iTunes 10.5 beta for mac is 64bit!

[DomZ]

Actually iTunes for Windows has had a 64-bit version for a while; it's just a buried link on Apple's website. For 10.3, it's here:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1047

Its actually a 32 bit binary though...and has always been

[.Neo]

The above post mentions the stoplight position.

If you mean a few posts above, it only says what is, it doesn't explain what happened to 10.4

My guess is they skipped it so that iOS 5 and iTunes 10.5 will all coincide. And they'll update iOS a few times real fast, so that you have iOS 7, iTunes 10.7, and OS X 7

That's why Astra.Xtreme said "posts" not "post".

Anyway my guess is that:

• iTunes 10.4 will be released to the general public in July to bring improved Mac OS X Lion compatibility (basically the interface changes we see today in the iTunes 10.5 beta).
  
• iTunes 10.5 will stay as it is (for developers only) and will be updated as iOS 5 development progresses. Whether they call the next version iTunes 10.5 beta 2 or simply 10.5.1 (beta) remains to be seen.
  
• By the time new iPods and iOS 5 are released iTunes 10.5 will be rebranded to iTunes 11 with additional features and of course a new interface that breaks consistency with Mac OS X Lion.

[Guest]

Link to the featured Lion wallpaper from the keynote.

http://cl.ly/7NrV

[.Neo]

Link to the featured Lion wallpaper from the keynote.

http://cl.ly/7NrV

Which has what to do with iTunes? Better off posting it in the Mac OS X Lion Discussion thread.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/947186-mac-os-x-lion-discussion/page__st__1500

[Guest]

Which has what to do with iTunes? Better off posting it in the Mac OS X Lion Discussion thread.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/947186-mac-os-x-lion-discussion/page__st__1500

Yeah, I realised after I posted that I was in the wrong thread :blush:

[ThothTD]

Actually iTunes for Windows has had a 64-bit version for a while; it's just a buried link on Apple's website. For 10.3, it's here:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1047

Only the drivers are 64-bit. iTunes itself is still in 32-bit.

[maxsquared]

On Snow Leopard it's still 32 bit.

[.Neo]

On Snow Leopard it's still 32 bit.

Yes, it's Mac OS X Lion only at this point.

[arkon]

Does the Windows version have the Lion scrollbars too?

[Quillz]

No, they use the iTunes-style scrollbars that debuted were in 10.0.

[arkon]

No, they use the iTunes-style scrollbars that debuted were in 10.0.

Shame, I'd rather have the Lion ones.

[Quillz]

Windows uses an entirely different UI and architecture that do not support scroll bars that are hidden by default.

[.Neo]

Windows uses an entirely different UI and architecture that do not support scroll bars that are hidden by default.

You're forgetting the fact that iTunes doesn't use a native interface on Windows. If Apple wanted to they could add Mac OS X Lion-like scrollbars to iTunes for Windows. iTunes 4, 5 and 6 for Windows had the exact same Aqua scrollbars as seen in Mac OS X, including the ripple effect that can't be duplicated in the rest of Windows.

[PyX]

Yes, [its 64-bits version is] Mac OS X Lion only at this point.

Why? They could have taken Lion?s version of iTunes and remove the Full screen option?

So this app is still and always going to be, as we say in French, a giant gas plant? If it?s Cocoa on Snow Leopard, it?s transparent for me, because I don?t realize it. Not faster, not slower.

Let?s hope for the first optimized version of iTunes ever released in September 2011.

[.Neo]

lol how should I know? It could very well be that iTunes 10.5 has at least some Cocoa groundwork now with the old interface still stuck on top. So yeah, you wouldn't notice anything.

[Elliott]

So this app is still and always going to be, as we say in French, a giant gas plant? If it?s Cocoa on Snow Leopard, it?s transparent for me, because I don?t realize it. Not faster, not slower.

Cocoa doesn't automatically make something faster, and large parts of iTunes have been in Cocoa for a while.

Unless they've allowed for Carbon applications to be 64-bit in Lion, this must mean iTunes is running on AppKit.

[PyX]

Cocoa doesn't automatically make some faster, and large parts of iTunes have been in Cocoa for a while.

Unless they've allowed for Carbon applications to be 64-bit in Lion, this must mean iTunes is running on AppKit.

From what I have read, a well written Carbon application was equal to a well written Cocoa application back in the time. Now, Apple has stopped supporting Carbon APIs since Leopard?s release, so I believe Cocoa APIs have been upgraded so much since then that it?s not even worth thinking about making anything in Carbon.

If, for a reason or another, a well written Carbon app is still equal to a well written Cocoa app, does that mean there is absolutely no hope for iTunes? I mean, I wouldn?t believe it if Apple, the inventors or Carbon, wouldn?t have programmed iTunes correctly, so let?s all assume it?s a well written Carbon application at the moment. So if they change it to Cocoa and still give us a well written application, it should remain the same? It?s really absurd to me? :blink:

?

On another note, video playback in iTunes has always been absolutely broken and horrid.

• As opposed to the engine which powers it, QuickTime X, is incredibly slow.
  
• It?s limited to specific video formats no matter if QuickTime is able to play them with the help of Perian or not.
  
• When we hover onto a video to show the controls, it adds a small black border on the left and right of the video for no reason.
  
• Enlarging videos has no transition, and making a video full-screen neither. However, making it full-screen gives us a nice graphical glitch.
  
• Unlike the way they let us manage music libraries with tens of thousands of tracks, it?s impossible to manage much more than 100 videos on that thing.
  

[Elliott]

From what I have read, a well written Carbon application was equal to a well written Cocoa application back in the time. Now, Apple has stopped supporting Carbon APIs since Leopard?s release, so I believe Cocoa APIs have been upgraded so much since then that it?s not even worth thinking about making anything in Carbon.

If, for a reason or another, a well written Carbon app is still equal to a well written Cocoa app, does that mean there is absolutely no hope for iTunes? I mean, I wouldn?t believe it if Apple, the inventors or Carbon, wouldn?t have programmed iTunes correctly, so let?s all assume it?s a well written Carbon application at the moment. So if they change it to Cocoa and still give us a well written application, it should remain the same? It?s really absurd to me? :blink:

iTunes is just not a well-written application, period. If it were a well-written Carbon application, we wouldn't be complaining (except for some UI inconsistencies).

Final Cut Pro was Carbon up until FCX (which isn't out yet), but it still ran pretty well, and that's with QuickTime 7 backing it.

[.Neo]

Final Cut Pro was Carbon up until FCX (which isn't out yet), but it still ran pretty well

You mean with the exception of frequent and seemingly random crashes with no explanation as to what went wrong.

[PyX]

iTunes is just not a well-written application, period.

As I said up above, I cannot conceive that Apple themselves, the creators of Carbon, would throw us a badly programmed Carbon application, especially when iTunes is not some random app throw in the corner. This is by far the most used application in the entire OS X ecosystem, so you can't joke with it. Yet what do they do since the beginning?

That would be as bad as if Nintendo threw us games with a bad usage of their Wiimotes.

[Lamp0]

I really hope they try and clean up the way the artist & album title is placed next to the art work in the Album List view; it wastes so much space.

[Elliott]

You mean with the exception of frequent and seemingly random crashes with no explanation as to what went wrong.

I was talking about performance, not stability. :p