Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > MAJOR PANTHER LIMITATION: iTunes can't be used by 2 users at once

MAJOR PANTHER LIMITATION: iTunes can't be used by 2 users at once
Thread Tools
kennethmac2000
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:20 AM
 
Hi folks,

I have seen this major limitation of Panther mentioned incidentally in one or two other threads, but I think it is such a big problem that it merits a thread of its own.

For those of you who don't already realise, Panther limits you to one instance of iTunes at any one time, which means that if I leave iTunes running (even if it's not playing any music) and then go away from the computer, no-one else that comes along to my computer and logs in can then use iTunes.

What ON EARTH is the point of fast user switching with such a major and obvious limitation?

Are Apple mad!?
     
moonmonkey
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:35 AM
 
Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
Hi folks,

I have seen this major limitation of Panther mentioned incidentally in one or two other threads, but I think it is such a big problem that it merits a thread of its own.

For those of you who don't already realise, Panther limits you to one instance of iTunes at any one time, which means that if I leave iTunes running (even if it's not playing any music) and then go away from the computer, no-one else that comes along to my computer and logs in can then use iTunes.

What ON EARTH is the point of fast user switching with such a major and obvious limitation?

Are Apple mad!?

Its not such a big deal.

The previous pre-release versions let you do this but later versions stopped it.


Its probably to do with shared music librarys.

Has anyone tried making two copies of the .app?
     
kennethmac2000  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:39 AM
 
Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Has anyone tried making two copies of the .app?
Yes, they're not that stupid. It still won't let you run more than one instance at once.
     
dtriska
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:13 AM
 
WHAT'S WITH THE CAPS?!?!
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:21 AM
 
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, EspaƱa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 06:33 AM
 
What is wrong with Apple these days? I've not heard about this before and it cartainly sounds bad. It sounds very silly anyway. This is an issue that has to be solved if people are going to be able to use their 'digital hub' to the fullest. A multi-user, multi-taskin OS that can't run the same app with two users?
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
kovacs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 06:57 AM
 
That's kind of ...euh...a bummer.
     
cSurfr
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 07:27 AM
 
Can someone explain to me why you would want to run two copies of itunes at the same time anyway? in theory, if you had two copies of itunes running at the same time, then you would hear two songs playing at the same time. sounds kinda pointless really. This of course is my opinion. Enlighten me please.

cs
-How pumped would you be driving home from work, knowing someplace in your house there's a monkey you're gonna battle?
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 07:33 AM
 
What's next? Your going to complain that two users cannot user the same computer at the same time?

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 07:40 AM
 
Originally posted by cSurfr:
Can someone explain to me why you would want to run two copies of itunes at the same time anyway? in theory, if you had two copies of itunes running at the same time, then you would hear two songs playing at the same time. sounds kinda pointless really. This of course is my opinion. Enlighten me please.
Did you read the thread? It involves fast user-switching on Panther.

iTunes playback stops the moment you switch to a different user. No two songs playing at the same time.

-s*
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 07:41 AM
 
Originally posted by cSurfr:
Can someone explain to me why you would want to run two copies of itunes at the same time anyway? in theory, if you had two copies of itunes running at the same time, then you would hear two songs playing at the same time. sounds kinda pointless really. This of course is my opinion. Enlighten me please.
Maybe person A has iTunes running but paused or stopped. Switches out and goes on vacation for a week.
Person B wants to play music, but can't launch iTunes. Person B is sad.

Enlightened?
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 07:59 AM
 
Oh, FWIW: My friend uses his iMac as his main music player. His girlfriend has her own account.

The iTunes limitation was pretty much the first thing that came up, and is most annoying. It's not really cool if your stereo stops working just because your girlfriend's checking her email.

-s*
     
coolmacdude
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 08:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
Maybe person A has iTunes running but paused or stopped. Switches out and goes on vacation for a week.
Person B wants to play music, but can't launch iTunes. Person B is sad.

Enlightened?
Uh, if A is gone for a week, couldn't they just restart the computer?
2.16 Ghz Core 2 Macbook, 3GB Ram, 120 GB
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 08:18 AM
 
It's not a Panther limitation...it's an iTunes limitation.

In fact, iTunes for Windows suffers the same problem.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 08:29 AM
 
Originally posted by coolmacdude:
Uh, if A is gone for a week, couldn't they just restart the computer?
If he's gone for the evening and has downloads running or whatever, the situation is the exact same.

Come on! - This isn't some far-off constructed freak scenario. It is very real and anybody with more than one account on his machine is bound to run into it quite frequently.

-s*
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 08:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
If he's gone for the evening and has downloads running or whatever, the situation is the exact same.

Come on! - This isn't some far-off constructed freak scenario. It is very real and anybody with more than one account on his machine is bound to run into it quite frequently.
This is true. Again, as others have noticed, this is a problem with iTunes, not with Panther. This can be proved by noting first that many other apps can be run by multiple users at once (were the problem with Panther, this would not be possible) and noting second that iTunes for Windows suffers the same problem.

Why is this the case? I cannot say for certain, but I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the Rendezvous sharing. It is possible that there is some kind of kink in the FairPlay system which Apple has not yet resolved. It's even possible that the RIAA may have forced this limitation onto Apple, though if this is the case then I would think that Apple ought to publicize it.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
gperks
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Round Rock, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 11:07 AM
 
This is an incredibly annoying bug. My wife and I share a computer (Windows). If I run iTunes and leave it up, my wife can't come along, log on, and browse the store! Stupid stupid.

How am I supposed to sell her on iTunes when she doesn't know whether or not it will even run - just depends on whether or not I've run it first!

     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 11:24 AM
 
Originally posted by gperks:
This is an incredibly annoying bug. My wife and I share a computer (Windows). If I run iTunes and leave it up, my wife can't come along, log on, and browse the store! Stupid stupid.

How am I supposed to sell her on iTunes when she doesn't know whether or not it will even run - just depends on whether or not I've run it first!

I think people are exaggerating this problem. My wife and I keep many apps open in two different accounts - namely, Safari, iChat, Mail, iSeek, etc, and none of them have been problematic. Neither of us has accidentally left iTunes open thereby locking the other out. (and I for one use iTunes alot - my wife uses it somewhat). The solution is not to leave iTunes running when you lock your machine and to tell your wife/other to do the same. In a home environment that shouldn't really be an issue anyway since you would surely have access to each other's accounts (unless you are extremely paranoid or untrusting, in which case you are probably in the wrong relationship).
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 11:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh, FWIW: My friend uses his iMac as his main music player. His girlfriend has her own account.

The iTunes limitation was pretty much the first thing that came up, and is most annoying. It's not really cool if your stereo stops working just because your girlfriend's checking her email.

-s*
From what I've read here, that wouldn't be the case. Your iTunes would continue to run, but the new user would be unable to launch it. As for the audio being muted when you switch users, that is absolutely essential. What would happen if iChat AV was open and a confidential voice chat came in while another user was at the console? You wouldn't want the audio enabled in that case.

It would also suck if a user started music playing, locked the session, and went on vacation for a week. Noone would be able to stop the music except by rebooting.

There would be a further problem that one user could monitor another user's audio simply by being logged in.

Again this behavior is absolutely essential.
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:08 PM
 
MAJOR JAUAR LIMITATION: iTunes can't be used by 2 users at once

Dude, I'm totally pissed that I can't have two users running iTunes at the same time in Jaguar! WTF? That totally sucks!

Ok, in all seriousness this isn't a big problem. If you have admin rights you can just open the terminal, run top and get the process ID of iTunes, quit top, and then type "sudo kill ####". After entering your admin password iTunes will quit. Heck, you might even be able to do this with Activity Viewer if you have some sort of phobia for UNIX (I'm not sure though, since I don't use fast user switching). As for XP, just bring up the task manager by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del and find iTunes under the Processes tab. I doubt you even need a password for that.

Honestly, you don't even need to have Panther or XP to figure these out. I guess you guys were to busy complaining to bother thinking of a work-around.
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:18 PM
 
Is it related to the music sharing feature of iTunes?

if the port has already been allocated to an instance of iTunes a second instance will never be able to access it (so long as the first instance is still running).

iTunes could simply be checking to see if the sharing port is open and listening then shutting down if it is.


I don't have panther so I'm just grasping at straws here.
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
K++
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:30 PM
 
OKay this is beyond stupid, here are a couple clarifications.

1) This is the intended functionality not a bug.
In earlier betas several users could run iTunes at the same time without a problem. It wasn't until 7b74 that apple added this "limitation" by only allowing one user to use iTunes at a time. However it also did not pasue music playing in iTunes when you switched Users so it wasn't really a problem.( If your okay with someone else controlling the stereo )

2. Every way you guys mention is stupid and is why Apple has made it work this way
If a user was using iTunes and left for a week with other things running they deserve to lose them for not being courteous enough to quit iTunes. If they were only gone for a couple hours, again its still rude.

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.

4. The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is DEVICES!!!!
This was thoroughly covered in a Previous thread on this exact topic. If User A inserts a CD, can User B eject it? What if they were listening to that CD in iTunes, can they eject it then? What if they were ripping from that CD? THen User B really can't eject it but they would not know why they can't since it would have to tell you what User A is doing. Perhaps a the CD drive is in use by another user message, but then devices are limited to users. What about mp3 players? If User A plugs in his iPod should User B be able to edit his playlists, sync it, or even access it?
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:33 PM
 
ok, that makes sense.
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
SomeToast
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: California - Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by K++:
If User A inserts a CD, can User B eject it? What if they were listening to that CD in iTunes, can they eject it then? What if they were ripping from that CD? THen User B really can't eject it but they would not know why they can't since it would have to tell you what User A is doing.
How does Panther handle situations like this, but with an external Firewire hard drive?
     
foobars
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere in the land surrouding Fenway Park
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 12:51 PM
 
Originally posted by K++:

4. The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is DEVICES!!!!
This was thoroughly covered in a Previous thread on this exact topic. If User A inserts a CD, can User B eject it? What if they were listening to that CD in iTunes, can they eject it then? What if they were ripping from that CD? THen User B really can't eject it but they would not know why they can't since it would have to tell you what User A is doing. Perhaps a the CD drive is in use by another user message, but then devices are limited to users. What about mp3 players? If User A plugs in his iPod should User B be able to edit his playlists, sync it, or even access it?
This seems like cop-out to me. If another use is editing a file Panther will lock it down, surely it can set permissions on a device when its in use.

Is this a problem in Toast? In iDVD?
     
kennethmac2000  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:03 PM
 
Originally posted by K++:
2. Every way you guys mention is stupid and is why Apple has made it work this way
If a user was using iTunes and left for a week with other things running they deserve to lose them for not being courteous enough to quit iTunes. If they were only gone for a couple hours, again its still rude.
Remind me... are you still 12, or was it your 13th birthday recently?

The whole point of fast user switching is that you can leave your apps running and switch to another user. I have at no point said I wish to leave iTunes *playing music* when I leave my computer; on the other hand, I don't expect to have to quit it every time I leave my computer either.
     
kennethmac2000  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by parsec_kadets:
[B]Ok, in all seriousness this isn't a big problem. If you have admin rights you can just open the terminal, run top and get the process ID of iTunes, quit top, and then type "sudo kill ####". After entering your admin password iTunes will quit. Heck, you might even be able to do this with Activity Viewer if you have some sort of phobia for UNIX (I'm not sure though, since I don't use fast user switching). As for XP, just bring up the task manager by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del and find iTunes under the Processes tab. I doubt you even need a password for that.
What if you don't have admin rights?

Come on guys. Get real here!

Are some of you paid to be Apple apologists or what?
     
ruttopia
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:05 PM
 
They had to save something for iTunes 5.0 people!
     
ZackS
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by SomeToast:
How does Panther handle situations like this, but with an external Firewire hard drive?
With a Firewire drive.... well, let's see.

Testing...


Both users get hardware, a FIrewire drive in mounted and then managed by Darwin, the FInder just asks darwin to use it, there's no problem there.

But then take an iPod. Two different users trying to sync at once could seriously end in disaster.

Hey, I just thought of something. I'm gonna see what Applescript does with two users at once. Perhaps it's possible to pass Apple events between users...

In addition, what if you launched the app as a system process, what then? Could both users see it?

So much testing to do, so little time!
     
kennethmac2000  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by K++:
4. The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is DEVICES!!!!
This was thoroughly covered in a Previous thread on this exact topic. If User A inserts a CD, can User B eject it? What if they were listening to that CD in iTunes, can they eject it then? What if they were ripping from that CD? THen User B really can't eject it but they would not know why they can't since it would have to tell you what User A is doing. Perhaps a the CD drive is in use by another user message, but then devices are limited to users. What about mp3 players? If User A plugs in his iPod should User B be able to edit his playlists, sync it, or even access it?[/B]
So, iTunes is the only application that can access devices - sorry, I mean "DEVICES!!!!!" - is it?

Again, get real.

The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is that Apple are too frickin' lazy to code it so that it can do so.
     
SomeToast
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: California - Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:13 PM
 
Originally posted by ZackS:
Both users get hardware, a FIrewire drive in mounted and then managed by Darwin, the FInder just asks darwin to use it, there's no problem there.
Thanks for checking!

If user A is doing an extensive file copy to the drive, can you switch to user B while it's in progress? If so, what message does user B get if he tries to unmount the drive?

Does user B see files appear on the drive as the copy operation takes place?
     
bmedina
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, King
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:13 PM
 
It really is an annoying "feature." It sucks for non-admin users who can't arbitrarily kill processes. Apple definitely needs a better implementation.
     
SomeToast
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: California - Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is that Apple are too frickin' lazy to code it so that it can do so.
That damn Apple laziness.
     
ZackS
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:34 PM
 
HAHAHA!! LAZINESS?! It was for your protection and nothing else. Luckily, I don't give a flying **** about your protection. So here's how to bypass the instance rule.

Right click on iTunes.app and press Show Contents....

Open Info.plist in TextEdit or plist editor.

Edit the boolean key called "LSMultipleInstancesProhibited" to say no (or 0 if you're in text edit.

Then duplicate the application, you other user will have to use an actual separate .app package because of the way iTunes is coded.

One caveat: The second instance of iTunes can only be launched in the second user and it appears to have no menubar, dock icon or anything (keyboard shortcuts work still) but that could be a result of my horsing around with an NSUIElement key. It's really odd, I'd like to hear what happens with everyone else.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:49 PM
 
Off topic: If you really want to listen to two songs at once, play one in iTunes and the other in the Finder! Tres simple!

CV

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 01:59 PM
 
Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is that Apple are too frickin' lazy to code it so that it can do so.
Whatever reasons Apple may have had, laziness was most certainly not one of them.

By default, a user can run as many instances of any app as he wants. It takes effort to make it so that only one instance of an app can run, and if the necessary hacks to make it run more than one instance are real, then Apple appears to have gone to considerable lengths to make it this way.

I don't claim to know why Apple did this. Whatever the reason was, this was a deliberate limitation that Apple coded into the program. It wasn't a case of simple laziness.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:14 PM
 
Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
What if you don't have admin rights?

Come on guys. Get real here!

Are some of you paid to be Apple apologists or what?
There are two situations that I can think of where this would happen. The first being a computer lab or library. In that case you can either ask the lab op to do it for you, or stop complaining because it's not your computer. The second is when you're mommy doesn't trust you with the computer. In that case, ask mommy to do it. I have never had a desire to listen to music on a computer that I didn't own. Why would I? My music isn't on my friend's computer, it's on mine. The only situation I can think of is if you have a CD with you, then I would suggest buying a CD player (yeah, those new fangled PORTABLE music players), which is a lot more convenient anyway.

Am I an Apple apologist? No, just someone who prefers constructive criticism and an honest search for solutions instead of groaning and moaning just for the hell of it.

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
The real reason why iTunes won't run for more than 1 user is that Apple are too frickin' lazy to code it so that it can do so.
Now who's being a 12 year-old? At least K++ posted something informative and useful. What have you done besides complain loudly? How about this, you write a significant OS upgrade in about a year (10.2 was released Sept. of last year), then I'll accuse you of being lazy the very first time I find something I don't like about it. And then when you try to explain why you did it that way I'll plug my ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA!"
     
ZackS
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:20 PM
 
Did I not just post how to run two instances of iTunes in two fast user accounts a few posts up? Why is this still being argued?!
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:41 PM
 
As I see it:

1) Everyone should be able to launch iTunes and listen to their own music.

2) When you switch out, you loose all rights to devices if someone else takes over. (hmmm, potential security problem there)

hmmm... this is actually an interesting problem.
     
ZackS
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 02:51 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
As I see it:

1) Everyone should be able to launch iTunes and listen to their own music.

2) When you switch out, you loose all rights to devices if someone else takes over. (hmmm, potential security problem there)

hmmm... this is actually an interesting problem.
1.) You can.

2.) You don't!

Am I on the global ignore list or something today?! When two users on one machine use the iTunes "hack" I found, both get access to a connected iPod but I wouldn't recommend syncing both at once. If you try to burn two CDs at once with fast user switching, the burner in use can't be used. Both users get use of the CD drive.

(BTW: I resolved the no dock/no menu problem, it was my plist futzing that broke it)
     
kennethmac2000  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:36 PM
 
Originally posted by parsec_kadets:
There are two situations that I can think of where this would happen. The first being a computer lab or library. In that case you can either ask the lab op to do it for you, or stop complaining because it's not your computer. The second is when you're mommy doesn't trust you with the computer. In that case, ask mommy to do it. I have never had a desire to listen to music on a computer that I didn't own. Why would I? My music isn't on my friend's computer, it's on mine. The only situation I can think of is if you have a CD with you, then I would suggest buying a CD player (yeah, those new fangled PORTABLE music players), which is a lot more convenient anyway.
What if you are living in an apartment with some of your student mates? Most people I know in that situation wouldn't necessarily want their mates messing around with their system to the extent that they would make them administrators, but would be quite happy for their mates to just use their computer for web browsing, listening to music, etc.

This is one of the main types of situation I thought fast user switching was aimed at, and it is utterly pathetic if each user has to remember to quit iTunes before they switch out.
     
kerrazyjoe
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:37 PM
 
Wow that is troublesome that iTunes is not usable by a switched user.
When the next user launches iTunes the existing iTunes running should be stopped and a new instance run. I do not want to have to write a script to kill the running itunes before playing. Now I have to retrain family members on launchinig itunes!

It seems like devices and such are on a First Come First Serve basis. First one to it locks it down ( ie iTunes ). There should be some preferences to allow users to UnLock such devices.

If i run iTunes and another user switches into his account does not launch iTunes - when I come back I want it up and running - However when the other user does launch iTunes - I am not disapponted that it is NOT running when I get back. It is preferable however to allow all to run iTunes in their own address space.

I am sure this will be fixed by end of year - they ran into a glitch near the end and just said disable it - Apple is way smarter than that - they prefer the ease of use as well.
"in the middle of the nite"
Joe
     
ZackS
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:43 PM
 
*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.
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:51 PM
 
Originally posted by kerrazyjoe:
Wow that is troublesome that iTunes is not usable by a switched user.
When the next user launches iTunes the existing iTunes running should be stopped and a new instance run. I do not want to have to write a script to kill the running itunes before playing. Now I have to retrain family members on launchinig itunes!

It seems like devices and such are on a First Come First Serve basis. First one to it locks it down ( ie iTunes ). There should be some preferences to allow users to UnLock such devices.

If i run iTunes and another user switches into his account does not launch iTunes - when I come back I want it up and running - However when the other user does launch iTunes - I am not disapponted that it is NOT running when I get back. It is preferable however to allow all to run iTunes in their own address space.
Except that your simple solutions have grave implications. What if the Administrator (or root) is burning a CD? Should Joe User be able to terminate that process? Definitely not!

I am sure this will be fixed by end of year - they ran into a glitch near the end and just said disable it - Apple is way smarter than that - they prefer the ease of use as well.
My sentiments exactly - Apple probably decided that they needed to get the release out and multiple iTunes instances would have to wait. It happens.
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:54 PM
 
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.
SOMEONE LISTEN TO ZACK, PLEASE!!!!

Seriously, good find but I don't like to muck around with system stuff too much (then again, this 'feature' doesn't bother me).
     
Thor
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 03:59 PM
 
The simplest solution to this (aside from the hack posted by ZackS) would be a pref pane called "Log out Items".

I'm pretty sure this would be trivial to do with an AppleScript or shell script.

On log out, quit iTunes.
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 04:00 PM
 
Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
What if you are living in an apartment with some of your student mates? Most people I know in that situation wouldn't necessarily want their mates messing around with their system to the extent that they would make them administrators, but would be quite happy for their mates to just use their computer for web browsing, listening to music, etc.

This is one of the main types of situation I thought fast user switching was aimed at, and it is utterly pathetic if each user has to remember to quit iTunes before they switch out.
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.

I realize that I might not have made myself clear. I agree that there could be a more elegant solution to this problem. Then reason I reacted the way I did is because nobody was even attempting to offer a solution, and when one was presented to you you told me to "get real." I offered you a real work-around; I would call that "getting real." You obviously see these forums differently than I do. I see them as a place to ask questions and get useful responses, not as a place to vent (contrary to what I'm doing right now). There is a place in this world for complaints. I'm even open to complaints here as long as you're open to solutions in return. If you don't expect a solution then don't complain here. Instead complain to Apple via their website. At least then you're complaint might actually be heard by someone who can do something about it.

Honestly, what sort of reply would have made you satisfied? Other than "Panther blows, I want my money back," of course.

Edit: And of course ZackS offered a perfectly good solution too. Probably better than mine.
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 04:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Thor:
The simplest solution to this (aside from the hack posted by ZackS) would be a pref pane called "Log out Items".

I'm pretty sure this would be trivial to do with an AppleScript or shell script.

On log out, quit iTunes.
This isn't a logout issue - which is exactly why it is an issue. This is the equivalent of locking the screen in W2K - just a temporary suspension of your actions to either (1) allow another user to work, or (2) to force authentication to access the computer (If you select Login Window).
     
nredman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Minnesota - Twins Territory
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 04:29 PM
 
if this is pissing you off so bad you should be able to remember to quit itunes before you leave you machine...i can see why this would be annoying but i dont think its the end of the world or merits getting upset about.

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniel's."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2003, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by parsec_kadets:
There are two situations that I can think of where this would happen. The first being a computer lab or library. In that case you can either ask the lab op to do it for you, or stop complaining because it's not your computer. The second is when you're mommy doesn't trust you with the computer. In that case, ask mommy to do it. I have never had a desire to listen to music on a computer that I didn't own. Why would I? My music isn't on my friend's computer, it's on mine. The only situation I can think of is if you have a CD with you, then I would suggest buying a CD player (yeah, those new fangled PORTABLE music players), which is a lot more convenient anyway.
Excuse me, but did you read my post up above, where I described the exact situation in which this WAS an issue, and one that came up within thirty seconds of first logging into the newly-created account?

Sure, there's the workaround of just remembering to quit iTunes.

But that's it.

Because frankly, I can see partners keeping their passwords private. There can be good reasons for this, and not all of them indicate a faulty relationship or lack of trust.

-s*
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,