iTunes Tops Out At 32,000 Songs

usr122122121 writes "A Macintouch User has discovered that iTunes maxes out at 32,000 songs." I did test this myself (a one-liner perl script to give each file a unique artist/album/title), and it's apparently true. How much it matters is an exercise left to the reader.

Comments

Does it really matter?

[euggie]

FWIW, I have about a little shy of 2300 songs here, all from CDs that I purchased since 1992'ish...

It's a very modest collection, even for one who doesn't download any music illegally at all. Even then, 2300 songs will play continuously without repeats for more than a week.

If someone would enlighten my ignorant mind: what do you actually do with 32000+ songs, which would play continuously for three months?

Heck, even my measly 5GB iPod holds more music than I can use.

It's perhaps off-topic, but are we collecting data for the sake of the collection? Does it matter if it'd take you three months--without sleep--to actually utilize the data?

As it is, I already have more music than I can actually listen to. For fellow legitimate music users, 32000 songs can easily outlast their lifetime, perhaps the MP3 format, and certainly iTunes'.

So, does it really matter?

I guess it does if you are one of those folks who just download whatever's on kazaa/guntella/whatever today, but for the rest of us with honor, and some taste in music, it really doesn't. 32000 is more than we need.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Frightened_Turtle]

Actually, for some music and entertainment professionals, it can matter! DJ's that we hire for various social functions have to maintain a highly diverse library. Jobs can run from a rave one night, to a church social the next.

A young man I met working as a DJ had a library of well over 10,000 CD's and vinyl LP's he was digitizing when time allowed. He was meticulous in keeping record of what he had -- not just the standard biographical data, but by the sound, beat and mood each piece created. To alleviate costs, he frequently got CD's from flea markets and second hand stores and clearance sales.

For as young as he was and starting out on his own as a professional DJ, his professionalism was impressive. He understood that his career lived and died by his ability to deliver what his customer asked for. And yes, he was using an Apple to manage things for him.

It's one thing to put together the latest hits to play at a dance or a wedding, but it is entirely another thing when an ad agency calls you looking for just the right sound for a commercial. The bigger the library and the faster you can find something relevant in there, the more likely you are going to get the money for the job.

Whenever we watch a TV show, commercial or movie that tries to set a period for things happening, they need the right music. If you're doing a movie about the 50's, you don't want Britney Spears tunes coming out of the jukebox. So they are always looking for someone who can truly deliver what they need, quickly. When they find someone who can do so, they keep bringing their business to that person.

For most people, I think we can say it doesn't matter. But for professionals, I think it could make a difference. Just the fact that there are people finding the iTunes limit is a pretty good indicator.

Random Access really matters

[tm2b]

The more music you have, the more important it is to have random access to that music. It's no great shakes to find a CD you want to listen to if you have 10 or 100 CDs. Not so for > 1000.

I have roughly 1300 CDs, bought since 1985 (so far, 1081 ripped, which is 13,938 songs). Without random access, finding that one CD that I have a hankering to hear is a nightmare - even with the CDs filed in 8-CD sheets in a lateral file cabinet. With those CDs in iTunes, it's a matter of typing a few letters into the music browser. Do I want to hear a random selection of Grateful Dead tunes? No sweat. Pink Floyd from beginning to end? Easy. Yes, including solo projects by its various members? A little more difficult, but I won't break a sweat.

Almost 14000 (or extrapolating for the rest, 18200) is an uncomfortably large percentage of the iTunes limit of 32000. It's not quite large enough that I'm going apeshit about this, but somebody who had only twice as many CDs as I do would be screwed, for no good reason.

(Advice to others with large collections: buy an external Firewire disk and back your library up!!)

Re:Since a decade ago,

[entrylevel]

You are full of poop! (Or your source is!) Cocoa is as native as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't Java).

Carbon is a collection of APIs, Cocoa is a RAD framework. Carbon is straight C, Cocoa is Objective-C which (unlike C++) relies on a runtime environment for things such as message passing and polymorphism. Also note that Objective-C winds up getting preprocessed into plain C code before it ever gets compiled. It is no more or less native than C. Finally, the two major compilers for the Mac, gcc and Metrowerks cc, compile both Carbon and Cocoa code fine, although Metrowerks' compiler is rumored to be much better at optimizing for PPC chips.

Cocoa provides you with large amount of functionality "for free", but adds a lot of overhead at the same time. Carbon gives you virtually nothing for free (unless you use CoreFoundation, but that's beyond the scope of this post).

(If you want to argue semantics about APIs and frameworks, just try calling any signifigant amount of Cocoa code from Carbon code. You will get all sorts of wacky side-effects. Now try to call Carbon code from Cocoa code. Oh hey, it just works!)

As a result, less experienced programmers flock to Cocoa, and hence you see a lot of underperforming Cocoa applications. Of course, lots of good programmers put out super-slow Cocoa applications as well, only optimize them later (look at Mail.app). Optimization in Carbon is totally different because you don't have a prebuilt library of objects which may or may not be providing tons of services that you don't need, plus you are in charge of drawing everything and handling your own events. In (an over-generalized) conclusion: Optimization in Carbon is a subtractive process, in which you hone and compact your code into a lean, mean, executing machine. Optimization in Cocoa is an additive process. You can augment existing functionality in a new and streamlined way, or you can add straight C code (or call Carbon!) to replace functionality provided by the (sometimes bloated) builtin objects.