Slashdot Log In
No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 01, 2007 07:02 AM
from the very-fine-print dept.
from the very-fine-print dept.
Mizled writes "After buying a new iPhone yesterday and bringing it home to sync and activate it, I found out that Windows 64-bit is not supported. Neither XP 64-bit nor Vista 64-bit works with the iPhone. I called the Apple support line and the rep said I needed to downgrade my computer from a 64-bit operating system. I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 762 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 19, @07:48AM)
Look on the bright side, he could have told you needed to upgrade to OSX.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.tjerkstra.org/)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, who'd buy a first-gen iPod without checking to see if it would work with their XP box? Or a Newton without checking to see if it could data transfer with Windows 3.1?
No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
It's reasonable to assume that- unless otherwise stated- the requirements in Apple's list would be both necessary and sufficient. It's not like it says "see this obscure Apple doc for more details". Apple probably kept that on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'...
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://ungeni.us/)
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
The default search option only hits "Manuals" and ignores technical documents, leading any casual search to _appear_ empty. Changing it to search _everything_ rendered that link. Notice footnote (1) in the Windows section...
Re:It will be supported (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unless you want to unload a DLL. (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh no... The only part of Carbon that wasn't ported to 64bit are the GUI layers of HIToolbox.
http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon [carbondev.com]
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.louishochman.com/)
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.louishochman.com/)
Actually, it's not clear that I did. But I did. I'm clear on that.
Requirements omit to mention Windows 3.1 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 09, @10:43PM)
What a shocker.
The official name of the 64 bit product is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition [microsoft.com].
That name is not listed on the iPhone page, don't expect it to be supported.
Re:Technical technicalities, techincally (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
MS's naming/marketing clearly implies that it *is* being sold as such (regardless of the actual underpinnings), so it's disingenuous to suggest that Apple didn't imply compatibility when they listed "Windows XP Professional" without qualifying that in any way.
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Business 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
This is not a raw deal. Until Apple offers to support its products on 64-bit editions of Windows, no such contract as you describe exists.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Building software for 64-bit windows would usually be a matter of a few compiler switches and using the proper types and macros. Or just building a 32-bit app that runs properly in 64-bit. Apple might have some crazy in-house cross-platform environment or a lack of QA resources which prevents doing either but that isn't much of an excuse.
They could be doing it for political reasons of course which isn't forgiveable either.
Considering Apple's reputation for software which "just works", their recent offerings on Windows seem to be doing anything but.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/)
No its not.
64 Bit Vista uses the new driver model. It requires code to be done right. The botchwork that programmers could get away with for 32 bit Windows no longer works.
And 64 Bit Vista drivers have to be signed. Which is something that vendors should do for all versions of Windows, its only been a recommendation for like 5 years.
That said, I beleive that to get the 'designed for Vista' logo you have to support 64 bit.
Taking the comment off the bulleting board is doubleplus lame. Makes it look like Apple can't deal with non cult members as customers.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday March 26 2007, @07:57AM)
You're suggesting people should RTFM for products they haven't even bought yet? BWAAHAHAHAHAhahaha.. heh... hooooo... oh, you're serious, aren't you?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is more mainstream than 64-bit Windows. iTunes doesn't support Linux either. But if you complain about that on the Apple forums, no one will listen to you. Why should it be different with 64-bit Windows?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's correct... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://mike-depression.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 07, @01:07PM)
1. 64-bit editions of Windows are not supported
Not sure if Apple added this after the fact or whether this little tidbit of information was there all along...
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://whineymacfanboy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 12 2007, @09:28AM)
Re:The Zune doesn't work on 64 bit windows, either (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Zune doesn't work on 64 bit windows, either (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Locking down (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 04, @07:40AM)
This surprises me just a little. How hard could it be to port iTunes to Vista x64?
The list of reasons I didn't and won't buy an iPhone anytime soon keep growing. No, not this one specifically as I'm not running Vista x64, but the overall arrogance Apple shows routinely plays a part.
Re:Locking down (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Locking down (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't owe each individual person their dream product -- specifically tailored to your personal individual desires and biases. No one owes you that. And it's not "arrogance" when folks don't focus on what you want.
If you don't like their products, you're probably outside their target market.
virtualize man! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.footballfans.tv/)
or install your legal 32bit copy of windows in vmware
or google for running osx in vmware [imageshack.us] like im doing
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 04, @07:40AM)
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 15 2004, @07:07PM)
Kind of like how I had to install XP inside a Parallels VM to use my Nokia smartphone on my Mac?
Mac users have to live with that kind of crap all the time, and we hear it's because Mac OS is not mainstream enough. Well guess what, 64 bit Windows is not mainstream either.
Re:virtualize man! (Score:5, Funny)
It's not just a phone, it's the iPhone. Apple fans queued overnight to get one. Some dude sold his corneas on eBay just to get the $500. He can't see for shit anymore unless he holds it a few inches from his face, but he's got his iPhone and he growls at people like a dog when they try to take it away.
You've got to be more careful. Apple fans monitor these forums. What you posted may get you bitten by some blind fanatic.
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://mrp.freeshell.org/)
Re:virtualize man! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://google.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 12 2001, @10:41PM)
Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ragingmime.com/)
Apple's hardware is generally very well-designed, and their software is solid on Macs, but they can't seem to write a decent Windows program to save their lives. For example: why does iTunes run the iPod service even when iTunes isn't running and even though I've never used an iPod? Why does Quicktime automatically have your browser open MP3s in Quicktime instead of downloading them (and not give you the option of turning this "feature" off?) Why do Apple programs "break" the usual look and feel of Windows programs? Honestly, this isn't rocket science here. How hard would it have been to recompile the iPhone software for a 64-bit machine?
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:4, Insightful)
If they made their dfrivers right that should not be hard, But we are talking about apple here...
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you did it the right way at the beginning. MSDN has contained information on this one for quite a time. I remember that back in 2000, when I was writing network driver for Windows 2000, I thought "What are these stupid macros, why I can't just write unsigned int instead of that ugly looking DWORD." Luckily my code wasn't compiled to any 64 bit Windows since I think I unintentionally left couple of mines there :)
But device drivers are just a small part of "iPhone software" what ever that is. I can envision that GUI and data transfer parts are much bigger things. User-space components are much easier to write to be 32/64-bit compatible unless you really don't know what you are doing.
I don't know why Apple can't produce quality stuff for Windows (and many other companies). Or maybe they are and this is just a marketing decision "See? It doesn't run nicely on Windows because Windows sucks. Luckily we have nice OS X here for you..."
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Some or the other (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://freeengineer.org)
Huh?
You would think that with the supposed capabilities, you would it could be your computer.
not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Join the club (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.alioth.net/ | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @03:53PM)
I like Apple hardware but I won't be buying the iPhone. Too expensive, too locked down. FIC are apparently releasing an open phone (the OpenMoko project), if I upgrade any time soon it'll be to the FIC product.
Apple Forums (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.animal-assist.org/donate.html)
Cheer up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Software and Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.geocities.com/gwidion23)
this is waht we from the Free world use to claim: closed source slows down inovation and locks you out.
In a few weeks there will be some reverse engeneered software to synch IPhone with GNU/Linux.
Yes, if I want to use it on the day it is out, I will have to compile it (which likely ammounts to typing three or four commands on my console), and quite possibly it still be a command line tool but in a few more days, it will be improved to integrate nicely with other tools I already use, under the same interface, without changes. Open specifications anyone??
And...it will work with 32 or 64bit gnu/Linux, and possibly even with other Unix variants.
But people prefer to be trapped to a monoculture of badly writen code than "pioneering" very nice software.
I should remember that the fact that now we have to wait for having iPhone or other vendors official support is mainly due to not having a "meaningfull slice of desktop share" of desktops in use. And even then...if they invent things like "no 64 bit support" - we can run our own.
64 Bit Support is new to everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Hell, not all of micrsoft apps dont even support it yet, and its THEIR OS.
By the time this matters to their target market, it will have been taken care of.
PEBKAC (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.encyclope...i_herd_u_liek_mudkip)
I don't see how you can make that mistake.
Re:Apple is missing a HUGE opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone willing to pay $500+ for a phone will not be satisfied with an entry-level iMac device.
His own fault. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://dullbrosracing.com/)
Windows 64 bit is not listed as supported.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html [apple.com]
How is this guys problem anything but his own fault?
Now you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you know what it's like to be a Mac or a Linux user.
Ha ha ha (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who goes out of their way to get the 64-bit implementation of any Windows (in the first place), and THEN spends said fortune on a shiny iToy WITHOUT FIRST confirming support under their 64-bit Windows OS, is a chump.
Perhaps using Macs has gotten me used to checking system requirements religiously when making software and peripheral hardware purchases. However, even when I have owned/used Windows systems, I always checked to make sure those systems were supported before shelling out a fistfull of cash.
So, cry me a river. 'nuf said.
Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (Score:5, Informative)
There are plenty of reasons to install a 64-bit OS, even if you don't have >4GB of RAM. One would simply be to support larger amounts of memory in the future. If you've just got a new computer, why not be prepared? Seems rather silly to install an OS that you know you can hit a limit on and have to reinstall later.
Another would be that 4GB isn't the real 32-bit limit. There are two limits you hit first. One is the 2GB per process limit. In Windows, virtual address space is divided right down the centre, with 2GB of kernel, 2GB for user (64-bit Windows does the same just with larger limits). This means that no single process can access more than 2GB of memory, since that is all the virtual address space it is given. So having more memory is fine for multiple programs, but if you have a single program that wants more it doesn't do you any good. Another is the 3.somthing GB limit from PCI devices. PCI devices grab memory ranges to use for getting data to and from them. Not a problem when your memory isn't near the limit of the address space, but when you get above 3GB, you run in to it. At work we have a DVR system with 4GB of memory but only 3.4GB is actually addressable, the rest of the address space is eaten up by the PCI devices.
So really if you have more than 2GB of memory, and especially if you have more than 3GB, a 64-bit OS is the way to go.
However there are other reasons too. In 64-bit mode, the processor has some features it doesn't in 32-bit mode. The most notable are extra registers and 64-bit integers. The extra registers are useful for optimising certain complex, but tight calculation loops (like encryption and such). 64-bit integers are useful any time you have a counter that needs to go past 4.some billion. In 32-bit mode, those numbers must be split in to 32-bit parts with a math library and that is rather slow. In 64-bit mode, they can be operated on natively.
What it really comes down to is that 64-bit is the future. We are rapidly approaching 4GB in normal systems, and the need to move over is well recognised. Even Apple is releasing their OS as 64-bit soon.
Perhaps in the future you'll take a bit more time to educate yourself before posting.
Re:32bit windows runs 16bit apps (Score:3, Informative)
P.S. In my experience, it is almost never worth it in terms of performance vs. sotware availability to run a 64-bit desktop. People do it to look macho, then get incensed when all their favorite consumer-grade software won't work.
Cheers,
Troll Feeding Time ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Customer service, security, and quality are at best an afterthought at Apple."
Curious, Business Week [businessweek.com] would seem to differ, at least on the customer service ranking.
I'm just wondering, how many iPods do they need to sell before it's "more than a happy accident"?
SteveM