[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SomeToast:
How does Panther handle situations like this, but with an external Firewire hard drive?

Just a couple of days ago, I tried to unmount a FW drive (as second, non-admin user) that had been mounted at startup.

It asked me for an admin password, and then unmounted the drive.

-s*

[kennethmac2000]

Originally posted by parsec_kadets:
In that situation I take the attitude that if it's not your computer then you shouldn't complain. If it is your computer then there's no problem because you have admin rights.

Oh. My. Goodness. Get a grip ppppppplease. What if I expect other people to be able to use all the apps on my system - including and especially iTunes? If they can't then do so I will expect them to complain, and to complain vociferously in fact.

Apple didn't include fast user switching in Panther on the basis that "it's better than what you had in Jaguar and you should be grateful for small mercies".

Nowhere in its marketing does it say that fast user switching allows you to leave all your apps running "except our most popular application of all".

This is plain crap. They couldn't have just thought of the implications of running multiple instances of iTunes at the end of the development cycle. And if they did, then what sort of bunch of jokers are running the show over in Cupertino?

I know all you Apple apologists will claim that software development isn't easy and that I should be grateful for everything I get. You will also claim that a perfectly workable hack which gets around this problem has already been offered (even though it requires two copies of the application and hides half of the UI).

I don't care. I am just Joe Consumer. I see Apple's fast user switching marketing and expect it to work as it says on the tin.

This is pathetic.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by K++:
3. Apple did make a mistake but its not the one you guys think
In 7b85 when you switch iTunes both pauses and cannot be launched by another user. The more elegant approach would be that it pauses and then the other user could launch thier iTunes and when they switch it pauses.

Hel-lo...

This is *exactly* what we're whining about.

However, your "Devices" explanation makes some sense.

-s*

[Mike S.]

This doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.

Fast User switching is used when you need to change users fast.

e.g.. Person A is using the computer, person B needs to check their Email, check a bid on Ebay or whatever. Person A doesn't have to end everything they're doing to let Person B do what they have too.

If Person A is going to be leaving for several hours then they should be logging out all together, not leaving things running. Leaving things running is fine if it's your own computer but if it's shared then you really should be logging out when you're finished using it, it's simply courtesy.

How does it work now with Panther? You either log out, leave it running and unsecured so others can quit things or use your account or you lock the screen and nobody else can use the computer.

Worst case scenario: Person A is an idiot and leaves iTunes running as they leave for the day. Person B is just going to have to *shock* use some other player (provided they just don't kill the process as mentioned) for the day and have words with person A when they get back about shared computer etiquette.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion, geez.

[gperks]

Talk of killing processes... Yeah sure, I can do that, but my wife doesn't understand any of that.

The point of Fast User Switching is not just to look cool in the demos. It's so we can both be logged on, with all our apps open, then when we switch babysitting/cooking duties, we can go back to where we left off. If I want to be browsing iTunes and so does my wife, we're hosed.

We have to remember to close iTunes before switching away? (Or else we're "rude"?!) We have to kill the other user's processes? Give me a break. Mac is supposed to be easy to use. This is completely non-intuitive.

Can you imagine having to exit the email program? Word? Ridiculous.

This defeats the whole point of Fast User Switching.

[ZackS]

[kennethmac2000]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
This doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.

Fast User switching is used when you need to change users fast.

e.g.. Person A is using the computer, person B needs to check their Email, check a bid on Ebay or whatever. Person A doesn't have to end everything they're doing to let Person B do what they have too.

If Person A is going to be leaving for several hours then they should be logging out all together, not leaving things running. Leaving things running is fine if it's your own computer but if it's shared then you really should be logging out when you're finished using it, it's simply courtesy.

How does it work now with Panther? You either log out, leave it running and unsecured so others can quit things or use your account or you lock the screen and nobody else can use the computer.

Worst case scenario: Person A is an idiot and leaves iTunes running as they leave for the day. Person B is just going to have to *shock* use some other player (provided they just don't kill the process as mentioned) for the day and have words with person A when they get back about shared computer etiquette.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion, geez.

This thread seems to have attracted an awful lot of sad individuals who are determined to force their own social views onto the rest of us.

If a friend of mine wants to let me use his computer and doesn't mind me using it on an on-demand, whenever I like basis, then who are you to say that I shouldn't be able to use iTunes just because it's not my computer. Stay out of my life thank you very much!

Also, your point about "*shock* [using] some other player" is also completely spurious. A lot of people may have iTunes libraries that are setup with music they have imported etc and wouldn't necessarily know where to find the music to listen to it in another player.

Yes, this limitation isn't going to be a problem for sad computer geeks who sit in their house all day and have no interaction with the outside world. However, Apple isn't aiming fast user switching at people like that.

This is a MAJOR crippling of a flagship feature. At least have the courtesy to admit it.

[Devin Lane]

Wow. This is a very interesting problem. I can see it from two perspectives:

User:
I want to be able to listen to music on my computer even if another person has iTunes open. However, I also want to be able to listen to music when my mom is using the computer. If I stick in my iPod, and sync to it, that iPod should be MINE and not available to the other user for synchronizing. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to see it, just that they shouldn't be able to mess with songs on it. (They could copy a file, for example).

Programmer:
This pretty much requires the entire IOKit (Which is big and complicated) to be rewritten in order to keep track of who is using a device, and which users can perform which operations. As rewriting the IOKit is not only complicated, it would most likely cause everyone to have to update drivers for everything, which is not good if you are using legacy devices. However, I don't see where it would be that hard to have two copies of iTunes open at the same time.

Very interesting. I do, however, know that it is really irritating that I can't rip a cd while my mom is listening to her music, and that I can't listen to music when my mom is using the computer.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
This thread seems to have attracted an awful lot of sad individuals who are determined to force their own social views onto the rest of us.

If a friend of mine wants to let me use his computer and doesn't mind me using it on an on-demand, whenever I like basis, then who are you to say that I shouldn't be able to use iTunes just because it's not my computer. Stay out of my life thank you very much!

Also, your point about "*shock* [using] some other player" is also completely spurious. A lot of people may have iTunes libraries that are setup with music they have imported etc and wouldn't necessarily know where to find the music to listen to it in another player.

Yes, this limitation isn't going to be a problem for sad computer geeks who sit in their house all day and have no interaction with the outside world. However, Apple isn't aiming fast user switching at people like that.

This is a MAJOR crippling of a flagship feature. At least have the courtesy to admit it.

Kenneth, you're the only one who is REALLY sad here. The fact that you even wrote that post is so ****ing pathetic. You're really getting worked up about a shortcoming of one feature in an upcoming initial release of an operating system? What makes it even sadder is that I wrote up a post with a perfect workaround that, once performed initially, works FLAWLESSLY to circumvent the problem that you are ****ing flipping out about! WHY?! YOU MUST JUST HAVE TO WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU EVER GET IN TO, DON'T YOU? The point is moot. Apple blocks you from running two instances for whatever reason, probably a good one and you go NUTS. I post a workaround but by then you're so worked up and emotionally involved that you're BLINDED by your own RAGE. I just don't get it, do you see how ridiculous you're being? For your mental heath and all of the rest of ours, please just chill the **** back and go take a walk or something, take a deep breath, come back, read the workaround, perform it, and go one your merry way.

Thank you.

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by wataru:

OMG B&.

Oh wait. Wrong forums.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Devin Lane:
Wow. This is a very interesting problem. I can see it from two perspectives:

Programmer:
However, I don't see where it would be that hard to have two copies of iTunes open at the same time.

Very interesting. I do, however, know that it is really irritating that I can't rip a cd while my mom is listening to her music, and that I can't listen to music when my mom is using the computer.

I'm sure there's a huge issue that I can't see yet because my testing is significantly less than extensive but so far working around the iTunes launch limitation has been OK. It's been cool with handling iPods in two users, etc.

You can rip a CD while your mom listens to music, that seems to be fine. As for listening to your music while your mom is on... that's not so easy. When iTunes uses a library, it puts up the file's busy flag so there's no chance of using the same library file at the same time. In addition, the other parson's shared music won't appear, so I guess you'd have to add your songs manually to her library.

[Axo1ot1]

man there are some morons around here. ZackS, K++ are representing, and you incompetent bickering nerds still want to run around whining. Go get legitimate things to complain about.

[Brass]

This thread is a crack up! I'm dying here!

[parsec_kadets]

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
This is a MAJOR crippling of a flagship feature. At least have the courtesy to admit it.

How so? So you can't use fast user switching and iTunes. That doesn't stop you from using fast user switching and Word, or Safari, or anything else. That doesn't sound crippling from fast user switch stand point to me. Crippled means that it is so broken that you can't get your work done and it might as well not be there. Are you honestly trying to tell us that the ONLY reason you want to use fast user switching is so you can have two copies of iTunes open at the same time? Are you honestly telling us that the ONLY reason you would upgrade to Panther is fast user switching? If that really is the case, then don't buy 10.3. Even if it did work the way you (and I by the way) would like it to work, I would still say you shouldn't upgrade because running two copies of iTunes at once isn't worth $129.

Also, if fast user switch is so critical to you, how did you manage all this time without it? I'm not saying that the developers blessed you with a feature and you have to use it their way or it's the highway. I just mean that if you don't like the way it works then don't use it. You obviously got along just fine without it before. If that's not good enough for you, then what do you want me to say? Again, you can always choose to not buy the software.

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
This thread seems to have attracted an awful lot of sad individuals who are determined to force their own social views onto the rest of us.

Not at all. You and your friends can use your computers however you like. I'm simply trying to understand why this is such a critical issue for you. Ok, say your friend leaves iTunes running by accident. So you can't listen to music right then. You must REALLY love music, because while I might be disappointed, I'm not going to get completely pissed about it. I'm just going to shrug it off and do whatever I need to do on the computer.

Also, I've already admitted that it could work better and that Apple needs to fix it. How does that make me an apologist?

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
I don't care. I am just Joe Consumer. I see Apple's fast user switching marketing and expect it to work as it says on the tin.

Actually you're not. Most consumers, when faced with a situation where something doesn't work as advertised will either return the product or try to fix the problem. Thing is, you haven't said that you'll cancel your order for 10.3 (or just not buy it), and you're not open to possible solutions at all. Again I ask you what sort of response would satisfy you? We gave you possible solutions, what more do you want?

[mikemako]

edited for clarification:

I thought that iTunes would keep playing when you switched users.. I understand by some of the posts I've read that this feauture has been removed in later builds, is this correct?

If so, when you switch users does it just stop playing or does it fade out?

Thanks

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
I don't care. I am just Joe Consumer. I see Apple's fast user switching marketing and expect it to work as it says on the tin.

This is pathetic.

Well, we're all glad you've admitted your problems, it's the first step on the road to recovery...

In the meantime, edit the plist. If you encounter problems as a result, it's your fault (as Apple clearly is protecting you from some bug they found). Since Apple had it working until late in Panther development, it's likely they are hard at work fixing the problem and will have a 4.2 or somesuch out to correct it. Would you rather they delay the whole OS for a couple months while they sort out this iTunes problem? I didn't think so.

For now, lighten up.

[gomariners]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Kenneth, you're the only one who is REALLY sad here. The fact that you even wrote that post is so ****ing pathetic. You're really getting worked up about a shortcoming of one feature in an upcoming initial release of an operating system? What makes it even sadder is that I wrote up a post with a perfect workaround that, once performed initially, works FLAWLESSLY to circumvent the problem that you are ****ing flipping out about! WHY?! YOU MUST JUST HAVE TO WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU EVER GET IN TO, DON'T YOU? The point is moot. Apple blocks you from running two instances for whatever reason, probably a good one and you go NUTS. I post a workaround but by then you're so worked up and emotionally involved that you're BLINDED by your own RAGE. I just don't get it, do you see how ridiculous you're being? For your mental heath and all of the rest of ours, please just chill the **** back and go take a walk or something, take a deep breath, come back, read the workaround, perform it, and go one your merry way.

Thank you.

ZackS, you make some good points, but what I want to know is: what if someone wants to run itunes in two users? It would be good to figure out some way to do this. Has anyone thought about this? Let's discuss.






[/sarcasm]

[alex_kac]

BTW - this limitation exists with Windows XP's Fast User Switching as well.

So its a DESIGN limitation, not a technical one.

[cwasko]

I'm not going to say anything really new... infact, I'm not sure what I'm going to say

But, it would seem to me, that judging by the discussions here, there are MANY instances where this could result in some serious problems - i.e., having multiple iTunes running at the same time. It seems to be a conservative decision by Apple to force this limitation. If the functionality was there, and they took it away, it would seem reasonable to expect that they plan to fix it. Fixing it, is probably not going to be easy and I don't think it requires a IOKit re-write, but some serious logic implemented into iTunes.

Now, is this a 'MAJOR PANTHER LIMITATION'? No... its a problem with iTunes, and it definitely not Major. However, maybe it would have been a major problem if data got eradicated from people's iPods if they kept the functionality in.

[Mithras]

Two Easy Ways To Change This

1. TextEdit
Click here:
file:///Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Info.plist

See that file? Drag it onto TextEdit.
Do like Zack said:
search for LSMultipleInstancesProhibited
and change the value to 0

2. Command line
(note: you must have SSH turned on in Sharing prefs for this to work)

click here:
ssh://localhost defaults write com.apple.iTunes LSMultipleInstancesProhibited 0

Say 'yes' if it asks you to trust the machine (it's your own!), and enter your password at the prompt. Done!

NOTE: I dunno if MacNN's board will mangle these URLs. But these kinds of links do work.

EDIT: MacNN mangled the ssh URL. So I made a redirect script; clicking on the link now works.

[barbarian]

Someone with Panther up try this: have each user create an application folder in his/her home directory. Put a copy of itunes in each. Run these copies of itunes...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by barbarian:
Someone with Panther up try this: have each user create an application folder in his/her home directory. Put a copy of itunes in each. Run these copies of itunes...

You still have to edit the info.plist.

Note to consumers: This is not a hack, just change an option. Just because there is no GUI to do this does not make it particularly hard. If you can edit a text file that is.

[blackbird_1.0]

Not to be mean, but if you are all so pissed about this feature, hello, feedback to apple, people!

[kerrazyjoe]

Originally posted by cwasko:

Now, is this a 'MAJOR PANTHER LIMITATION'? No... its a problem with iTunes, and it definitely not Major.

I agree this is NOT a 'MAJOR PANTHER LIMITATION'
It does not seem that the FUS function is the thing that disables it - it is iTunes.

Originally posted by cwasko:

However, maybe it would have been a major problem if data got eradicated from people's iPods if they kept the functionality in.

Data eradicated from iPods? - In Jaguar, I have two users configured.

UserA launches iTunes
plug in iPod
updates the iPod - it is UserA iPod synced with UserA iTunes.

UserA logs out
UserB logs in
UserB launches iTunes
plug in iPod
iTunes reports...
"This iPod belongs to UserA. If you sync with this iTunes (UserB) then all existing tracks will be replaced with this iTunes library (UserB). Do you wish to continue?"

Using FUS should be the same! - I think it is. It is just that iTunes cannot be launched by UserB if UserA has it locked. So I do not think it is an iPod issue - I am not really sure what the issue is.

My initial intentions were to add some tracks (update manually) from UserB iTunes onto UserA iPod leaving UserA tracks. I think this is a sharing violation - that I can take my iPod to many computers and grab many tracks that I do not own and add to my iPod!

But it is true that if my iPod were stolen then that person can sync their iTunes with it erasing all of my tunes.

[clebin]

Originally posted by ZackS:
*Places head firmly in hands*

Well, at least I tried. It turns out that people would rather complain than SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM IN LESS THAN A MINUTE BY EDITING A PLIST.

FWIW, good find!

I'll enable it when I get Panther. Despite what the usual apologists say, I won't remember to shut iTunes when I leave the machine...

Chris

[mitchell_pgh]

I guess there is nothing anyone can do about this total iTunes failure. Apple has abandoned us once again. I wish there was a way around this!!!

I HATE YOU APPLE, YOU MAKE ME WANT TO LOVE WINDOWS!!!

Oh, but seriously...

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
man there are some morons around here. ZackS, K++ are representing, and you incompetent bickering nerds still want to run around whining. Go get legitimate things to complain about.

I'm actually just trying to ignore ZackS and K++... I know everyone in here is driving them nuts.

I also don't hate Apple...

[Developer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I guess there is nothing anyone can do about this total iTunes failure. Apple has abandoned us once again. I wish there was a way around this!!!

I bet a few weeks after the release someone will write a haxie or something like that that will circumvent that limitation. Those of us who don't install hacks in our system are out of luck though.

[mcs37]

This certainly sounds pretty bad. What I propose is Apple halt all audio on U1 (either suspend the processes entirely or somehow redirect the output to /dev/null) when U2 logs in. Apple could make it sound nice by attenuating the audio as the fast-user switching occurs. Then U2 logs in, listens to music, etc., and logs off until U1 returns.

I'm also curious about this because I am thinking in one day, maybe 5 years down the line, when I buy my own house, I may want to have one central Power Mac G6 as my main house computer, and attach several dummy terminals at various nodes that would allow N people to be logged in simultaneously, sharing resources. Of course the machines will be dual 4 GHz and 8 GB RAM with 480 GB storage probably. But it would be nice to guarantee audio on all machines.

Cheers,

Mike

[clebin]

Originally posted by Developer:
I bet a few weeks after the release someone will write a haxie or something like that that will circumvent that limitation. Those of us who don't install hacks in our system are out of luck though.

That was an international class ignore!

Chris

[mcs37]

This is a tangential question to the thread, but does iTunes on a machine with FUS allow you to listen to other local "libraries" much as it does over a network? This would be good for the sake of preventing duplicated data on a hard disk, which is always an essential component of systems designs. Does anyone have an answer to this?

BTW, iTunes for Windows is VERY popular here at Cornell. It's like the non-nerds have never known of LAN file sharing. But in all honesty, rendezvous makes it a whole lot easier. Way to go, Apple!

[ZackS]

Originally posted by clebin:
That was an international class ignore!

Chris

I got pissed at Kenneth because he's a little bitch but everyone else can ignore me all they want

[ebolla]

I got it!

move iTunes.app to your home folder so only you can access it

then install audion or some other player in the /Applications directory

or vice versa

[benb]

Originally posted by ebolla:
I got it!

Retard!

[julesburt]

Is it just my setup or is everyone having to type passwords for every user they'd like to switch to?

What if everyone in my family doesn't care to use our passwords?

Any option I might have missed?

Thanks, Jules.

[patman600]

Originally posted by julesburt:
Is it just my setup or is everyone having to type passwords for every user they'd like to switch to?

What if everyone in my family doesn't care to use our passwords?

Any option I might have missed?

Thanks, Jules.

I remember seeing in the demos during the wwdc keynote that this was an option. I don't have panther, so I couldnt tell you where it is, but I would assume that it is under fast user switching in the system preferences.

[mikemako]

Originally posted by julesburt:
Is it just my setup or is everyone having to type passwords for every user they'd like to switch to?

Yeah, when I switch users, the rotation animation brings me to a screen with login panel & plain blue background. It has the users name & a space to type in the password. There is no password. I just have to hit "enter" or push the login button to login.

This only happens the first time I switch to that user, until my machine sleeps or restarts. After the first time, the screen will just rotate immediately over into that user's account.

**So just to clarify the difference:

When I switch users, if there is a password, the "password prompt box" will appear, and the screen rotates *after* I type in the password & hit enter.

If there is not a password, the rotation animation happens *before* the password prompt box appears, then I hit "enter" and it logs me in.

[barbarian]

Using the plist hack what happens if you are both using the a library on users/shared?

same question for iphoto with a lib on shared?

anyone have this setup?

[real]

I don't know this might be too simple of a idea. Quit iTunes when your not using it. Not really all that hard. It takes 1 second to quit the app, and another 2 seconds to launch it. for a total of 3 seconds to do all that.
Or you can leave it running and write an applescript, or use the terminal to kill the process, or edit a .pist file, hack itunes so you and your girlfriend can use iTunes while it running.


Man I think I use the first idea 3 seconds instead of maybe a minute or 2 to do all that.


Us Geeks make things way to hard.

real

[t_hah]

Can someone with an earlier Panther beta see what happens with this:

Share your music library over the LAN, then do a fast user switchnig and open up a differnet user with a different iTunes library, how could that be shared? If the first person is logged in so as the second which library gets shared? Both?

Maybe the problem is related to this.
It seems reasonable for Apple to build this limitation in.

t

[Big Mac]

I read through this entire thread, and I'm nonetheless not too clear on one crucial point: What is it about iTunes that makes it different from any other application? Other applications can be run concurrently by multiple users, but not iTunes - why is this so? What is the specific file contention we're dealing with here? If Apple's simply concerned about the iPod being synched to the wrong account, they already had a dialog warning to solve that (according to a previous post). If a user is ripping or burning a CD, then that device should be read-only until the operation is completed. And if a user is copying a file to a disk, the folder in which the copying is taking place should be read-only until the operation is completed. I have to assume this is how the system handles resource contention in every case, so what's the big deal with iTunes? What makes iTunes different from all others?

[asdasd]

KennethMac2000:

Apple is a big company. The Panther team did it's job and got fast user switching working correctly. It switches to a new acccount while keeping the other account alive. An architectural challenge.

The very busy iTunes team did not get their software updated in time, maybe because they were writing the Windows version.

iTunes is probably not the only app prohibited from running in the second session if it is alive in the first session.

Apple does this for a reason.

Generally it would be to prevent data loss, or a crash in the application running in the second session. What the specific potential data loss is in iTunes I don't know, but it may well have something to do with ownership of devices like the iPod, or a conflict in shared resources.

So Apple had a few options here:

1) Ship Panther as is, with certain Third Party apps not functioning in the second session when FUS is on. As far as the operating system engineers are concerned, iTunes is just another client and is Third Party to them. Schedules do not necessarily coincide.

2) Wait for iTunes, or other apps, to catch up and delay Panther til 2004 keeping 7B85 on hold until then.

3) Delay the launch of the Windows iTunes and fix the existing Mac iTunes to handle multiple sessions, and multiple ownerships of devices - which may well be a tricky task - at the cost of losing out to Napster in the Windows world.

Luckily, in the real world run by sensible business people who have to make decisions based on finite resource allocation, the proper decision was made.

[kerrazyjoe]

running new itunes 4.5 I now have two ipods docked to one iMac with 4 users - all can run itunes and the two users that do not own ipods they get two messages about replacing each ipod with their library - they have to say NO.
The ipod owners receive one message aboutthe Other ipod.
Also sharing works well between users.
Rock ON APPLE!

[alphasubzero949]

Holy old thread Batman!