or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › A glimpse at Snow Leopards more subtle refinements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A glimpse at Snow Leopards more subtle refinements - Page 5

post #161 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Maybe because there's no value? Who cares if an audio-playing app is 64 bit? Do you have a few billion songs in your folder?

They will be converted to 64 bit when it's worth the trouble - which is presumably with Snow Leopard - at least by the time it's ready to release. At that time, it should be possible to run ONLY 64 bit apps- making it desirable to get rid of 32 bit apps from the system. Until then, there's no real value for apps like that.

Windows 7 is moving to 64bit. You can bet iTunes will be 64bit for OS X and Windows. It's one less code base to maintain.

That means, future versions of iTunes will require a Mac Intel 64bit system to use.
post #162 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertP View Post

We've all heard rumors that SL is moving more to a white-text-on-black aesthetic. For that matter, there's already some white-text-on-black in Leopard: the labels that show up on mouse-over of apps in the Dock, iTunes 8's Grid View theme, iPhoto's Faces labeler, etc.).

I hope the above is true. Why? White-text-on-black is more legible for many people on a monitor. As I understand it, historically, black-text-on-white in a GUI was to represent a sheet of typed paper in a mechanical typewriter. But note that your TV has basically a white-text-on-black theme overlay as in titles, credits, or captions. Or title, credits, and captions in a movie for that matter.

It makes sense seeing as how the OS is finally evolving from Openstep to Snow Leopard as a Cocoa OS.
post #163 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Windows 7 is moving to 64bit. You can bet iTunes will be 64bit for OS X and Windows. It's one less code base to maintain.

That means, future versions of iTunes will require a Mac Intel 64bit system to use.

They already have a 64-bit version of iTunes for Windows, but I bet that iTunes for OS X will have support for both built-in, like the other apps and will have 32-bit Windows and OS X support for years to come.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #164 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Windows 7 is moving to 64bit. You can bet iTunes will be 64bit for OS X and Windows. It's one less code base to maintain.

That means, future versions of iTunes will require a Mac Intel 64bit system to use.

Of course. SOME time in the future.

For now, there's no reason not to maintain the 32 bit version along side the 64 bit version - for the sake of older non-64 bit Intel systems. It's not a separate code base - it's a compiler setting.

I would guess that both the 32 and 64 bit versions will be on the SL install disk.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #165 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course. SOME time in the future.

For now, there's no reason not to maintain the 32 bit version along side the 64 bit version - for the sake of older non-64 bit Intel systems. It's not a separate code base - it's a compiler setting.

I would guess that both the 32 and 64 bit versions will be on the SL install disk.

or it could just be iTunes 9. I would like to see some features Songbird has like concert ticketing, youtube integration for music videos (obviously with a buy button or something to integrate the music store), and artist photos. That having been said, the app needs a rewrite to be more of a multimedia app with tabs on the library. A tab for music related, tv related, movie related, audio book related, etc. Then music videos could be with music (which I prefer) and would provide much more simple organization for those of us with massive libraries. I would personally like to have this app 64-bit cocoa.
post #166 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course. SOME time in the future.

For now, there's no reason not to maintain the 32 bit version along side the 64 bit version - for the sake of older non-64 bit Intel systems. It's not a separate code base - it's a compiler setting.

I would guess that both the 32 and 64 bit versions will be on the SL install disk.

If OS X 10.6 eliminates the PowerPC backend you can bet the 32bit Intel is done as well including the Windows XP World.

However, I don't see that happening until after Microsoft releases Windows 7. When that is released Apple will do as the prior poster wrote: release iTunes 9 for 64 bit only Intel systems.

Itunes 8.x + maintenance releases will continue for a year and that's it. No new features as that will be in the iTunes 9 code base.
post #167 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Windows 7 is moving to 64bit. You can bet iTunes will be 64bit for OS X and Windows. It's one less code base to maintain.

That means, future versions of iTunes will require a Mac Intel 64bit system to use.

Is there something else you'd like to share with us? I keep seeing these wishes of yours penned down as "facts".
post #168 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Itunes 8.x + maintenance releases will continue for a year and that's it. No new features as that will be in the iTunes 9 code base.

Given that iTunes still runs on Tiger (even though Leopard is almost two years old), that prediction is absurd.
post #169 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Given that iTunes still runs on Tiger (even though Leopard is almost two years old), that prediction is absurd.

Perhaps you should all read my post on page 4 regarding iTunes X.
post #170 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

Perhaps you should all read my post on page 4 regarding iTunes X.

Ohhhhhh...iTunes X. OF COURSE, iTunes X will FOR SURE be 64-bits ONLY!

PG4G and mdriftmeyer, do yourselves a favor and stop posting nonsense. Or if you do post nonsense, at least provide some acceptable level of detail so that your posts don't look outright like it's coming from the butt.
post #171 of 180
Thanks mate. Had you asked for a screenshot, by all means I would have provided.
post #172 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

Guys, just to throw something out at you, when uninstalling the latest iPhone SDK beta, I already had the new iTunes 8.2 installed.

Something in there seemed fishy when Terminal told me it was analysing iTunes X, not iTunes 8...

iTunes X - 64bit Cocoa iTunes maybe???


I don't see the problem with this. Apple seems to be breaking tradition with Snow Leopard and I'm inclined to believe that they will indeed deliver 64-bit only versions of very popular apps.

I swore up and down that a Leopard version of FCS 3.0, Logic Studio and Aperture were coming but it appears that we may not see these apps until Snow Leopard.

I think we have to throw historical record aside here. There may not be many user facing features but certainly Apple is making as clean a break as they can with SL
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #173 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Ohhhhhh...iTunes X. OF COURSE, iTunes X will FOR SURE be 64-bits ONLY!

PG4G and mdriftmeyer, do yourselves a favor and stop posting nonsense. Or if you do post nonsense, at least provide some acceptable level of detail so that your posts don't look outright like it's coming from the butt.

Deal with it. OS X 10.4.x will not get QuickTime X nor will it get the aforementioned iTunes for Snow Leopard.

Streamlining the Cocoa back-end will be push current iTunes (32bit/64bit Carbon) into maintenance mode for the 8.x legacy branch.

QuickTime 7.x which is also Carbon will become a legacy branch.

I don't have to still work at Apple to know how this Openstep arrived Operating System [neither company you've worked for (NeXT and Apple) that I did) to know it's finally freakin' coming.

Deal with it.

Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Support for iPhone 3.x/4.x/iPod/iPod Touch/etc will continue to be added to the legacy iTunes [for syncing and current feature sets in iTunes] but all Cocoa based features, Services, integration extended to other Application spaces will be on OS X 10.6/10.7/10.8/etc only.

The differentiation will come for people with their iPod/iPhone to move more rapidly to OS X and dump Windows. With more devices being added to Apple's lifestyle lineup it will only accelerate this proposition.
post #174 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Deal with it. OS X 10.4.x will not get QuickTime X nor will it get the aforementioned iTunes for Snow Leopard.

Streamlining the Cocoa back-end will be push current iTunes (32bit/64bit Carbon) into maintenance mode for the 8.x legacy branch.

QuickTime 7.x which is also Carbon will become a legacy branch.

I don't have to still work at Apple to know how this Openstep arrived Operating System [neither company you've worked for (NeXT and Apple) that I did) to know it's finally freakin' coming.

Deal with it.

Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Support for iPhone 3.x/4.x/iPod/iPod Touch/etc will continue to be added to the legacy iTunes [for syncing and current feature sets in iTunes] but all Cocoa based features, Services, integration extended to other Application spaces will be on OS X 10.6/10.7/10.8/etc only.

The differentiation will come for people with their iPod/iPhone to move more rapidly to OS X and dump Windows. With more devices being added to Apple's lifestyle lineup it will only accelerate this proposition.

Hope springs eternal.
post #175 of 180
inewton1974: Are you under NDA?
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
post #176 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Just a terminology note: Yellow Box is Cocoa for OSX. "Yellow Box for Windows" is Cocoa for Windows.

(We also had Blue Box, which is Classic, and Red Box, which is the Win32 APIs.)

Amorya
post #177 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

Just a terminology note: Yellow Box is Cocoa for OSX. "Yellow Box for Windows" is Cocoa for Windows.

(We also had Blue Box, which is Classic, and Red Box, which is the Win32 APIs.)

Amorya


YellowBox was Openstep for NT/WOF for NT.

Openstep 4.0-4.2 for Windows was codename YellowBox at NeXT.

Openstep for Windows was later moved to WebObjects for Windows with YellowBox [Mach-o, PDO [portable distributed objects], pasteboard server, etc] to keep WebObjects major customers from moving off of WebObjects.

Then the change from Objective-C to Java arrived. On and on and on.

Rebranding a YellowBox is Cocoa for Windows is nomenclature name changing during the merger and seeing as Openstep was canceled long before WOF 4.x arrived --we [NeXT] were moving to a $50 Million Public IPO as WebObjects being our flagship product [Think BEA Systems before it was big], but then came the white limousines and a week of talks and then being told [me] to make certain IBM ThinkPads running a never released Openstep with changes to WindowServer ready for an early morning presentation for Avie Tevanian (Forstall went home while myself, Ali Ozer and Mark Bessey made it work. Ali had custom Foundation and AppKit packages to install and we enjoyed a good ol' fashion college all nighter.)--then the demise of WebObjects began with Objective-C foundation moving to Java.

BlueBox we had. Yes indeed.

RedBox never was released and was a dead end project for Win32. It was killed when Steve came back into control and reigned in the troops to focus and stop spreading itself too thin.

Apple went from 11,000 down to around 5,000 before the iMac '98 was released.

Now at over 35,000 world wide it was a wise set of changes.
post #178 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstranathan View Post

inewton1974: Are you under NDA?

If he is in the Customer Seeding program, yes he is under the NDA.
Maybe he wants his 15 minutes of fame?
post #179 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

YellowBox was Openstep for NT/WOF for NT.

Openstep 4.0-4.2 for Windows was codename YellowBox at NeXT.

Openstep for Windows was later moved to WebObjects for Windows with YellowBox [Mach-o, PDO [portable distributed objects], pasteboard server, etc] to keep WebObjects major customers from moving off of WebObjects.

Then the change from Objective-C to Java arrived. On and on and on.

Rebranding a YellowBox is Cocoa for Windows is nomenclature name changing during the merger and seeing as Openstep was canceled long before WOF 4.x arrived --we [NeXT] were moving to a $50 Million Public IPO as WebObjects being our flagship product [Think BEA Systems before it was big], but then came the white limousines and a week of talks and then being told [me] to make certain IBM ThinkPads running a never released Openstep with changes to WindowServer ready for an early morning presentation for Avie Tevanian (Forstall went home while myself, Ali Ozer and Mark Bessey made it work. Ali had custom Foundation and AppKit packages to install and we enjoyed a good ol' fashion college all nighter.)--then the demise of WebObjects began with Objective-C foundation moving to Java.

BlueBox we had. Yes indeed.

RedBox never was released and was a dead end project for Win32. It was killed when Steve came back into control and reigned in the troops to focus and stop spreading itself too thin.

Apple went from 11,000 down to around 5,000 before the iMac '98 was released.

Now at over 35,000 world wide it was a wise set of changes.

Thanks for that bit of history! (For a while there this thread was actually making me dumber. All kinds of misinformation is floating around.)
post #180 of 180
Lucky for you lot I was reading this in two separate browser, one of which I had not refreshed the page: http://drop.io/1x0x4we#
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › A glimpse at Snow Leopards more subtle refinements