iTunes 9 NOT 64-Bit!!!

[colonels1020]

I really don't think most consumers really care if it is 64-bit or not, as long as it works, which it does.

As far as the RAM issue goes, mine is using about ~64MB. Most computers nowadays come with at least 4GB or more of ram, so 64MB isn't too bad...

 

[sdp]

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.

This.

They're not thinking about iTunes...it's the iTunes STORE that is the key in all of this. They are fast becoming to buying music what google is to search. What microsoft is to OS.

iTunes Store will be the absolute core of apple in the near future if it isn't already.

For instance - the iphone is not a phone, it's a pocket (but for real pocket) "net PC" that has cool, useful, fun apps. period. making a phone call is a bonus. Apps, games, media and all forms of modern communication are the core.

 

[jmpage2]

The single biggest reason that I can see for Apple not making the move at this time is them having no way to integrate a cocoa based iTunes into the Windows environment.

Remember, 90% (or more) of iTunes users are on Windows.

I do think a webkit re-write is possible since it would run on both OS's.

Otherwise they should just give us a Cocoa based iTunes and some .dlls that lets Windows users continue to use it.

I have about 40GB in my music collection (stored on another server) and several movies, a pile of iPhone applications, etc. iTunes uses about 220MB of RAM on my 2009 iMac. It is fairly responsive but still manages to hiccup a bit when changing views, doing album art sort, etc.

The primary benefits of going to a 64 bit cocoa app is the same reason we are seeing such huge speed increases in Safari 4. We would probably see execution times on some tasks increase by as much as 100%. If there are dozens of little increases like this it will absolutely make iTunes a much more responsive application.

 

[maflynn]

omg, the app is not 64bits, the world is ending.

lol, who cares.

The app works as I want it too, and I think 99.99% of consumers who use it, could care less. Its some of the nerdy folks that seem to get their panties in a bind with 64bit vs. 32bit, be it an app or the the kernel.

 

[milo]

maflynn, please read the thread, it has been explained repeatedly why the app should be updated to 64 bits. I'm happy for you that you're fine with sluggish performance (or have a small library).

I really don't think most consumers really care if it is 64-bit or not, as long as it works, which it does.

As far as the RAM issue goes, mine is using about ~64MB. Most computers nowadays come with at least 4GB or more of ram, so 64MB isn't too bad...

I think "works" isn't good enough, most people wants "works well".

And you must have a small library, on my machine iTunes uses over 300 meg of real ram and 1.3 gig virtual memory.

 

[jmpage2]

omg, the app is not 64bits, the world is ending.

lol, who cares.

The app works as I want it too, and I think 99.99% of consumers who use it, could care less. Its some of the nerdy folks that seem to get their panties in a bind with 64bit vs. 32bit, be it an app or the the kernel.

Tiger worked well enough for 99% of Mac users too, so why waste resources developing Leopard?

 

[BaldiMac]

maflynn, please read the thread, it has been explained repeatedly why the app should be updated to 64 bits.

Has it? I haven't seen a post in this thread that has explained why it should be updated to 64-bit other than claims that it would be faster without any explanation or evidence. That said, a rewrite of the application in Cocoa or whatever would obviously have benefits regardless of the 64-bit-ness.

And you must have a small library, on my machine iTunes uses over 300 meg of real ram and 1.3 gig virtual memory.

Are you implying that that's a problem?

 

[soms]

Has it? I haven't seen a post in this thread that has explained why it should be updated to 64-bit other than claims that it would be faster without any explanation or evidence. That said, a rewrite of the application in Cocoa or whatever would obviously have benefits regardless of the 64-bit-ness.



Are you implying that that's a problem?

....uhhh yea? lol

300mb is quite a bit, especially when it used to be anywhere from 60-120 before. That's double at best, and 5 times more ram at worst.

 

[err404]

The reason I want the re-write, is because the current design is very poorly threaded. On older hardware (like a Mac Mini, which I use a HTPC) iTunes is not able to playback moderately high bit-rate video's while simultaneously downloading podcast updates. The machine has plenty of free CPU cycles as I can play a second video in VLC smoothly and download even more from safari and all the while everything is smooth except iTunes.

 

[snverhallen]

I don't care that much... but iTunes is using 414 MB of memory. Which is seriously messed up.

 

[MikeTheVike]

I don't know why you people want a 64-bit iTunes so bad, what is the benefit? When it is released, people will be on here complaining how it doesn't seem any faster and that they are reverting back to 32-bit version. Just like the Snow Leopard release.

 

[zwaldowski]

I don't know why you people want a 64-bit iTunes so bad, what is the benefit? When it is released, people will be on here complaining how it doesn't seem any faster and that they are reverting back to 32-bit version. Just like the Snow Leopard release.

It's not just the 64-bittage. It's the smoothness and speed (which we have come to identify Apple with) that would come with a native Cocoa rewrite of iTunes.

And, is it just me, or is Safari on Windows for much Cocoa? Or at least Chocolate Milk? They should use that for iTunes "X".

 

[CWallace]

How about a small application simply for playing back music?

I use Quicktime X when I just want to play a single audio file (like a just-downloaded podcast).

 

[belvdr]

....uhhh yea? lol

300mb is quite a bit, especially when it used to be anywhere from 60-120 before. That's double at best, and 5 times more ram at worst.

And how is going to a 64-bit application going to solve how much memory the application uses?

Some people tend to believe that 64-bit is always faster than 32-bit. It's not true.

 

[maflynn]

Tiger worked well enough for 99% of Mac users too, so why waste resources developing Leopard?

You're simile is flawed. While Leopard introduced 64bit cocoa apps, Tiger had 64bit capability as well. Plus the selling feature for Leopard was not 64bits but various other added features.

 

[cmcbridejr]

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

No, why should we be aggravated?

 

[Eric S.]

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.

By fat binary you mean that they are two binaries combined - 32-bit and 64-bit, right?

There had been prior speculation that iTunes 9 would be 64-bit only. That's what I am happy not to see.

 

[mrchinchilla]

iTunes only uses between 40-80mb for me. But that's because I keep it in list view. Cover Flow and album view waste a lot of memory... And I just want to listen to music, so iTunes works great for me.

 

[Amdahl]

I
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.

There is an assumption that PPC would be dropped when they redo iTunes in Cocoa. Of course, there is no reason for that to happen, but Mac-heads are programmed to believe that you can't improve a product without screwing some of the customer base.

 

[gnasher729]

The reason I want the re-write, is because the current design is very poorly threaded. On older hardware (like a Mac Mini, which I use a HTPC) iTunes is not able to playback moderately high bit-rate video's while simultaneously downloading podcast updates. The machine has plenty of free CPU cycles as I can play a second video in VLC smoothly and download even more from safari and all the while everything is smooth except iTunes.

Just good that Grand Central Dispatch works just fine with Carbon.

 

[simonshek]

Who f- care. You won't see any physically differences(UI) between 32bit and 64bit when you are playing music and hide it in the background. IF it is 64-bit, it still plays songs in the SAME quality. Your music will not sound better because iTunes is 64bit. Plus, I don't see any reason that Apple will change the UI because iTunes upgrades to 64-bit/changes to cocoa based. The situation is same as OS X, you won't see any UI differences because of under hood refinements.

 

[Amdahl]

Who f- care. You won't see any physically differences(UI) between 32bit and 64bit when you are playing music and hide it in the background. IF it is 64-bit, it still plays songs in the SAME quality. Your music will not sound better because iTunes is 64bit. Plus, I don't see any reason that Apple will change the UI because iTunes upgrades to 64-bit/changes to cocoa based. The situation is same as OS X, you won't see any UI differences because of under hood refinements.

But but but but.. STEVE!

 

[rerelease]

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.

That is a very nice app, thank you!

 

[BaldiMac]

....uhhh yea? lol

300mb is quite a bit, especially when it used to be anywhere from 60-120 before. That's double at best, and 5 times more ram at worst.

I don't care that much... but iTunes is using 414 MB of memory. Which is seriously messed up.

Why is that a problem? Didn't you buy the RAM for the applications to actually use? If iTunes has a memory leak or doesn't release RAM properly, that is a problem. The fact that it actually uses RAM to speed up the interface is a good thing!

 

[jmpage2]

Who f- care. You won't see any physically differences(UI) between 32bit and 64bit when you are playing music and hide it in the background. IF it is 64-bit, it still plays songs in the SAME quality. Your music will not sound better because iTunes is 64bit. Plus, I don't see any reason that Apple will change the UI because iTunes upgrades to 64-bit/changes to cocoa based. The situation is same as OS X, you won't see any UI differences because of under hood refinements.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that a 64 bit iTunes would look better or sound better. Truly anyone who thinks such things is a Smacktard.

It probably would be quicker though to load large libraries, do transitions, etc.