![dvdpedia xml template dvdpedia xml template](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ui5conrahulinamadar-180725123701/95/xml-template-in-sapui5-rahul-inamadar-6-638.jpg)
After you remove QuickTime, all the old Classic Mac APIs which are not in the 64-bit frameworks, etc., there is little left. I assume it was easy getting their Cocoa applications there, but any residual Carbon applications would be a nightmare.Įxtrapolation 1: Even Apple will not be able to make iTunes a 64-bit application without a major rewrite. Apple is in a good position to start promoting themselves as The 64-bit Company, as their path to 64 purity seems easier than Microsoft's, but it will take getting all their apps there first, and convincing their major developers to follow. There is only a 64-bit Cocoa interface.įact 4: Pretty much all of that Mac Toolbox being emulated on Windows is no longer available under 64-bit compiles on the Mac.įact 5: All new Macs are 64-bit. (OK, this may not be a fact, not having access to the iTunes code, but it seems darn likely.)įact 3: There is no 64-bit C API to QuickTime on the Mac. This is what allowed the same codebase to be deployed on both OS X and Windows relatively quickly. rsrc file.įact 2: iTunes makes heavy use of QuickTime and the Mac Toolbox emulation layer which QuickTime for Windows contains. Open up its package in the Finder and see things like a. It after all is the direct descendent of SoundJam, a short-lived MP3 player for Classic Mac OS.
![dvdpedia xml template dvdpedia xml template](https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26401_01/doc.122/e48823/img/copyorg_1_7.gif)
This is just my uninformed opinion.įact 1: iTunes as we know it is a Carbon application on the Mac. If I had insider information, I would not betray it.