Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macfan881

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 22, 2006
2,345
0
is it really that hard to compile i mean all the major apps have 64 bit suport in SL im still shocked that they have this out for windows first.
 
is it really that hard to compile i mean all the major apps have 64 bit suport in SL im still shocked that they have this out for windows first.

iTunes for Windows is still 32 bit, they just made bug fixes for 64 bit computers in the 32 bit version.

I write Windows software at work, and it's the same situation. Even though our software is 32 bit we have to have a separate installer for 64 bit Windows.
 
is it really that hard to compile i mean all the major apps have 64 bit suport in SL im still shocked that they have this out for windows first.

The big problem is iTunes is a carbon app, since Carbon wasn't and won't be ported to 64-bit we'll have to wait for Apple to rewrite it in Cocoa.

Too bad Apple couldn't port over the non-GUI stuff like usbmuxd and AppleMobileDeviceHelper to 64-bit at least they would be a few less things to have to do in the future.
 
iTunes for Windows is still 32 bit, they just made bug fixes for 64 bit computers in the 32 bit version.

I write Windows software at work, and it's the same situation. Even though our software is 32 bit we have to have a separate installer for 64 bit Windows.

But there is a separate 64bit version of iTunes specifically for 64bit vista computers.

There are three iTunes downloads available from Apple.

1. iTunes for Mac
2. iTunes for Windows XP/32bit Windows Vista
3. iTunes for 64bit Windows Vista.

Is this just what you were saying? It's highly likely I'm confusing the hell out of myself.
 
But there is a separate 64bit version of iTunes specifically for 64bit vista computers.

There are three iTunes downloads available from Apple.

1. iTunes for Mac
2. iTunes for Windows XP/32bit Windows Vista
3. iTunes for 64bit Windows Vista.

Is this just what you were saying? It's highly likely I'm confusing the hell out of myself.

It's a 64 bit installer. There's nothing different about 64 bit iTunes and 32bit.
 
I think the 64-bit windows version includes 64-bit drivers for iPods/iPhones while the 32bit version includes 32-bit drivers. I'm not at home now so i can't check if iTunes itself is 32 bit only.
 
The big problem is iTunes is a carbon app, since Carbon wasn't and won't be ported to 64-bit we'll have to wait for Apple to rewrite it in Cocoa.

Too bad Apple couldn't port over the non-GUI stuff like usbmuxd and AppleMobileDeviceHelper to 64-bit at least they would be a few less things to have to do in the future.

Yep, if Apple could have rewritten it in Cocoa (64-bit) in time for iTunes 9, they would have, however I doubt that it would be possible to completely rewrite, debug and test thoroughly in time to release iTunes 9 when they did.

iTunes is obviously a large application, it would take months and months if not an entire year before we see it rewritten (maybe even longer, I don't know). That's my opinion anyway, no facts behind it.
However if I was Apple, I would not release software that is used for EVERY iPod and iPhone in the world (unless there are third party programs I don't know about?) until I tested it to death, until the bugs were crawling out of its little bits to hide from the shear terror of repeated debugging and testing!
 
increased performance? really?

or is it just a placebo effect?

64-Bit x86 processors use more registers when running 64-bit applications in pure 64-bit mode. If written properly of course. So they should be faster. Whether the difference is noticable or not is the question.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.