on the ball Apple.

 

[Tallest Skil]

iTunes really can't be made 64-bit for a long time.

And why do you expect them to redo the entire iLife suite when iLife '10 will be released three months after Snow Leopard?

 

[FSMBP]

Just out of curiosity, why won't iTunes 64-bit be made for a long time?

I'd assume it's one of the top 3 apps used by Mac OS X users and it would be definitely be one of the top candidates for an overhaul.

 

[BaldiMac]

iTunes really can't be made 64-bit for a long time.

Why not? They already have a 64-bit version for Windows.

 

[Tallest Skil]

iTunes is a Carbon app for compatibility. Leopard can't run 64-bit GUI apps, and Apple won't make two types of the same version number for iTunes; they're keeping Leopard compatibility by keeping out 64-bit.

 

[Peace]

iTunes is a Carbon app for compatibility. Leopard can't run 64-bit GUI apps, and Apple won't make two types of the same version number for iTunes; they're keeping Leopard compatibility by keeping out 64-bit.

QT-X is 64-bit and it's the underlying core for iTunes-X.

 

[Razeus]

iTunes really can't be made 64-bit for a long time.

And why do you expect them to redo the entire iLife suite when iLife '10 will be released three months after Snow Leopard?

I doubt iLife '10 will be out in December. I expect it to be fully 64-bit when it does come out, or at least of the 64-bit option for SL users. What I was talking about is some kind of SL patch for the current suite to take advantage of the 64-bitness.

I really see no point of getting SL now, if their main apps aren't even going to be in 64-bit. The only saving grace is Adobe since my Lightroom app is already 64-bit and I can't wait to see how it performs under SL. I'm not sure if my copy of CS4 is 64-bit (don't think it is) but can't wait til it's 64-bit as well.

As for iTunes, there's a 64-bit version for Windows, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean to tell me they are going to waste resources for an OS type that as less market share than Mac Leopard??? and not have a 64-bit version for Snow Leopard? I really hope Apple has a 64-bit SL version waiting for launch day. It really needs it.

 

[raygungirl]

QT-X is 64-bit and it's the underlying core for iTunes-X.

Does that mean iTunes X will probably be the first 64-bit iTunes?

 

[BaldiMac]

The only saving grace is Adobe since my Lightroom app is already 64-bit and I can't wait to see how it performs under SL. I'm not sure if my copy of CS4 is 64-bit (don't think it is) but can't wait til it's 64-bit as well.

Why would it perform any better under Snow Leopard than Leopard simply because it is 64-bit? I realize that there will be many performance enhancements in Snow Leopard, but what is specifically related to 64-bit applications?

 

[nick9191]

iTunes is a Carbon app for compatibility. Leopard can't run 64-bit GUI apps, and Apple won't make two types of the same version number for iTunes; they're keeping Leopard compatibility by keeping out 64-bit.

Could you expand on that? I thought Leopard had 64 bit Cocoa, meaning they could create one version that would run on Snow Leopard and Leopard? That would involve a Cocoa rewrite of iTunes.

I'm betting that the next iTunes release will come with 10.7, and will be a complete rewrite like QuickTime X and iMovie 08/09. If you look at the calendar, now that Quicktime and iMovie have been revamped, iTunes is the next consumer application with the oldest (and most bloated, slow and buggy) code base.

 

[sidewinder]

iTunes is a Carbon app for compatibility. Leopard can't run 64-bit GUI apps, and Apple won't make two types of the same version number for iTunes; they're keeping Leopard compatibility by keeping out 64-bit.

Read what you wrote. Do you know what a GUI is? All apps that have a grpahical user interface are "GUI" apps. The chess program is a 64-bit app and has a GUI.....

S-

 

[Guiyon]

Why would it perform any better under Snow Leopard than Leopard simply because it is 64-bit? I realize that there will be many performance enhancements in Snow Leopard, but what is specifically related to 64-bit applications?

In consumer apps it's primarily that you double the number of general purpose registers. x86-64 allows you to use up to 16 GPRs whereas x86-32 is limited to 8. Most apps will probably take a bit of a performance hit from the fact that registers are now 64 bits wide instead of 32 (more memory bandwidth used and pointers are larger) but the additional registers makes up for it in some applications. If we were still using PPC-64 there would actually be a performance hit because of the width increase (the PPC ISA has 32 GPRs in all forms).

 

[BaldiMac]

In consumer apps it's primarily that you double the number of general purpose registers. x86-64 allows you to use up to 16 GPRs whereas x86-32 is limited to 8. Most apps will probably take a bit of a performance hit from the fact that registers are now 64 bits wide instead of 32 (more memory bandwidth used and pointers are larger) but the additional registers makes up for it in some applications. If we were still using PPC-64 there would actually be a performance hit because of the width increase (the PPC ISA has 32 GPRs in all forms).

I realize that, but it's already 64-bit on Leopard. Are there any additional performance gains on Snow Leopard based solely on the fact that it is 64-bit? On the same hardware, of course.

 

[Guiyon]

I realize that, but it's already 64-bit on Leopard. Are there any additional performance gains on Snow Leopard based solely on the fact that it is 64-bit? On the same hardware, of course.

No, if it's 64-bit you already got that boost. Any improvements would come from from optimization in both the application and the operating system (for example, removing a bit of overhead by having a pure 64-bit kernel).

 

[nuckinfutz]

I'm betting that the next iTunes release will come with 10.7, and will be a complete rewrite like QuickTime X and iMovie 08/09. If you look at the calendar, now that Quicktime and iMovie have been revamped, iTunes is the next consumer application with the oldest (and most bloated, slow and buggy) code base.

That's a bit long. 10.7 probably isn't due until 2011 and iTunes is in need of some massaging.

It isn't infeasible that Apple simply delivers a Leopard version that supports Intel/PPC and a Snow Leopard iTunes build that supports 64-bit and other SL tech.

After all iTunes isn't just a music player/store now it's the sync hub for ipod and iPhone and thus worth the development effort IMO.

 

[iMacmatician]

I'm betting that the next iTunes release will come with 10.7, and will be a complete rewrite like QuickTime X and iMovie 08/09. If you look at the calendar, now that Quicktime and iMovie have been revamped, iTunes is the next consumer application with the oldest (and most bloated, slow and buggy) code base.

Exactly! (Although I think iTunes X will come earlier.)

What I'm wondering is why Grapher isn't 64-bit.

 

[t0mat0]

So the one app that most users are familiar with (due to iPod, iPhone usage in both Mac and PC usage) won't go 64 bit till another 14-20 months?

Wouldn't iTunes be a flagship app to shift over? Wouldn't perhaps it be more likely that they haven't shown a hint of it, and won't till updates to iPods come September (or earlier through build info leaks?) . What are the underpinnings of iTunes that couldn't get updated?

Seems like more credible arguments for and against a 64-bit version of iTunes is needed. I'd imagine iTunes would be a iLife 2010 issue (seeing as they'd be optimising for Snow Leopard presumably).

 

[jaw04005]

It is interesting that Apple specifically notes that 64-bit versions of iTunes, Front Row and DVD Player will not be included with Snow Leopard.

"All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit."

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit

Part of me believes iTunes development has to remain the same on both the Mac and PC. But then again, they're going to release a special Snow Leopard 64-bit build of Safari 4 and QuickTime X is 64-bit. Obviously, Safari 4 is already available on Windows and QuickTime X will soon be.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. iTunes is in dire need of a rewrite. It likely still has old code from SoundJam MP in it.

 

[BaldiMac]

So the one app that most users are familiar with (due to iPod, iPhone usage in both Mac and PC usage) won't go 64 bit till another 14-20 months?

Wouldn't iTunes be a flagship app to shift over? Wouldn't perhaps it be more likely that they haven't shown a hint of it, and won't till updates to iPods come September (or earlier through build info leaks?) . What are the underpinnings of iTunes that couldn't get updated?

Seems like more credible arguments for and against a 64-bit version of iTunes is needed. I'd imagine iTunes would be a iLife 2010 issue (seeing as they'd be optimising for Snow Leopard presumably).

Apple has confirmed that "All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit." If they were planning on a release on or around the same as Snow Leopard, they wouldn't have bothered.

That said, I think that it's just that iTunes development has a pace completely independent from OS X. I think later 2009 or early 2010 is a reasonable guesstimate.

 

[BaldiMac]

Part of me believes iTunes development has to remain the same on both the Mac and PC. But then again, they're going to release a special Snow Leopard 64-bit build of Safari 4 and QuickTime X is 64-bit. Obviously, Safari 4 is already available on Windows and QuickTime X will soon be.

They've also already released a 64-bit version for Windows.

 

[jaw04005]

They've also already released a 64-bit version for Windows.

"iTunes for Windows 64-bit" is not really 64-bit. The application is not 64-bit, only the iPod and iPhone drivers are.

 

[Amdahl]

iTunes really can't be made 64-bit for a long time.

And why do you expect them to redo the entire iLife suite when iLife '10 will be released three months after Snow Leopard?

Uh, Leopard supports 64-bit just fine.

"iTunes for Windows 64-bit" is not really 64-bit. The application is not 64-bit, only the iPod and iPhone drivers are.

That explains a lot. I was wondering how Apple managed to get a 64-bit version out the door for Windows with no fanfare, since they don't seem to have any concern about 64-bit support on Windows.

 

[t0mat0]

Apple has confirmed that "All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit." If they were planning on a release on or around the same as Snow Leopard, they wouldn't have bothered.

That said, I think that it's just that iTunes development has a pace completely independent from OS X. I think later 2009 or early 2010 is a reasonable guesstimate.

All features of Snow Leopard are subject to change.

1. All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit.

My optimistic (perhaps overly so) side notes that they've updated that page once before, after showing off a demo. We're guessing around mid July before we see a Final Candidate release, right?
Looking at the overly simplistic diagram from AppleInsider

could it be we haven't seen everything yet? Apple can drag things to relase much beyond normal expectations of release, let alone optimistic guesses (e.g. TomTom satnav - so when are accessories coming again?)

 

[TheMechanic]

That said, I think that it's just that iTunes development has a pace completely independent from OS X. I think later 2009 or early 2010 is a reasonable guesstimate.

I hope that they make iTunes a simple content manager again. At the moment iTunes does all the syncing for iPods and iPhones, including your address book, mail, calender, photos and stuff that has nothing to do with "tunes". iTunes should only handle your own media content and the content that comes from the iTunes store except maybe the iPhone/iPod touch apps. Then they could upgrade the existing iSync app to do all syncing. Would make more sense IMO.

 

[MikhailT]

There will be a 64bit version of iTunes and iLife/iWork. It just won't be released at same time with Snow Leopard, primarily because those software are not really developed along with the OS engineering team. Those software have their own engineering teams and they also work with OS team but have to postpone some of the work (not all of the work) until the final code is done due to the frameworks that is required for their software.

Also, those software are on a yearly release schedule, they don't come out at the same time with a new OS and they are not part of the OS (except iTunes but they bundle whatever current version was at the time of the release).

Now why is everybody focusing on the 64bit part of Snow Leopard? It isn't its main feature. There is a lot of different technologies built in SL, GCD/OpenCL are a couple of them. iLife wlll be rewritten with GCD/OpenCL in mind, no doubt, that'll give it the best performance upgrade than 64bit ever could.

There's nothing to worry about here. We just have to be patient.