www.voxapp.net
It's basically what we're looking for, however its missing a library. I'm keeping a very close eye on development for this application. Once it gets a library:
GOOD RIDDANCE ITUNES!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes 9 NOT 64-Bit!!!
- Thread starter jlpoore89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
www.voxapp.net
It's basically what we're looking for, however its missing a library. I'm keeping a very close eye on development for this application. Once it gets a library:
GOOD RIDDANCE ITUNES!
You mean like QuickTime Player?
Or if you still want a library and playlists, is this not simple enough for you?
That is simple, and ideally what I would want, however the iTunes application is still bloated (ram hog).
I relaunched iTunes with those simplified settings and started playing music, its under 50 MB. Although I could still see that being more than youd like. But theres still good ol Finder + QTP if you wanna go crazy.
I just loaded a track with Vox, and its only using 10mb. Much better on RAM and CPU. Less is more.
Seriously, I can't wait until Vox gets a library, although I know it will use more ram, but thats ok .
In response to those looking for a lightweight jukebox style program, I quite like Ecoute. It runs off your iTunes library, but doesn't have all the junk. It has a nice gui though.
http://ecouteapp.com/
And no, I don't work for them, nor am I associated with them in any way. Just thought it is a nice app.
http://ecouteapp.com/
And no, I don't work for them, nor am I associated with them in any way. Just thought it is a nice app.
And we would have a 64 bit CS4 on OSX if Apple hadn't pulled the rug out from under Adobe given up on 64 Carbon.
It was too late in Adobe's development cycle. Yet, years later, Apple can't even seem to get their own in-house apps, which are relatively less complex, apps ported to Cocoa?
You mean how much memory? I dunno, but it doesnt save any, since iTunes is open for it to do anything.
Cocoa is the best we can hope for. I'm still somewhat surprised that Apple is giving such widespread iTunes support.Well hopefully "iTunes X" will be a 64-bit Cocoa app.
The same goes for Quicktime 7 and Safari.
Ahh silly people still worrying about 64-bit programs.
Anyway, you have to wonder why they still haven't gone 64-bit for this release. I'd like to think they'd still want a chunk of people who are running Tiger and Leopard to have compatibility. Same goes for Final Cut Studio. If they released a 64-bit version as of right now, there wouldn't be compatibility for either. I'm sure people don't think about stuff like this, so I'm throwing it out there.
Yes, I agree that people SHOULD upgrade to the latest and the greatest, but that's not how it works. People upgrade when they can, and it's always over a course of time. I assume in another couple of years, most software WILL be 64-bit. And yes, iTunes X should finally be 64-bit when it's released. Snow Leopard is step one for Apple to gear everyone up for 64-bit.
Anyway, you have to wonder why they still haven't gone 64-bit for this release. I'd like to think they'd still want a chunk of people who are running Tiger and Leopard to have compatibility. Same goes for Final Cut Studio. If they released a 64-bit version as of right now, there wouldn't be compatibility for either. I'm sure people don't think about stuff like this, so I'm throwing it out there.
Yes, I agree that people SHOULD upgrade to the latest and the greatest, but that's not how it works. People upgrade when they can, and it's always over a course of time. I assume in another couple of years, most software WILL be 64-bit. And yes, iTunes X should finally be 64-bit when it's released. Snow Leopard is step one for Apple to gear everyone up for 64-bit.
Ahh silly people still worrying about 64-bit programs.
Anyway, you have to wonder why they still haven't gone 64-bit for this release. I'd like to think they'd still want a chunk of people who are running Tiger and Leopard to have compatibility. Same goes for Final Cut Studio. If they released a 64-bit version as of right now, there wouldn't be compatibility for either. I'm sure people don't think about stuff like this, so I'm throwing it out there.
Yes, I agree that people SHOULD upgrade to the latest and the greatest, but that's not how it works. People upgrade when they can, and it's always over a course of time. I assume in another couple of years, most software WILL be 64-bit. And yes, iTunes X should finally be 64-bit when it's released. Snow Leopard is step one for Apple to gear everyone up for 64-bit.
Leopard can run 64-bit apps
To some degree, yes. There are barely any that exist though. But remember, I also mentioned Tiger, so they had to make the program compatible with that too.
You see, Apple doesn't discontinue support because of some lofty goals of 'progress' and 'advances.' They discontinue because they already got your money. But with iTunes, they have to bleed it out of you over time, 99 cents at a time. This requires them to support your product for longer than 1.75 years.
iTunes is a money collecting device. Likewise for the iThings; they allow you to give money to Apple with a small pocketsize device that works anywhere you can get a cell or Wifi signal.
Oh, and 64-bit doesn't increase Apple's ability to collect 99 cents.
Not to mention trying to port it to Windows.
iTunes and Safari appear to be using DLL translations of Carbon APIs. Moving to Cocoa is going to cause a disparity between the OS X and Windows versions.
I understand the widespread support is to keep milking those pennies.
Whether iTunes is a memory hog or not a 64-bit and Cocoa rewrite would definitely make it faster and smoother especially for those with very large libraries like myself. Just look at the Finder in SL.
The Windows version of Quicktime isn't really of any benefit to Apple, the only reason it still exists is that iTunes requires it.
If Apple are going to rewrite iTunes (and i think they really need to) then why wouldn't they do it right?
I think we'll see a complete separation of the Windows and Mac iTunes codebases in iTunes X. There wont be any attempt to bring Quicktime X to Windows nor will Apple port Cocoa to Windows.
We'll get completely native versions for both platforms, with the Windows version simply layering itself over the Windows Media frameworks to support playback (remember Windows 7 supports h.264 and AAC natively, and Apple could just ship codecs for earlier versions along with a plugin for their DRM); Quicktime will disappear on Windows completely.
The Mac version will finally be able to take advantage of all the underlying OS X tech that it previously hasn't been able due to being hobbled by the need to build on both Windows and OS X. So we'll get Webkit for the store (already done in 9), Quicktime for playback, all the Core stuff for fancy effects and whatnot.
Performance should increase dramatically and iTunes will be slimmed down quite a bit.
Of course i'm pulling all this out of my ass, but it seems the logical thing for Apple to do. Time will tell i guess.
I'm not sure why you say that. With the 64 bit apps, there are noticiable speed increases in many of them, particularly safari. What makes you think the generally slow iTunes wouldn't be improved?
This looks like an admission on Apple's part that Cocoa really is a pain to use when you have to go cross platform with windows.
Forget iTunes, just look at apps that REALLY need 64 bit like final cut and Logic.
Not an issue - 64 bit apps are fat binaries and can run on 32 bit hardware as well. 64 bit doesn't mean 64 bit only, at least not yet.
I think you missed his point, even with the screen simplified, all the slow bloated code is still there.
That, and it would likely run a bit faster. Just look at all the other 64 bit apps in SL and the improvements there.