iTunes 9 NOT 64-Bit!!!

Discussion in 'macOS' started by jlpoore89, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. jlpoore89 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    Beaumont, Texas
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Mugwumper macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA
    #2
    Details, please?

    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?
     
  3. jlpoore89 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    Beaumont, Texas
    #3
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. rwilliams macrumors 68040

    rwilliams

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    #4
    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.
     
  5. stridemat Moderator

    stridemat

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    True but if Apple can be bothered to update programs like mail and safari then you would think they would do it for itunes????
     
  6. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
  7. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #7
    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 :)
     
  8. rwilliams macrumors 68040

    rwilliams

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    #8
    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.
     
  9. mrchinchilla macrumors 6502

    mrchinchilla

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #9
    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.
     
  10. stridemat Moderator

    stridemat

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    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?
     
  11. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #11
    Well hopefully "iTunes X" will be a 64-bit Cocoa app. :cool:
     
  12. Brien macrumors 68020

    Brien

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #13
    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.

    Exactly.
     
  14. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #14
    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.
     
  15. razor-sex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester
    #15
    Itunes 9 64 Bit

    Why is itunes still not 64 bit?

    I mean apple need to kick start the 64 bit revolution!

    :confused:
     
  16. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #16
    I hear that Apple is going to do 96-bit on iTunes X, for higher sound fidelity and richer colors. Plus, snappier.
     
  17. jlpoore89 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    Beaumont, Texas
    #17
    Please tell me that you are being sarcastic...
     
  18. devburke Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    #18
    He was being sarcastic.
     
  19. zentraedi macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Eric S. macrumors 68040

    Eric S.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Mountains, California
    #20
    I'm very happy to hear that it's not 64-bit, since I have no plans to move my iTunes database off my PM G4 any time soon.

    Maybe we'll see an affordable desktop Mac by the time that happens. :eek:
     
  21. dcubed20 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #21
    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.
     
  22. Wowzera macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Brazil
    #22
    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
     
  23. Brien macrumors 68020

    Brien

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #23
    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.
     
  24. ungraphic macrumors 6502a

    ungraphic

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Brien macrumors 68020

    Brien

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page