Why is the OS X version of iTunes still 32-bit?

[Shake 'n' Bake]

It's still 32-bit. Last year a massive fuss was made because there was no 64-bit support. This year it's still 32-bit, yet nobody seems to care.

Did Apple just decide it would be pointless to have iTunes in 64-bit? Maybe they were like the DOT around my area, i.e. lazy. I just realized the buzz around 64-bit has really diminished. Wonder why.

 

[r.j.s]

I think it will get there, but they need to completely rewrite it first - to remove the bloat.

 

[Intell]

The Windows version is 32-bit also. The Windows 64-bit is only 64-bit drivers. Nothing else in it is 64-bit.

I think it will get there, but they need to completely rewrite it first - to remove the bloat.

I did notice with the dropping of Tiger, the download slimmed down about 20-30Mb. But a full rewrite is still needed.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

I'd honestly feel a little let down if OS X 10.7 doesn't have a 64-bit iTunes. It only makes sense with (most) all the other built-in apps being 64-bit.

 

[dejo]

And what advantages would you expect a 64-bit iTunes to provide? If you can't say, then you're just being a spec-whore.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

I could care less about any performance increases. I'm just tired of waiting, and it should match the rest of the programs that come with the computer.

 

[Saturnine]

I honestly believe Apple is offering these fairly minor and necessary updates to iTunes simply because they have to. It's been a long while now since any update offered anything beyond cosmetic changes, support for new devices and marketing tools such as Genius and Ping.

The basic functionality of iTunes has changed little for several years now and has had new features merely bolted on top of what was already there.

I would be surprised if the next major update to Mac OS didn't include a major iTunes update of some kind. It's about time that Apple went back to the drawing board and decided on a new roadmap for the iTunes product. Personally, I couldn't care less whether it's 32 bit, 64 bit, Cocoa or Carbon - I just want the features of the programme offered to me in the best way possible.

Apple have some decisions to make about what they want iTunes to be. Is it a Media Player? An online store? A social-networking tool? An iPod/iPhone/iPad syncing utility or all of the above? If it's any or all of those, then Apple need to decide how best to present it, because the organic growth culminating in iTunes 10 hasn't been great and is surely unsustainable in the long term.

So I believe there's a team of designers and engineers at Apple just waiting to begin work on the next major overhaul of Mac OS and its major constituents, such as iTunes.

 

[lewis82]

I agree that it should be 64 bit.

But does it really matter to you? It won't be any faster. Removing the bloat is one thing, but having the same exact app running in 32 or 64 bit mode won't change anything - it doesn't use more than 4 gigs of RAM.

So unless you spend hours watching the activity monitor, this is a non-issue.

 

[Alaerian]

And what advantages would you expect a 64-bit iTunes to provide? If you can't say, then you're just being a spec-whore.

QFE
Thank you for having common sense. It seems to be a rarity >.<

 

[maflynn]

What benefit will 64bit iTunes provide over 32bit? None.

Apple I'm sure will re-compile it to 64bits in the course of time, but look how long it took them to use Cocoa for the Finder instead of Carbon. 6 major revisions. I don't think we'll see 64bit iTunes any time soon.

 

[iPhone1]

Unless you need massive amounts of RAM to play your latest Ke$ha single, 64-bit mode is not needed in iTunes.

 

[spice weasel]

And what advantages would you expect a 64-bit iTunes to provide? If you can't say, then you're just being a spec-whore.

A 64-bit version of iTunes will allow you to play your music at double speed. For some of us with very large music libraries, this is important, as it means we can listen to twice as much music in the same amount of time. It's all about efficiency.