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!!!

rwilliams said:
Right - they now have a 64-bit OS, so if all of their apps aren't 64-bit, alarms seem to go off in their brains, regardless of whether they'll ever see any difference between the 32-bit & 64-bit versions of the apps.
Click to expand...

I think the issue for people is not that they want 64 bit for no reason. Everybody assumes and usually right so, that with 64bit comes a smoother and faster application.

So with the Snow Kitty being 64bit, why did itunes not get it. It really dosent matter if you have a 10GB library or like me, a nearly 200GB iTunes library. Smoother is smoother and people like, would have liked to see a 64bit itunes.Having said that, iTunes 9 is nice but iTunes 9 64bit would have been nicer.
 
I think we can all agree that we would like a smoother faster iTunes experience whether thats 32 or 64 bit. If they can speed up itunes 9 general performance and make it snappier then im happy waiting for the 64 bit version.
 
illegalprelude said:
I think the issue for people is not that they want 64 bit for no reason. Everybody assumes and usually right so, that with 64bit comes a smoother and faster application.

So with the Snow Kitty being 64bit, why did itunes not get it. It really dosent matter if you have a 10GB library or like me, a nearly 200GB iTunes library. Smoother is smoother and people like, would have liked to see a 64bit itunes.Having said that, iTunes 9 is nice but iTunes 9 64bit would have been nicer.
Click to expand...

With that line of reasoning, one can ask why Leopard apps weren't 64-bit. There's nothing special about 'Snow Kitty' in the 64-bit realm, except the kernel can run in 64-bit mode, which everyone now claims is mostly useless, in order to justify the fact that many systems can't run it, and it isn't the default.
 
jmpage2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Mine has some hiccups as well, and when i saw that screenshot someone posted, using 64MB of memory, I saw mine and was like 330? WTF?
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2009-09-13 at 12.23.45 PM.png
    Screen shot 2009-09-13 at 12.23.45 PM.png
    134.1 KB · Views: 110
I for one would've liked to have a 64 Bit iTunes for Snow Leopard just for the sake of having it. Apple just released a new 64 Bit OS and then iTunes followed it 2 weeks later, I was expecting it to be 64 Bit due to the timing. The Mac version SHOULD'VE been 64 Bit, the Windows version can wait on that, it's not a priority. Apple needs to showcase their new OS.
 
HLdan said:
I for one would've liked to have a 64 Bit iTunes for Snow Leopard just for the sake of having it.
Click to expand...

That is about how I look at it.

I understand it's not going to make my movies look better, my music sound richer, or make the Pause button pause quicker. :p

But Apple didn't invest all this time, effort and money to transition the OS and many of the core applications to 64-bit and Cocoa just for s**ts and giggles. Even if there are no current and immediate benefits to doing most of it now, there must be advantages to doing it in the future and moving a core application like iTunes to Cocoa and 64-bit should bring advantages down the road, as well.
 
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...

Actually, there is a 64-bit version!!! Click Here!!!
 
ungraphic said:
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 :).
Click to expand...

I don't get all this 'resource hog' business with iTunes 9. It seldom uses more than 30 MB of RAM for me and <5% cpu.
 
HLdan said:
I for one would've liked to have a 64 Bit iTunes for Snow Leopard just for the sake of having it. Apple just released a new 64 Bit OS and then iTunes followed it 2 weeks later, I was expecting it to be 64 Bit due to the timing. The Mac version SHOULD'VE been 64 Bit, the Windows version can wait on that, it's not a priority. Apple needs to showcase their new OS.
Click to expand...

There is a 64-bit Windows version already. BTW, Snow Leopard technically isn't any different than Leopard for being 64-bit unless you boot into the 64-bit kernel. Otherwise, it's still 32-bit with full 64-bit support.
 
Karate007 said:
Actually, there is a 64-bit version!!! Click Here!!!
Click to expand...

mac2x said:
There is a 64-bit Windows version already. BTW, Snow Leopard technically isn't any different than Leopard for being 64-bit unless you boot into the 64-bit kernel. Otherwise, it's still 32-bit with full 64-bit support.
Click to expand...

I believe another thread on here stated that although Windows does have a 64-bit version available, it was only the driver that was 64-bit

EDIT: So close and yet so far about 64-bit iTunes
 
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...

Ironically if it's called iTunes X, it will actually be version 10.0 (like the X in OSX, the numeral X stands for 10) unlike Quicktime X which is actually version 8.0 even though it's labeled as 10.0
 
belvdr said:
Going 64-bit won't necessarily reduce memory usage. I don't know why you think it would.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, did you really thing I was serious with that statement?

Of course 64bit applications don't reduce the memory usage. It's basically just the other way round.

But until iTunes wanna use more than 4GB Ram, there is absolutely no need for it being 64bit.
 
Consultant said:
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.
Click to expand...

My Library of over 100 GB. No joke. I have A LOT of music and videos. Like A LOT.
 
I don't care if it's 64-bit or if it remains 32-bit, I just want it to be quicker and less of a resource hog.
 
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