Apple Seeds Mac OS X 10.6.3 (Build 10D548)

TuffLuffJimmy said:
And what would be the point of a 64-bit iTunes? What advantages does Cocoa have over Carbon that affects iTunes? And iTunes seems to be built with a some old Carbon code (that still works well and is not in any way obsolete) and some Cocoa spritz here and there.
Click to expand...

What's the point of 64-bit iCal, Address Book, Text Edit...etc? The only 2 apps that Apple did not update for Snow Leopard are iTunes and DVD Player. Those are both still 32-bit only. iTunes will be 64-bit someday and hopefully that day is soon. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that all of my 64-bit apps are faster on Snow Leopard but iTunes is slow and clunky still. I would definitely appreciate an iTunes re-write in true Cocoa 64-bit. I'm sure others will too.

By the way... anyone who is saying that the Windows version of iTunes is 64-bit is wrong. iTunes for Windows is 32-bit and the only part that is actually 64-bit is the USB iPod Sync background process. I'm just letting people know because some people haven't been informed of this.

I'm guessing that Apple hasn't updated iTunes as 64-bit because it's a HUGE app that has been built upon for years and re-writing years worth of work is probably pretty hard to do and takes a long time. Look at QuickTime X for example, in order to make QuickTime 64-bit, they had to start over and leave a lot of features out.

I don't care how much iTunes "feels" like Cococa, it needs to be updated. I'm sure the Finder wasn't an easy task either, but it was more important at the time for the release of Snow Leopard and I think they did an AWESOME job on it.... since we all know that the Finder dates back to beginning of Mac OS.
 
TheSpaz said:
Oh... so is "Cocoaesque feel" the same as Cocoa? I don't think so. In order for Apple to make iTunes 64 bit, they have to make it 64 bit Cocoa, not Cocoa-esque with a 64bit-esque feel.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of the bloody sentence and join the hypothetical dots together.
TuffLuffJimmy said:
And what would be the point of a 64-bit iTunes? What advantages does Cocoa have over Carbon that affects iTunes? And iTunes seems to be built with a some old Carbon code (that still works well and is not in any way obsolete) and some Cocoa spritz here and there.
Click to expand...

Cocoa will give faster GUI performance. Better management of memory and Mac OSX resources.
 
I'm a bit skeptical about this update. I finally have this thing running like it did on 10.5.8 and I'm not sure I have any ongoing issues. The only problem I ever had before was with Airport connectivity.
 
TheSpaz said:
Explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Don't be dense.
I don't get you at all, spaz. You just seem to be all about labels. You were excited when Leopard was fully Unix compliant, yet you obviously don't do anything with your computer in such a way that that would matter. You want iTunes to be full cocoa, but you can't express what pieces still are carbon, which parts of the software would benefit, etc. And you seem to need everything to be 64-bit. If something isn't processing 64-bits of data (or need to anyway) it will be faster and smaller (file-wise) if it's 32-bit.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
Don't be dense.
I don't get you at all, spaz. You just seem to be all about labels. You were excited when Leopard was fully Unix compliant, yet you obviously don't do anything with your computer in such a way that that would matter. You want iTunes to be full cocoa, but you can't express what pieces still are carbon, which parts of the software would benefit, etc. And you seem to need everything to be 64-bit. If something isn't processing 64-bits of data (or need to anyway) it will be faster and smaller (file-wise) if it's 32-bit.
Click to expand...

Wow. All of my 64 bit apps are faster than my 32 bit apps. So why not make iTunes 64 bit?
 
nelmat said:
These aren't 'bugs' in the mac OS, they are restrictions of the FAT file system. There's no way around them, if a third party system can't support something, Apple can't support it, unless you want Apple to redevelop FAT?
Click to expand...

Did you read what he was complaining about; what he is complaining about is:

1) Lack of a message before copying the file - why not state that before copying?

2) Why not provide a useful message such as, "The file system your drive is formatted is unable to handle file larger than 4GB". Nice, simple and straight to the point.

Are those points really so hard for Apple to take onboard?

As for people wanting itunes re-write, if it history is anything to go by with QuickTime X, 'iTunes X' will evolve from the iPad iTunes which would have evolved from the iPod Touch/iPhone iTunes. When 'iTunes X' is launched I wouldn't be surprised if we see it less feature bloated and more focused on a given area.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Did you read what he was complaining about; what he is complaining about is:

1) Lack of a message before copying the file - why not state that before copying?

2) Why not provide a useful message such as, "The file system your drive is formatted is unable to handle file larger than 4GB". Nice, simple and straight to the point.

Are those points really so hard for Apple to take onboard?

As for people wanting itunes re-write, if it history is anything to go by with QuickTime X, 'iTunes X' will evolve from the iPad iTunes which would have evolved from the iPod Touch/iPhone iTunes. When 'iTunes X' is launched I wouldn't be surprised if we see it less feature bloated and more focused on a given area.
Click to expand...

Most people use it as a jukebox and a store for music. It needs no other music type features.
 
One important point about rewriting the applications onto the faster more effient Coca framework helps with battery life and also, multiplied by all the macs running represents a nice little 'green' saving.

It would be interesting to see the Flash vs HTML5 (based on youtube measurements) of the amount of carbon/power saved. A few joules in efficiency multiplied by the number of web hits with flash globally could surprise people..
 
MorphingDragon said:
Well you know how SJ claimed that iTunes was rebuilt completely. What if the rebuild was a spawn of a Cocoa rewrite project?
Click to expand...

I don't remember Steve saying that iTunes was a rebuilt completely. I remember him saying that it has a brand new interface, but that's it. There's no doubt in my mind that Apple is working on Cocoa-izing iTunes and re-writing it. It's just going to take them a while because it's such a big app. I still don't understand your statement about cocoa-esque feel though. To me, it has a Carbon-esque feel to it. It still feels very old and outdated to me. Plus, it's slow and bloated. The new interface is terrible by the way... I'm not a fan.
 
TheSpaz said:
Wow. All of my 64 bit apps are faster than my 32 bit apps. So why not make iTunes 64 bit?
Click to expand...


Hum, probably not because of the 64 bit but because the were re-written in cocoa for the intel architecture. Leaner that is. Leaner code faster response times.
 
eVasilis said:
Hum, probably not because of the 64 bit but because the were re-written in cocoa for the intel architecture. Leaner that is. Leaner code faster response times.
Click to expand...

Hmm... that's weird because I know a lot of 32 bit apps were already Cocoa in Leopard and those even run faster in Snow Leopard.

Basically, Apple needs to re-write iTunes in Cocoa and in the process of doing that, they might as well make it 64 bit like the rest of the OS.
 
TheSpaz said:
Hmm... that's weird because I know a lot of 32 bit apps were already Cocoa in Leopard and those even run faster in Snow Leopard.

Basically, Apple needs to re-write iTunes in Cocoa and in the process of doing that, they might as well make it 64 bit like the rest of the OS.
Click to expand...

You have yet to present a single piece of evidence for your case. Other than 64-bit apps "feel" faster. And we all know how much you adore the placebo effect.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
You have yet to present a single piece of evidence for your case. Other than 64-bit apps "feel" faster. And we all know how much you adore the placebo effect.
Click to expand...

There is no placebo going on here. Every app in Snow Leopard has been noticeably faster except for iTunes. They need iTunes to have the same quality as the rest of their apps. How hard is that to understand? Really? Is it that hard to understand what I mean?

Come on. iTunes is outdated. It *needs* a re-write in Cocoa. Anybody would agree with me.

Why don't YOU present ME with evidence that 64-bit apps aren't faster than 32-bit apps. You won't, so I won't.

I just know that after installing Snow Leopard, everything flies... and I mean EVERYTHING. For fun, I booted from my internal backup drive of Leopard and immediately noticed how much slower it was compared to Snow Leopard but iTunes was pretty much the same. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that. Try it for yourself.
 
TheSpaz said:
There is no placebo going on here. Every app in Snow Leopard has been noticeably faster except for iTunes. They need iTunes to have the same quality as the rest of their apps. How hard is that to understand? Really? Is it that hard to understand what I mean?
Click to expand...
I guess you're forgetting about one of the more recent updates that did infact make iTunes much faster.[/quote]

Come on. iTunes is outdated. It *needs* a re-write in Cocoa. Anybody would agree with me.
Click to expand...
No, it needs a hacksaw taken to it so it can go back to being a light music library manager.

Why don't YOU present ME with evidence that 64-bit apps aren't faster than 32-bit apps. You won't, so I won't.
Click to expand...
I did. Processing 32-bit data with a 32-bit app is faster than processing 32-bit data with a 64-bit app.

I just know that after installing Snow Leopard, everything flies... and I mean EVERYTHING. For fun, I booted from my internal backup drive of Leopard and immediately noticed how much slower it was compared to Snow Leopard but iTunes was pretty much the same. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that. Try it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Go back to Tiger and you'll feel that same speed, especially on a machine four years old.
 
TheSpaz said:
I don't remember Steve saying that iTunes was a rebuilt completely. I remember him saying that it has a brand new interface, but that's it. There's no doubt in my mind that Apple is working on Cocoa-izing iTunes and re-writing it. It's just going to take them a while because it's such a big app. I still don't understand your statement about cocoa-esque feel though. To me, it has a Carbon-esque feel to it. It still feels very old and outdated to me. Plus, it's slow and bloated. The new interface is terrible by the way... I'm not a fan.
Click to expand...

Well the said something about being rebuilt from the ground up in iTunes.
 
Interesting:

I called Apple about a hot corners issue. After we decided it couldn't be fixed, he told me "it looks like 10.6.3 release is going to have some fixes and new features and functionality" "in spaces? or just with hot corners" "Um, in the whole Exposé and Spaces preference pane".

Finally, they fixed the damn hot corners issue ><

I hope >8

My Hot Corners issue.
 
MrCheeto said:
Interesting:

I called Apple about a hot corners issue. After we decided it couldn't be fixed, he told me "it looks like 10.6.3 release is going to have some fixes and new features and functionality" "in spaces? or just with hot corners" "Um, in the whole Exposé and Spaces preference pane".

Finally, they fixed the damn hot corners issue ><

I hope >8
Click to expand...

Unless Apple adds stuff I don't know about as of build 10D548 there are no new features.
And I might add that an Apple customer care person has no idea what's in any new build.
 
The problem with re-writing iTunes is the fact that the heart and soul of the application is still Quicktime 7. Quicktime X is in the same realm as iMovie 08 was and I doubt we will see a re-written iTunes unless Quicktime X gets an iMovie 09 type update with the support codecs that Quicktime 7 has, because right now Quicktime X is essentially useless. Now that's not to say that's a bad thing, because it needed a re-write badly and now we are one step closer to moving away from Quicktime's very old architecture.

Anyway, on to the actual topic... just get this thing released already so we can have OpenGL 3.0 support.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
No, it needs a hacksaw taken to it so it can go back to being a light music library manager.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
I don't know anymore if iTunes should be considered as a music player or an interface for a shop. Why can't Apple include an option to disable all make-money options.

Thanks to Apple's greed I don't use iTunes anymore (and I obviously don't spend any money on Apple excluding hardware :D and Mac OS X license included when you get a new computer :), I use Vox instead, perfect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top