Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

iTunes Tops Out At 32,000 Songs

Posted by pudge on Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:05 AM
from the mo-mp3s dept.
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by image (13487) on Monday February 17 2003, @12:17AM (#5317293) Homepage
    I'm sure they'll come out with a patch sometime in the next 12 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, and 20 minutes.

    (Oops, 15 minutes. It took me a few to divide.)
  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by cappadocius (555740) <{moc.edareuqsame ... a} {suicodappac}> on Monday February 17 2003, @12:18AM (#5317300)
    Wow! That's a lot of CDs. At around 15 songs a CD and $15 a CD, that means you must have spent at least $32,000 on CDs!

    Well, at least the RIAA will be happy...

    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Xunker (6905) on Monday February 17 2003, @12:37AM (#5317398) Homepage Journal
      Fifteen dollars a CD.. what a magical fanatsy world you live in.
    • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Informative)

      by rtaylor (70602)
      Funnily enough, I actually know of a family with *at least* that many CDs -- probably closer to double.

      There are 4 members of the family, each of whom tends to buy ~ 2 cds a day. This has been going on for several (6 or 7) years now.

      You should see their sound system(s)!
      • Sorry, let me qualify that the younger 2 have only recently started with collecting :).

        And also that most CDs don't have 15 songs -- especially the speciality ones which have closer to 3 or 4.
      • 320GB? How do you figure? I can put 1000 songs on my 5GB iPod, so that works out to 160GB - a drive size iTunes Feedback [slashdot.org] system, and hopefully they weill release a patch.

        I imagine that doubling the size of the array that iTunes uses would slow down the application substantially - the ID3's are loaded into memory for quick browsing - especially on older machines. Hopefully the iTunes with a fix will auto-switch up to a higher array length when needed so iTunes only takes the performance hit if needed.">easily obtainable today.

        If you are nearing the 32,000 song limit, indeed, complain to Apple through the iTunes Feedback [apple.com] system, and hopefully they weill release a patch.

        I imagine that doubling the size of the array that iTunes uses would slow down the application substantially - the ID3's are loaded into memory for quick browsing - especially on older machines. Hopefully the iTunes with a fix will auto-switch up to a higher array length when needed so iTunes only takes the performance hit if needed.
      • ...a limit on 32000 songs is definitely A Bad Thing, and one which might actually affect whether my next non-laptop computer is going to be an Apple or not.

        You know... there are a f fair few other mp3 players available for te Mac OS. No one's forcing you to use iTunes. I certainly hop you're not using only Windows Media Player to listen to your vast collection of music on a windows machine :)
  • by cei (107343) on Monday February 17 2003, @12:36AM (#5317394) Homepage Journal
    At least I have a goal now... ~1/4 of the way there.
  • How much it matters is an exercise left to the reader.

    It doesn't, there.

  • As I do not have 32,000 songs as of yet I am unable to test this, but does anyone know if this would work?

    A single iTunes 2 music library can hold 32 000 songs. To accommodate more songs, you can create additional music libraries. Follow these steps;

    1. Locate the "iTunes Music Library (2)" file inside the iTunes folder (in Documents).

    2. Create a folder called "Backup" and copy the iTunes Music Library (2) file to it. If you make a mistake or change your mind about creating multiple Music Library files, you can go back to using this backup file.

    3. Create a folder called "Library 1" and copy the iTunes Music Library (2) file to it.

    4. Create a folder called "Library 2" and copy the iTunes Music Library (2) file to it.

    5. Repeat for each increment of 32 000 songs. For example, if you have more than 64 000 songs, make two Library folders, if you have more than 96 000 songs, make three Library folders, and so forth.

    6. Open iTunes, add, delete, or change the songs in the Music Library for the first 32 000 songs.

    7. Quit iTunes, copy "iTunes Music Library (2)" mentioned in step 1 into Library 1.

    8. Open iTunes, add, delete, or change the songs in the Music Library for the next 32 000 songs.

    9. Quit iTunes, copy "iTunes Music Library (2)" mentioned in step 1 into Library 2.

    10. Repeat for each 32 000 increment of unique songs

    To access each of the different Music Libraries, copy the respective "iTunes Music Library (2)" file to the iTunes folder (in Documents), replacing the "iTunes Music Library (2)" file that is there. Important: If you accidentally move the file instead of copying it, make sure you move it back to the respective folder, or else you may have to redo some of the setup steps.

    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=615 85&SaveKCWindowURL=http%3A%2F%2Fkbase.info.apple.c om%2Fcgi-bin%2FWebObjects%2Fkbase.woa%2Fwa%2FSaveK CToHomePage&searchMode=Assisted&kbhost=kbase.info. apple.com&showButton=false&randomValue=100&showSur vey=false&sessionID=anonymous%7C164541794

  • by euggie (642977) on Monday February 17 2003, @01:21AM (#5317552)
    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.
    • Agreed!

      I think its very easy to get stuck into the cycle of downloading crap just because you can even if you will never listen to it.

      32 THOUSAND songs? I mean, c'mon....... thats just hoarding for the sake of it!

      D.
    • It's nice to have any music you can think of availible instantly in iTunes. With 2k songs that's just not going to happen (if you are serious about your music that is!). Other reasons for a huge library:
      Hearing new music during "random" play (iTunes random actually kind of sucks)
      Sharing a library with friends...
      Direct Connect file limits

      I think if you want to stick to top 40 stuff from the last 30 years, you could probably live with a ~5k song library. Once you start branching out into different genres and downloading legal (read mp3.com) files, I'd say ~15k will probably give you more breathing room. Remember it's about selection, not sequential play.
      • I have almost 4,000 tunes in my iTunes library. That's 18Gb of music, almost 1/3 of my laptop's total hard drive; a mere 12.2 days of music. It's also all of my onld CDs, my girlfriends' CDs and a few random tracks gathererd from friends. My iPhoto collection weighs in at around the same size (almost 7000 photos) leaving me few backup options and sod-all space for work files. luckily I am programmer and text takes up almost no room. I doubt I would ever hit the 32,000 song limit, even if I ripped all of my friends' CDs too. I'll run out of drive space in my laptop well before that happens.

        I have a 'smart playlist' called "unheard faves" that selects 75 tracks with a rating of 3 or more, and a play count of 3 or less. I set it to random and repeat and let it play while working. This way I almost simulate what it is like to have the radio on at work, but without ads or annoying DJs. When the playlist starts to shrink I kno wit's time to rate some more music.

        I do wish the 'smart playlists' would allow better use of boolean operators. How can you ask for all songs rated 3+ but not ambient music or trance? iTunes needs a mood switch.

        I'd like to write a small script that pretends to be an MP3 file, but actually just reads out the current time, the weather and some news headlines. Then I'd get it to play on the hour... Kind of like "It's 10am and you are listening to dave's unheard faves. It's -6 outside and snowing. In the news headlines the USA has declared war on Germany [mac.com] - citing their support for international terrorism, and that they started the last two world wars." Ideally this would said using the voice of "Princess" :-)

        • How would your computer read the link in the headline?

          "In the news headlines the less-than a href equals http colon slash slash homepage dot mac dot com slash davesag slash iblog slash davesag percent twenty rants slash War percent twenty and percent twenty Peace slash six six zero two seven niner three three slash index dot html greater-than USA has declared war on Germany less-than slash a greater-than, citing Germany's support for international terrorism, that Germany started the last two world wars, and that the USA intends to start the next one."

          Oops, made an editorial comment somewhere in there...
        • I do wish the 'smart playlists' would allow better use of boolean operators. How can you ask for all songs rated 3+ but not ambient music or trance?

          That's a trick question, right? Ambient/Trance should never be rated 3+.
    • Some of the things I do with the 12,000 songs I have ripped from my own cds:

      Play nothing but instrumental stuff like Tangerine Dream while playing roleplaying games. Play all speed metal while doing boring coding tasks. Play random gothic progressive while doing creative coding design. Play all ska when I feel like having something energetic, or blues when I want to practice guitar. Etc. Different music for different situations.

      Why am I not a "legitimate music user"?

      I will grant that I'm not a typical music user; I don't spend anything at all on movies, going out, etc, and a large part of the collection was acquired when I had no car payments and a series of good contracting jobs.

      I'll also grant that to someone who can be satisfied with a week's worth of music, much of mine may strike you as in bad taste, as much of it is not very mainstream, but what this has to do with honor is a bit unclear.
    • by Frightened_Turtle (592418) on Monday February 17 2003, @10:08AM (#5319190)
      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.

  • by soundsop (228890) on Monday February 17 2003, @01:42AM (#5317641) Homepage

    Respect to pudge [pudge.net] for actually taking the time to run a test to verify the story.

    Respectable journalism exercised by Slashdot? Is that a pig flying past my window?

  • Because, gosh darnit, if it were iMovies, I'd have already used up 32,000 slots on porn alone!
  • by tm2b (42473) on Monday February 17 2003, @01:48AM (#5317669) Journal
    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!!)
    • I make a smart play list of songs with number of listens == 0, max 100, selected at random. Then on my iPod I select that playlist and have *it* do random play (otherwise the playlist tends to clump songs by each artist together). When I'm done my daily iPod listening, I plug back into mac, and quickly go through and rate the songs that I heard that day. Hopefully that way I'll listen to my entire collection at least once before I die!
    • (Advice to others with large collections: buy an external Firewire disk and back your library up!!)


      No shit!! I don't have quite as many files as you, but I have plenty, and shortly after I got my new computer, Louise, my old FW 80 GB drive died (I will never buy another Maxtor drive...if only I'd known it was Maxtor when i got it). Luckily I had already transferred most of my files to the new HD inside the computer, but I hadn't transferred my MP3s because I didn't plan to--Guenevere, the external drive, was to be my MP3 hard drive.

      Norton couldn't get my files back, so I started shopping around for disk utilities (I did most of my "shopping" on LimeWire... : ). Drive 10 acted like it was going to get my files back, but didn't. Finall Disk Rescue acted like it could get my files back, and apparently was capable of doing so, but refused to recover more than one file because it wasn't registered. I shelled out $90 for the program, and got most of my MP3s back...but then Disk Rescue ran out of memory, and some of my files were lost forever.

      Now the question is, where do I back up to? I recently got a 120 GB Western Digital drive, but that's for my burgeoning collection of ripped DVDs that threatened to overfill Guenevere and Esmerelda (Louise's built-in 120 GB drive). My illegal practices have stretched my budget too thin! If I'm going to keep buying CDs, I'm going to risk losing my valuable MP3 and AVI collection.
      • Alphabetical order means that your collection is too homogeneous! I've a similar number, and I have to split down by genre - everything from folk/rock to Renaissance and baroque classical to shows to psychedelia to electronic music, and lots more.

        I've just got a big HD, so I'm currently ripping the lot in the hope of getting an iPod shortly. (I'm rather hoping it'll be upgraded in the near future.) My big question is: what do you do when there's continuous music across several tracks? I can't find any way to avoid a gap between MP3 tracks. (I've tried iTunes' `Stop Time' feature, but it always gives gaps.) This really spoils stuff like Tubular Bells III, Chilled Ibiza, Jean-Michel Jarre, live albums, &c.

        Are the only alternatives really to suffer dropouts, or to combine them into one big track, losing track names and control?

        • The solution is for Apple's software developers to write iTunes in such a way as to load the next track while the current track is still playing, getting it ready to play as soon as the current track is over. I don't know why this isn't already the case, but then, I don't know why they limited the library size either.

          Insufficient forsight? Rush to get a product out the door on deadline? Pressure to add features instead of improving the functionality of the basics? Or is this actually a really hard thing to do?
          • That's not a good solution either; although it avoids a harsh dropout, it's still different from the original CD, smearing transitions (especially if there's a continuous rhythm) and losing some of the sound.

            I gather some MP3 players can use a `tracklist' to identify separate tracks within a single MP3 file; this might be one good solution, but until iTunes and the iPod support it, it's not one I can use :(

  • NetJuke [sourceforge.net] ~ But then you have the issue of loading up those four iPods....
  • by e. boaz (67350) on Monday February 17 2003, @09:22AM (#5318907) Homepage
    Apple's knowledge base readily admits this. See this link for a workaround:
    iTunes 2: How to Overcome 32 000 Song Library Size Limitation [apple.com]

  • =P (Score:2, Funny)

    No one will ever need more than 32000 songs.
    • Of course, the radio stations seem to make due with about a thousand or so, not countng the pop music stations that play the same 20 songs all day long.

      I've got a bit over 1100 songs in iTunes, so I've still got a lot of room to grow. They don't all fit on my iPod, though, so I tell it to only load songs I've listened to at least 3 times.

  • I consider my MP3 collection [dhs.org] to be fairly large as collections go, and I'm more likely to run out of disk space on the three drives in my computer (total 320 GB) than to hit 32767 songs.

    However, I do consider it to be a problem I will eventually run into. Hopefully Apple will address it in iTunes 4.0.
  • by phoenix_orb (469019) on Monday February 17 2003, @04:50PM (#5321656) Journal
    Wait Wait Wait..

    Nope, Still don't care.
    • by _Splat (22170) on Monday February 17 2003, @01:05AM (#5317499)
      Since the limit is 32,000, not 32,768, I don't think it's a datatype limitation. More likely, some programmer probably did

      #define MAX_SONGS 32000

      arbitrarily.

      • You're right... that'll teach me for not reading the article first.

        Still, there is no excuse for using fixed-size arrays these days either. iTunes is written in C++, right?
        • by KagatoLNX (141673) <kagato.souja@net> on Monday February 17 2003, @01:52AM (#5317687) Homepage
          Actually, all true arrays are fixed size. I think you mean a sparse array. About the only useful properties of a vanilla array are constant-time indexing and a fixed footprint. You probably are thinking of the Standard Template Library (STL) implementation of a sparse array. While this is nominally part of the C++ standard now, it is not a silver bullet.

          C++ with the STL can still be a pain even if you're careful. Try playing with the STL in large amounts of code. Now try it with no free memory. When you run out of memory, it can get really dicey. Truthfully, it can be very tough to tell when you are allocating memory in C++ (or in what order it happened). Copy constructors can be deceptively well hidden. Same for type conversion functions.

          There're always the infamous bugs involving not being able allocate memory to append two string objects to print an error message. That sort of thing is tough to ferret out. I mean, unit testing is one thing but how do you check to see if your program handles running out of RAM well in all situations? Very few languages (or OS's) handle that very gracefully. The hoops that you jump through to correctly through an out-of-memory exception are staggering (pre-allocated RAM, stripped down/in-place string processing, emergency garbage-collection runs, that sort of thing).

          I don't disagree that a #define is pretty lame, but you see a lot of this sort of thing and it's not all that bad of a practice. It says:

          I acknowledge this is an important problem. This is a stopgap measure. It doesn't solve the problem--it only brings it to light later so that it may be solved appropriately when more fundamental issues have been solved.

          I used to think about how call linked lists were because they "never ran out of space" like arrays. Debugging code that failed to allocate new nodes during critical operations changed that.

          Since I feel it is relavant, let me relate a little story. I found the same sort of limit awhile back with HylaFAX. You can, nominally, upload a single .tif file of a fax and then use it in any number of fax jobs. Well, it topped out at 32,000 faxes exactly. Turns out, they arbitrarily limited the job number to this. Interestingly, it was a #define and they coded it so I only changed it one place and it worked. Then I found out that Ext2 supports no more than than 32,768 hard links for a single file (hylafax hard links the .tifs to unique filenames for each job). Even ReiserFS limited me similarly (although it was around 64k). Turns out, until Linux has a 64-bit VFS, this will always be a problem. And backwards compatiblity will be a b*tch when that day comes!

          Arbitrary limitations like this may be annoying and lame, but they have a very important purpose. They allow you to keep coding on functionality before worrying about scalability. While using a scalable design from the beginning is important, "premature optimization is the root of all evil" (Dr. Knuth).

          Five years ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. Now, I view this kind of thing to be a fairly good practice. I must be getting old. :(
              • Oh. Interesting. How come?
                Because Apple built iTunes for OS 9 first. Carbon is primarily for OS 9 to OS X compatibility.
                If Apple were to rewrite iTunes today, it would most likely be a Cocoa application.
              • by Anonymous Coward
                Because Apple didn't write iTunes originally, and it wasn't for OS X.

                iTunes was originally SoundJam by Casady & Greene - Apple bought it out, renamed it, gave it that brushed-metal look, and (substantially) continued development on it. This is actually a big part of the reason I don't like it, since I didn't find SoundJam very good and don't like the inherited SJ-isms. That and the brushed metal, anyway.

                Since SJ was developed for OS 8/9 and Carbon is the porting API, iTunes is a Carbon app. To make it Cocoa would be a complete rewrite (and pretty pointless - the API isn't all that important frankly).
                • by entrylevel (559061) <jaundoh@yahoo.com> on Monday February 17 2003, @12:18PM (#5320039)
                  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.
                • Not only that, there are additions to the Carbon API set that are only available in Mac OS X and not Mac OS 9 via CarbonLib. An app developer who wants to take advantage of these features will have a hard time keeping their app running on 9 at the same time. And since Apple is no longer updating CarbonLib, this discrepancy between CarbonLib on 9 and Carbon on OS X is only going to get wider. Adobe has already pretty much decided the next major revisions of their apps will be for Mac OS X only, despite the fact that they will still be Carbon.
    • Re:How come 32,000? (Score:4, Informative)

      by justzisguy (573704) on Monday February 17 2003, @03:38AM (#5318012)
      The 32,000 song max is a limit of the Carbon list manager (it uses the 'short' data type for the number of rows). Either Apple will have to update the Carbon framework or move over to the Cocoa framework, which if memory serves, does not have this limitation.
      • Re:How come 32,000? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Lynn Benfield (649615) on Monday February 17 2003, @04:48AM (#5318152)
        iTunes does not use the List Manager - that's been obsolete for quite some time. List Manager performance degrades drastically when you have a large number of items, and it's limited to 32Kb of data (you could only have 32Kb items if they were 1 byte each in size). Remember that API dates from 1984, when screens were 9" and a list with 32,000 items was pretty unlikely.

        iTunes will either use their own internal list structure, or the Carbon Data Browser control. The Cocoa equivalent, NSOutlineView, still had some restrictions before 10.2 (e.g., at most 32Kb children per item).
      • Someone with more than [32,000 songs] is, in the eyes of the RIAA, "Stealing" music.
        I highly doubt that this has anything to do with the RIAA or copyright infringement.
        When iTunes starts deleting songs for you based on content, I'll post a photo of me sticking my foot in my mouth.

        Until then, lay off the conspiracy theories (well, at least about iTunes)