Why isn't iTunes 64 bit?
 

Just noticed after upgrading to 10.6 that iTunes isn't 64 bit. Anyone know why not?

You need/want it to be able to potentially consume far more than 4GB of RAM?

no ... just curious since everything else is

I think also the point of it being 64bit goes beyond memory allocation. I have a feeling that a 64bit version of iTunes which was optimised for Grand Central would encode faster, be snappier in the interface etc.

My guess is that the code base needs to be the same for Mac/Windows. It likely won't change until most Windows users are using a 64 bit system.

My feeling is that Apple developed Snow Safari to catch with Windows 7 but this time Apple is pretty much behind MicroSoft. I'm still upset that my MacBook can't run the 64 bit kernel while Windows 7 does. In case you wonder why I care about the K64 is because I'm pretty sure that the next release of OSX won't run on my Mac. Which is absurd, as Windows 7 proves.

What Mac do you have, and what makes you think that you know Apple's future plans for supporting it? And why is a K64 important to you, in any case? What does the lack of K64 prevent you from doing?

From what I have gathered, Apple's decision not to run the kernel in 64-bit is mostly down to increasing compatibility, until every .kext is 64-bit.
I would suspect that 64-bit kernel support will be implemented across capable Macs as time goes by.

No absurdities that I can see.

A ridiculous statement if ever there was one. What version of Windows runs on PowerPC?

??????? PowerPC????? What's that got to do with the price of eggs in China? Perhaps that should have been a /sarcasm/ tag?

[Moved thread to Coat Room]

By the way, I think that iTunes is (still) implemented using the "Carbon" programming libraries and there is no 64-bit version of Carbon. So that would be one reason.

Quicktime for Windows is 32 bit. iTunes depends on Quicktime. iTunes is crossplatform. Maintaining separate code bases for iTunes would probably hamper the iPod/iPhone platform on Windows. The iPod/iPhone platform on Windows generates a lot of dough.

Does that help?

New Mac user? The reason that some Macs are being left behind is that they use PowerPC processors and current Macs use Intel processors. There is no analogous issue with Windows, so claiming that 7 proves anything about Macintosh backwards compatibility is absolutely ridiculous.

And - a Windows user can get a 64-bit version of iTunes for Windows.
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL925

How does that fit in?

That being the case, I'd guess a Mac 64-bit iTunes is in development.

I'd be willing to bet that the code bases for iTunes and Quicktime on OS X and Win32/64 are already separate, and always have been.

They are very different environments. And it has nothing to do with the processor architecture.

The main reason why iTunes for OS X isn't 64-bit is because it is written in Carbon, which makes a 64-bit version virtually impossible.

I'm pretty sure only Cocoa apps can take full advantage of things like GCD, and be compiled in 64-bit.

Apple's probably working on a Cocoa port of iTunes but hasn't released it yet.

Maybe iTunes X...?

As iTunes is used almost exclusively for installs/updates/syncing with the iPod, maybe the iPod prevents going to 64-bit?
or, just no valid advantage to go to 64-bit - after all, OS X doesn't care one way or the other.

I think hayne and ThreeDee have it right. The frameworked used to write iTunes is 32-bit only. I'm certain that iTunes will eventually (probably very soon actually) be rewritten in Cocoa frameworks, which are 64-bit. Just understand, that is not an easy task, especially for a program as complex as iTunes...

One thing I have to give to MS, they got things right with the .NET frameworks. I can switch the framework for an application, or recompile it from 32 to 64 bit just by changing a couple options in the project. Obviously, you still need to test and debug the app when you switch to 64bit, but it generally just works.

I get the feeling it's not such a simple thing to port a codebase from Carbon to Cocoa, although I have not had the chance to play with XCode as much as I would like to really verify that.

Well, it should first be noted, going from Carbon to Cocoa is not merely going from 32 to 64 bit (Cocoa is both 32 and 64 bit). It's more like going from the old Windows 3.x frameworks to the .NET frameworks. The Cocoa ones are just newer (and more robust, and much easier to work with--though I'm sure someone would love to debate me on that point :)).

So, yeah, it's not a simple thing to go from one to the other, but Apple is steadily moving in that direction.

To answer another question that might arise, no Apple does not want to make Carbon 64 bit. They want it to be phased out. So they'll just switch code bases...

:rolleyes:
So then you're saying that dividing Windows up into various flavors of 64-bit and 32-bit is done merely to milk their customers? I agree.

No idea what you're talking about.
Care to explain a bit?

You're joking, right? If they "got things right with ".NET, then they could change a couple options in their projects and get things working together. There would be no need to have different versions of the OS for 64 and 32 bit. If there is a real need for two versions, then they didn't get things right.

Except, drivers are not based on the .NET framework.

In fact, the .NET framework has nothing to do with what you're complaining about.
The reason for Windows coming in both platforms is that they did not spend any resources on figuring out how to run 32bit drivers on a 64bit system.
The compiled both platforms independently, and let the third party developers port drivers as they saw fit. If you had more than 8GB of RAM or just wanted 64bit, and had supported hardware, it was available. If not, you didn't need it. I don't think they expect anyone to buy both versions.
Apple took the "hey, we're transitioning all of you to 64bit over a few versions of the OS" approach, MS took the "we have both a 32 and 64bit version if you want it" approach. My opinion is neither approach is wrong.

Again, I was only talking about the application framework, similar to Carbon or Cocoa. Your complaint is the same as saying "If Apple got Cocoa right, they wouldn't need that 32bit kernel or Carbon support anymore."

.NET makes it easy to move your applications to either platform. I like that. Anything else you read into this is more than I intended (and personally I think you're stretching for an argument).

That would be true if the only person who mattered was the developer. In the real world, it's the user that matters most. Forcing the user to make an arbitrary choice that will cause problems for them either way is not getting it right.
Well, I suppose if you want to narrowly define "getting it right" as making the developer's job easier at the expense of users, then you've got a point.

pfft.

For most of us, there was no problem. The only people who can't run 64bit Windows right now are the ones with really old hardware that Windows doesn't have a built-in or third party driver for. And in that case, there's absolutely no harm in simply sticking with 32bit. There is no compelling need to move to 64bit on many systems, so it's silly to worry about.

Yeah, if you read my original post, you will see I narrowly defined "getting it right" only in reference to the .NET framework. What you're arguing about is tangential to my point.

cwtnospam, are you trolling again?

I think he likes me. ;)

I <3 you too, cwt!