iTunes as a 64bit Application ??

Why doesn't everyone in this thread just calm down a bit and rather than go at each other, just stop responding if you can't be nice.

s2odin said:

What would apple achieve by releasing a 64 bit version of iTunes? Currently, when I run iTunes, it consumes about 70 MB of RAM. It would take a lot for iTunes to require more than 4GB of RAM, that 64 bit addressing would give it.

Click to expand...

What part of the OS now really needs more than 4GB of RAM? For most, none yet Apple built many applications in SL as 64-bit apps. Do I really need a 64-bit Activity Monitor or a 64-bit version of the Apple Spell service? No and those two would benefit much less than iTunes would from being 64-bit applications (regardless of how little those benefits might be).

s2odin said:

And even if it could, I really wouldn't want iTunes consuming 4GB of RAM. Then you could increase the speed of MP3 (AAC) encoding if it was 64 bit.

Click to expand...

Just because it could address more memory doesn't mean it will. A 32-bit OS could give iTunes 2GB of RAM if it wanted to but it doesn't.

s2odin said:

So, all I have to say is that it would be a lot of work, with no benefit, and nobody would even notice.

Click to expand...

Perhaps but why did Apple see fit to make much of SL 64-bit if there were no tangible benefits? True, there is little that many will notice but it's done as part of the eventual need to move to 64-bit computing (it will eventually happen). It's all about future proofing so to speak.

s2odin said:

We'd be much better off asking for 64-bit apps that matter like MS Office (outlook especially), and Visual Studio.

Click to expand...

Why Office? What is it about Office that requires it to be a 64-bit application? And why should Mac users care if VS is a 64-bit application since VS isn't available for OS X?

s2odin said:

The thing is, Apple is spread thin on a lot of projects: Mac OS, iPhone OS, MobileMe, iWork, iLife + all the hardware projects. For the moment, a 32-bit iTunes just works (barely, unfortunately, for me). You'll probably see a major redesign of iTunes with the next Mac OS iteration, when the OS will really be completely 64-bit.

Click to expand...

If they were truly spread as thin as you imply, they would hire more developers. As a company that is experiencing ever climbing profits and market share, they could hire more developers. Being spread thin is not an excuse when they've had those products for quite some time and have been able to manage them.

I would like to see it go 64 bit just to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs. They could do it as 32 bit but they really haven't. This would be a huge boost to performance for folks like me who have and unusually large iTunes library.

McYukon said:

As for iTunes, yes it would have to be completely rewritten in cocoa. Right now it is written in Carbon which makes 64 bit virtually impossible.

Click to expand...

Thanks again for this McYukon.

I think i was looking at this all the wrong way in the beginning, but with this statement i have the answer im happy with and this had led me on a learning journey about Carbon and Cocoa. THis explained it more to me . . .

The transition to 64-bit Macintosh applications beginning with Mac OS X v10.5 has brought the first major limitations to Carbon. Apple does not provide compatibility between the Macintosh graphical user interface and the C programming language in the 64-bit environment, instead requiring the use of the Objective-C dialect with the Cocoa AP

Click to expand...

Now iTunes being written in Carbon, ^^this all makes sense to me

Making the statement by the McYukon ring true.

I am now really happy with myself, as i didnt know what Carbon or Cocoa in the *programming* sense was. I have been reading and learning and just amazed at how far the Operating System has come.
With the research ive been doing it is easy to see why now they are trying to bring Cocoa to all Apps/Software.

Now reading Wiki ~ Cocoa and Wiki ~ Carbon has been a invaluable source for my knowledge advancement.

So all in all, i do believe there is a answer, which i have found and there is no speculation in anything i have researched
This doesnt mean im going to sleep easier at night, but it has taken me down a path where im learning and going to continue the track, down getting into knowing more about the API for the Macintosh operating system.

Cheers

EDIT : And from what i have learnt 64 bit isnt going to come to iTunes for quite a while yet. It doesnt necessarily need it yet but as baggs posted would be beneficial to some

baggss said:

I would like to see it go 64 bit just to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs. They could do it as 32 bit but they really haven't. This would be a huge boost to performance for folks like me who have and unusually large iTunes library.

Click to expand...

That's going to be a while. If Apple hasn't really made any effort to move iTunes to Cocoa yet, it may still be a while before that becomes a reality. Unlike Finder which is an essential part of the OS and thus had to be built as a 64-bit application eventually (I'm just using Finder as an example), there is less of a need to do so for iTunes. Although I'm sure it will be rebuilt as a Cocoa application before the Creative Suite is .

This works a treat as well to Kill the Dashboard . . . . System hog IMO and now i dont have to worry about it . . .


Press enter then


Press enter and now it is gone

couldnt be happier

Cheers