You said — I will say that on Windows XP, iTunes is a bit of a hog — it does take up a lot of memory and stays resident even when I don;t want it to. On a laptop PC that was already starting to strain at the edges of its lifespan, I simply had to remove it because it was the final nail in the coffin. (I’ve since wiped and reloaded XP on that computer, and am sticking to the bare minimum of software necessary.)
—
Yeah, I can understand that. I’ve seen that happen with my computers on all sorts of software. If you keep the software at the same version as when you got it, then the computer should work fine. But, unfortunately, the software keeps getting better and more powerful and time goes along and the parameters that the computers were using in the past are not the ones that current-day computers are set up to use. So, if someone keeps updating software, but doesn’t update the computer, at some point, it becomes too much for the computer.
Now..., here’s the thing I’ve noticed with Apple products and with their software. Apple does keep improving its hardware over time, and at the same time it keeps improving its software. I know some software developers will sit on their software and they will leave it just like it is for two or three years, hardly changing or improving anything on it. Apple doesn’t do that. They keep rolling out improvements all the time.
That means that the person can either leave it at the version that they got the software, originally, or they can keep updating and keep receiving the improvements. If they do opt to keep getting the better and better versions, then they are going to need a better computer, because those software improvements are matched to computers of that day and not necessarily for one that is several years older.
The problem is, that people want the improvements but they don’t necessarily want to keep up with the computing power of today’s computers... :-)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — Now, on my iMac, iTunes runs like a dream. The only thing I don’t like — and I’m not sure if it’s a good idea anyway — is that it stops playing if you “fast switch” to another user. So if I’ve got a playlist going, and the Mrs. switches in to check email, it stops playing. But other than that, I’m good with it. There’s always new features to be desires, of course — I’d love a “metaplaylist” option (playlists of playlists) and a more rigorous “advanced” feature for smart playlists (”A or B” is a lot easier than “not C and not D and not E and not F and...” ).
—
Talking about “fast switch”, I’m sure you know but others might not. You’re actually switching the operation of the computer to another user. And yes, when you switch to another “user” on your computer (as each user has their own space and their own name and password), it does stop the music from playing on User 1 when you switch the computer over to User 2. User 2’s set-up and space and operation is being used at that moment, and User 1’s space and set-up and operation is not in effect during that time User 2 is at the computer. They are kept separate and isolated from one another, which is the idea between having different users and signing in for each one.
Is it something that *could* be done, in making iTunes continue playing on User 1’s account, after the computer was switched over to User 2’s account and being used there? I’m sure it could be done. But, I’m not sure if it should be done. I’m sure you can imagine the problem that would occur if User 2 wanted to play music at the same time that User 1’s iTunes was playing on the speakers... LOL... It would sound pretty weird... :-)
And there are other problems involved in that, in keeping each user space *isolated* from one another, which is the whole idea of those user spaces anyway, in the first place.
As far as features that you want and would like to see iTunes have..., I can say this about that. I’ve seen, over a period of time, that Apple keeps improving the software and adding features that users want. But, Apple doesn’t do it without one of two things being true (at least it seems to me). If there is something that a significant number of users want, they will incorporate it into the operation of the software. If it’s only a very few users that want it, I wouldn’t count on it. So, that’s one criteria. And then the other is that Apple adds new things to the software as it engages in its marketshare actions, namely things designed to outflanked and/or outperform competitors. And many times those are also things that consumers will like to have, too.
I’ve always thought that if I really really wanted some software that does exactly like I wanted, then I would just get in there and program something to do exactly as I wanted. But, when I figured out how much time and trouble and how so *not worth it* that would be for me, I decided to just go with the company who does the best job of providing for the consumer’s desires. And Apple seems to be the one that does that... :-)
It's a UNIX (or at least UNIX-like) core OS. There's no reason User 1's jobs can't continue while User 2 is controlling the UI. As to resource contention, it can simply come down to first-come-first-served.
Now I'll agree that I'm uncertain as to whether it's a good idea -- the fact that I can cite a specific example of why it can be seen as a "problem" doesn't mean that "fixing" it wouldn't introduce a bigger issue -- but the technical aspects behind it aren't a real problem, given the multitasking nature of the underlying OS core.