Comments on: iTunes 7: Where’s My RAM?

By: iphone accessory

iphone accessory — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:00:51 +0000

anybody ever used this site? http://www.discountiphoneaccessories.com

By: Zach Thurston

Zach Thurston — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:52:49 +0000

This guy has BEYOND the latest and greatest hardware and he still has problems.
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=5317708#5317708
(post by Powel212)
2.6 GB is a RIDICULOUS amount of RAM to use for a music player.
I’ll stick with my Zune

By: gemma

gemma — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:25:13 +0000

my ipod library says its full when they are only 134 songs on it. i have the latest version. how do i fix this ? please help !

By: Lochow

Lochow — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:29:29 +0000

Anyone ever notice that the longer you run iTunes7 the more and more memory it chews up? I managed after an hour or two to chew up 1.3 gb of ram with iTunes taking up a solid 700 MB of that. It seems to start up with about 100 to 200 MB of ram and it steadily and unknowingly works its way higher and higher. Granted my computer is a little more than a year old, and its a PC. Running on a Pentium D 840, and 1.5 GB of ram. Also am running on Vista, and that takes up its own serious chunk of ram, but the only saving grace is that neat flash drive swap file speed boost. That truly keeps things from freezing up.

By: modern

modern — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:04:07 +0000

so not everykid had the money for more ram so i dont understand why it has to use so much ram ive erased almost all my pictures just so my computor acts more smooth but yet it studders
everytime the song changes or the song has a long pause i think the upgrade was a bad idea simpler is better in this case as for you people that have cruel remarks nice to have money to run your computor fast or not enough music to feel this i have 60 Gb of music and i woudnt want to erase any of it just so my comp runs good

By: Epical

Epical — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:59:03 +0000

You can reduce the memory usage by configuring settings
It worked for me

By: Jon Cotton

Jon Cotton — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:25:50 +0000

I think the main point that needs to be made here is that Apple should never have released iTunes 7 in its current state. I love the new coverflow feature but when it actually slows my computer down to a point where I am unable to work the feature becomes more of a hindrance than something that adds to my overall user experience. Apple should never have released this software knowing that a large amount of the installed user base would blindly upgrade as they, like myself, trust Apple to only release quality, working products.

Just for the record my machine is a macbook 2Ghz core duo with 2Gb of RAM and it is almost unuseable with iTunes 7 plus a few other apps open.

By: lucy

lucy — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:50:55 +0000

i cant get my itunes 7 working it says my ipod is full when it isnt coz its got nofin on it n it says my libary is full n it wont let more songs go on but wer is my libary n wot settings do i have it on synce settings or not? plz get bk 2 me a.s.a.p lv lucy x

By: Hamakua

Hamakua — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:36:25 +0000

A lot here commenting seem to be missing a very important point. I am sitting on 4 gigs of ram, a raid 0 set up with some of the latest bells and whistles for hardware (

By: Alok Jethanandani

Alok Jethanandani — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:43:38 +0000

Apple needs to learn to balance aesthetics with the art of memory conservation. i dont seriously care about new flashy coverapp technology if its going to eat up 100 MB. Even Photoshop doesn’t take that much RAM.

So please there is art in designing cool on software. And Apple in the past has shown exemplary skill in doing just that. Apple, you need to redo iTunes 7.

By: Yasser Dahab

Yasser Dahab — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:03:59 +0000

Some of you bring up some very good points, and I think it will be interesting to watch how Apple directs iTunes in the future. It was originally developed as a music player, but as video content becomes more integrated (and after the “iTV” hits the market), iTunes will quickly evolve to more of a media hub than anything else.

Perhaps, then, the market still exists for Apple to create a simple stand-alone music player. But I guess that’s what third-party applications are for…

By: alastair

alastair — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:41:58 +0000

iTunes 7 doesn’t use that much RAM. The Real Memory figure on my Mac is only around 32MB. Don’t forget that the Virtual Memory figure includes files that are mapped into the process’ memory space, such as the read-only code and data parts of the various frameworks. (i.e. It shows the amount of address space that’s been used, not the amount of actual memory that’s in use.)

That’s why TextEdit, which is a very small program in and of itself, shows up as using 350MB of Virtual Memory on my system immediately after it’s been launched. It hasn’t actually used that much RAM, or even that much space in your swapfile(s). It’s the much smaller Real Memory figure that’s the main one you should be looking at.

If iTunes 7 is slower on your machine than iTunes 6, that’s certainly an issue, but I doubt memory usage is really the cause of it.

By: Jason P

Jason P — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:55:31 +0000

Check this out…

http://i10.tinypic.com/4ghxnnr.jpg

In case it’s too small to read, the task manager is informing me that iTunes is using 299,000kb of ram, and it used as much as 521,760k of ram!!!

Anyone else see a problem with that?

I’ve got 1GB of ram. I can hold an entire cd in .WAV format in my ram, but iTunes just eats it up! WTF?

By: jacob

jacob — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:01:42 +0000

okay, so i’m a little late to the party, but I haven’t seen this addressed anywhere else:
I’m not so much concerned with the RAM usage as with the lack of interoperability with the iPod. It seems with every release of iTunes there is more of a focus on the music library on your computer, rather than on your iPod. Ideally, these would be the same, but since my Powerbook G4 has only 55GB of space and my iPod has 60, I am forced to store my music on my ipod and backup onto dvds. I think this is the case for many, if not most, large-capacity ipod users.
Now, as I said, every release of iTunes seems to focus more on your library than your iPod. In previous versions Apple introduced the ingenious party shuffle, but oops, it doesn’t work with any of the music on your ipod. (if you want to talk about speed, maybe it’s just my imagination, but itunes 7 seems to go slower only when I’m trying to look through my ipod. – although this may have to do with Apple’s abandonment of ipod Firewire transfers.)
In iTunes 7, this disregard for ipod features is worse than ever: niether coverflow or artwork view are applicable to your ipod music. the new ‘find album artwork’ doesn’t work for music already on your ipod. party shuffle is still local music only. Apple clearly doesn’t want me deleting music from my computer after it’s put on my ipod, but i don’t see another choice save connecting an external HD every time i want to listen to music or sync my ipod.
As Apple’s hub between Mac and iPod, I would expect iTunes to have more functionality for ipod users, but they seem to be intentionally making it inconvenient to use.

By: Inner Sanctum

Inner Sanctum — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:10:21 +0000

iTunes Music Store – Now with more ways to blow your paycheque…

Steve Jobs announced in his Keynote speech this month that there would be new games on the iPod as well as movies with DVD quality on the iTunes Music Store. With over 75 titles to begin with, Apple has truly made it’s music store the world’…

By: okto

okto — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:37:43 +0000

Yeah, Cover Flow can be disabled. But still. iTunes is not flashy software, it’s a workhorse. I expect to have to max my RAM for Aperture, but not for something that just organizes files and then pipes them out through CoreAudio or CoreVideo!

By: AG

AG — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:22:00 +0000

I assume that Coverflow can be turned off? - if it is does the amount of RAM used go down considerably?

By: Isaac

Isaac — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:04:52 +0000

so far I havent really noticed it slowing down my machine.
I have a macbook with 512 MB or RAM
and I was running Flash, Safari, Itunes iChat and messenger all at once without noticing a big difference.

maybe i shouldve tried running photoshop also.

But on a sidenote, the green icon in my opinion was alot better.

By: Jim Withington

Jim Withington — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:13:10 +0000

I was worried that it would break my G4 iMac (1Ghz processor, 768 RAM), especially with all the problems I’ve heard about.

Awesomely, it didnt.

It might be because I keep my music collection hovering around 20 gigs; this means there are fewer covers to load.

The thing that’s been annoying ME more than anything is the amount of changes to familiar buttons. Things got shifted around, or they mean different things, or or or….

I know that each iTunes revamp means getting used to changes, but this is he first time that I have felt like I’ve had to hunt for old features. I figure I just have to get used to it, but it is still irritatating (I REALLY miss the buttons for artist, album, etc.).

By: Oren Sreebny's Weblog

Oren Sreebny's Weblog — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:46:32 +0000

iTunes Store makes you upgrade iTunes now…

As I’ve written before, I have a problem with the copy-protection that’s applied to music in Apple’s iTunes Music Store. Because I use devices that can’t play the encrypted iTunes format, like my Squeezebox, I need to have my music in open formats…

By: Tommy

Tommy — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:23:41 +0000

While I can’t speak to the speed that some other users report, I am running iTunes 7 on a g5 imac with a gig of ram. I have never had speed problems in the two years that I have had this machine, but now, having installed iTunes 7 there is system wide lag. Even now, typing this I’m getting lag from the keyboard input (i type a letter and wait before i see it on screen). Finder windows are taking seconds to close etc…

This never happened with iTunes 6 or earlier. I popped open my activity monitor and lo iTunes 7 is eating - get this: 800 megs of REAL memory with a 1.5 gig swap.

Now granted, my machine is not the latest and greatest, but I would hope that I don’t have to buy a new computer every year just to use current, mainstream software.
I don’t really understand what’s wrong where other users are reporting memory consumption of itunes at only 40 megs, but it is worth noting, also that I have like 5000 songs - so maybe that has something to do with it, but this was never a problem for itunes 6.

That being said, it’s great to look at cover art but it’s not 800 meg of ram great - i’m going back to itunes 6.

By: bittercold

bittercold — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:31:52 +0000

356 Mb of Ram for iTunes I think that’s a lot. I’ve a 2Ghz Core Duo Black Macbook with 2Gb and in my computer runs perfectly but it’s indisputable that 356 Mb of my precious RAM for an audio player it’s too much.

By: stop yer whining

stop yer whining — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:46:10 +0000

Whatever. Any serious Mac user should have a minimum of 1GB RAM, if your machine can hold that. And the rest of us who do have adequate RAM shouldn’t be punished by “backward compatibility” for those who don’t want to shell out a little cash for a 512MB stick of RAM (it ain’t THAT expensive nowadays). It’s not like you own a clamshell iBook, for crying out loud…

By: AJ

AJ — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:51:36 +0000

OK, so I’m on a Windows XP system with over 2gb RAM and plenty of kick in my SATA drive… so here’s my technical question I hope someone can answer:

Why does my music stutter terribly when I go to a new playlist while it’s playing, or when I go to a different window? I’ve tried the “waveout” thing, didn’t help (made things worse)

By: Initial impression of iTunes 7

Initial impression of iTunes 7 — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:23:26 +0000

[...] Weird user interface that we will all get used to eventually. iTunes is in a class of its own. The iPod tab is pretty hideous. And there is way too much reflection being used. I really don’t think that all the eye candy was necessary. People with slower computers will just suffer from all that stuff. iTunes should be something that I can run in the background without taking too much RAM; I want to be able to listen to my music while I do my programming or photo editing. For a good article on this, read Where’s My RAM?. [...]

By: c. wess daniels

c. wess daniels — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:57:25 +0000

yeah i think itunes 7 is a big let down. hey drop coverflow into itunes 6 - and I would be happy again - it’s too much for my 800mhz ibook.

By: vanni

vanni — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:11:33 +0000

I have no problems with iTunes. A great job! i like it and hope Apple continues to evolve the app. Great job Apple!

By: Murray Todd Williams

Murray Todd Williams — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:44:51 +0000

There may be another explanation for the extreme use of resources:

Recall just a few weeks ago (at the WWDC keynote) the demonstration of the new Core Animation framework. This cover art flipping looks EXACTLY like those demos. My guess is that iTunes is sort of an “early adopter” of that entire technology/framework. Since a new animation framework has to be bundled into the application, iTunes suddenly looks resource-bloated.

Once Leopard is released, the animation framework will be a function of the OS and not the application. Granted, it very well might use 100M of memory again, but that 100M will be used by all the apps and maybe even the core OS X UI and improve the user experience. That might make it a bit easier to justify the new hungry resource requirements.

On the other hand, I would argue the entire iTunes UI is getting more complicated and less intuitive to use. I think Apple needs to remember the KISS principle…

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:24:19 +0000

I’ve now put iTunes 7 on 3 machines, from a Quicksilver to a new Mac Pro, all packed with about 2Gb ram each, and have found no lag from any except during the first ten minutes when it was converting for gapless playback. After that it was smooth as silk.

I have to politely disagree about the “eye-candy”. The interface just keeps getting better and tighter. I don’t see them throwing in unnecessary features and they are following accepted interface guidelines quite well, especially in the store section.

By: Desides

Desides — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:36:25 +0000

“Strange thing, but it’s actually faster on my mini than 6.0″

Is it an Intel mini? If so, that might be a sign that Apple added multicore optimizations to the code. I certainly hope they did.

By: Yasser Dahab

Yasser Dahab — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:28:41 +0000

If somerone wants do mail me a MBP for the “sake of the readership,” I won’t refuse.

By: ursula2k

ursula2k — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:08:22 +0000

Strange thing, but it’s actually faster on my mini than 6.0

By: Hungry hungry hippos « Isn’t that special

Hungry hungry hippos « Isn’t that special — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:46:26 +0000

[...] It’s looking very much like 2GB of RAM in the Mac Pro simply is not enough. With any other computer that would not be a big deal. $100 would solve the problem. But oh no…not for the illustrious Apple Mac “Pro.” It will cost a painful $300 for another 1GB. Sure the computer is ultra quiet. I’m sure those special heat sinks are helping. But my god, $300 for a measly one GB of RAM? As this post also mentions, iTunes 7 now sucks a lot of memory as well. Since iTunes is one of those applications that is left running constantly, this is a real problem. [...]

By: Suresh Kkumar

Suresh Kkumar — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:06:01 +0000

iTunes is NOT bloated, my machines is flying…

I think your a bit behind the times dude, upgrade your Mac, they don’t overheat as much as you think.

You need to upgrade, otherwise you will be left behind, and postings like this will seem more and more out of touch with your readership.

I agree that the coverflow implementation on iTunes 7 is not as good as the original CoverFlow, they need to improve the caching, and yes it does increase the memory requirements.

But please remember, iTunes is Apples digital media portal, its a critical element to tie their hardware devices to their content services. It will continue to evolve.

It doesn’t get a 88% marketshare by being iTunes 2.0.

By: Thijs van der Vossen

Thijs van der Vossen — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:52:21 +0000

On my machine the new iTunes uses 55MB real and 224MB virtual while playing music with the cover browser view open and 49MB real when minimized.

Let’s take a look at the other apps I’m running. Safari takes 49MB real and 213MB virtual with one window and a few tabs, NewsFire 40MB real and 194MB virtual, Mail 28MB real and 185MB virtual, Quicksilver 22MB real and 177MB virtual etc…

I don’t think iTunes’ memory usage is not very much different from the other OS X apps. Are you sure iTunes wasn’t updating your library or downloading cover art?