Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iTunes 9 NOT 64-Bit!!!

J

jlpoore89

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 16, 2009
316
0
Beaumont, Texas
Is there anyone else out there who is aggravated that iTunes 9 is not 64-bit???

I was really hoping for this. I love the new features, but 64-bit would be very nice considering a lot of people including myself have large libraries and 64-bit would make things much snappier.
 
Details, please?

jlpoore89 said:
Is there anyone else out there who is aggravated that iTunes 9 is not 64-bit???

I was really hoping for this. I love the new features, but 64-bit would be very nice considering a lot of people including myself have large libraries and 64-bit would make things much snappier.
Click to expand...

Where did you find this info? I was hoping for the same - otherwise, I may not
have done the SL update . . .

Have you already done the download and install? Is there any visible increase
in performance?
 
Mugwumper said:
Where did you find this info? I was hoping for the same - otherwise, I may not
have done the SL update . . .

Have you already done the download and install? Is there any visible increase
in performance?
Click to expand...

Look in the "kind" tab in Activity Monitor. For iTunes it just says "Intel" not "Intel (64 bit)"

I attached a screenshot for reference.

And any increase in performance isn't noticeably visible to me yet.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2009-09-09 at 3.22.50 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2009-09-09 at 3.22.50 PM.jpg
    693.4 KB · Views: 710
Most users (probably well over 90%) would never see any real difference in iTunes being 64-bit, so Apple has no reason to rush it out the door. Besides, it seems like a lot of people just want things to be 64-bit to be able to SAY that it's 64-bit without having any real understanding of whether or not it will actually do anything for them performance-wise.
 
rwilliams said:
Most users (probably well over 90%) would never see any real difference in iTunes being 64-bit, so Apple has no reason to rush it out the door. Besides, it seems like a lot of people just want things to be 64-bit to be able to SAY that it's 64-bit without having any real understanding of whether or not it will actually do anything for them performance-wise.
Click to expand...

True but if Apple can be bothered to update programs like mail and safari then you would think they would do it for itunes????
 
stridemat said:
True but if Apple can be bothered to update programs like mail and safari then you would think they would do it for itunes????
Click to expand...

iTunes is a Carbon application. Carbon apps cannot be 64-bit due to Apple preventing Carbon itself from going 64-bit to force developers to switch to Cocoa. So any Carbon app has to have its user interface code rewritten in Cocoa which is completely different. But I'm sure they're working on it, as they rewrote Finder to be Cocoa when it has been Carbon all these years.

My guess is Apple has a small team of engineers that are porting all their Carbon apps to Cocoa. Finder was first, then iTunes, and then DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher :)
 
stridemat said:
True but if Apple can be bothered to update programs like mail and safari then you would think they would do it for itunes????
Click to expand...

That would also require them to rewrite it for Windows, which I'm sure they're not in a hurry to do either. It must be a real pain for them to tackle, or else I think it would have been done in time for Snow Leopard's release.
 
swiftaw said:
Isn't iTunes still a Carbon app?
Click to expand...

Yes. I explained this a few months ago how there was no chance of a 64-bit iTunes unless Apple completely rewrote it as they did with Finder, and look how long it took them to get on with doing that.
 
kainjow said:
iTunes is a Carbon application. Carbon apps cannot be 64-bit due to Apple preventing Carbon itself from going 64-bit to force developers to switch to Cocoa. So any Carbon app has to have its user interface code rewritten in Cocoa which is completely different. But I'm sure they're working on it, as they rewrote Finder to be Cocoa when it has been Carbon all these years.

My guess is Apple has a small team of engineers that are porting all their Carbon apps to Cocoa. Finder was first, then iTunes, and then DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher :)
Click to expand...

Thankyou for educating me kainjow. Yeah Im sure it 'is in the works' I imagine that it is a lot more work than I think to upgrade from Carbon to Cocoa?
 
In keeping with Apple tradition, we might se an iTunes X next year or the year after that is truly 64-bit.

I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a cocoa rewrite, but not terribly so, because this means I can keep my G4 around for awhile longer.
 
How large is your library? You do know that iTunes only load the song and some of the songs into the buffer (memory), not the whole collection of songs?

I doubt your whole iTunes DB is more than 100MB. You don't need 64bit for that.

rwilliams said:
Most users (probably well over 90%) would never see any real difference in iTunes being 64-bit, so Apple has no reason to rush it out the door. Besides, it seems like a lot of people just want things to be 64-bit to be able to SAY that it's 64-bit without having any real understanding of whether or not it will actually do anything for them performance-wise.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
rwilliams said:
That would also require them to rewrite it for Windows, which I'm sure they're not in a hurry to do either. It must be a real pain for them to tackle, or else I think it would have been done in time for Snow Leopard's release.
Click to expand...

Well Safari is Cocoa and is cross-platform, so my guess is they still have Cocoa for Windows internally somehow and will be using that for iTunes X or whatever it'll be called.

Brien said:
I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a cocoa rewrite, but not terribly so, because this means I can keep my G4 around for awhile longer.
Click to expand...

A Cocoa version of iTunes would not effect the system requirements, unless Apple uses some SL-only tech.
 
jlpoore89 said:
Is there anyone else out there who is aggravated that iTunes 9 is not 64-bit???

I was really hoping for this. I love the new features, but 64-bit would be very nice considering a lot of people including myself have large libraries and 64-bit would make things much snappier.
Click to expand...

I hear that Apple is going to do 96-bit on iTunes X, for higher sound fidelity and richer colors. Plus, snappier.
 
Kinda funny how some people railed against Adobe for not going 64-bit on Mac, yet years later, they're excusing Apple for not making iTunes 64-bit ready.
 
zentraedi said:
Kinda funny how some people railed against Adobe for not going 64-bit on Mac, yet years later, they're excusing Apple for not making iTunes 64-bit ready.
Click to expand...

Not really, CS4 apps often need huge amounts of memory. Joke as you will about how iTunes is a memory hog, it doesn't compare. iTunes doesn't need to be a 64-bit app for anyone, but CS needs to be a 64-bit app for some people.
 
If you analyze the iTunes.mpkg with Pacifist or something else you'll find that the name of one of the packages is iTunes X, so I guess iTunes 9 is iTunes X :p
 
kainjow said:
Well Safari is Cocoa and is cross-platform, so my guess is they still have Cocoa for Windows internally somehow and will be using that for iTunes X or whatever it'll be called.



A Cocoa version of iTunes would not effect the system requirements, unless Apple uses some SL-only tech.
Click to expand...

Technicality on my part. I meant intel-only cocoa version. I think we all had reason to worry with the way Final Cut Studio etc. have been headed. Crises averted.

And yeah, that or some cocoa-> windows porting tool. They'll have to port QTX to Windows eventually, you'd think.
 
Brien said:
In keeping with Apple tradition, we might se an iTunes X next year or the year after that is truly 64-bit.

I'm a bit surprised they didn't do a cocoa rewrite, but not terribly so, because this means I can keep my G4 around for awhile longer.
Click to expand...

How about a small application simply for playing back music? No ipod, or iphone, or iTV, itunes music store or apps bull**** having to be present, loaded or getting in the way of a quick, easy, low profile, low memory dependent application.
 
ungraphic said:
How about a small application simply for playing back music? No ipod, or iphone, or iTV, itunes music store or apps bull**** having to be present, loaded or getting in the way of a quick, easy, low profile, low memory dependent application.
Click to expand...

I've been secretly hoping for years that Apple would rebrand iTunes into the iPod syncing app it's become, instead of being a jukebox with so much other stuff heaped on top of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back