No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows 762
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."
Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Look on the bright side, he could have told you needed to upgrade to OSX.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
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://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:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Pedantic if not downright false (Score:3, Insightful)
The official name of the 64 bit product is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. That name is not listed on the iPhone page, don't expect it to be supported.
At my most charitable I'd consider that downright pedantic, though more likely it's simply false. Are you honestly claiming that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" isn't being sold as a particular version of "Windows XP Professsional"?
You can argue the toss about the actual code base, but if it's being sold as XP Professsional, that's all that is relevant. I guess you'd use the same argument against any product being sold as "Windows XP comptatible" that didn't work with 32-bit Home or Pro because, he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
x64 isn't like the difference between Home, Pro, and MCE. Or between Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc.
x64 isn't a feature set its an architecture.
Suppose I released a Microsoft Office plug in, and just listed 'any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 or later' as the requirement. Would you really expect it to work with "Microsoft Office 2004: Mac" without a specific me
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
x64 isn't like the difference between Home, Pro, and MCE. Or between Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc. x64 isn't a feature set its an architecture.
That as may be- and I acknowledged this, whilst making clear that this wasn't my point. It's sold as "Windows XP Professional x64 edition". That strongly implies that it's a subset/variant of "Windows XP Professional", which *is* listed.
Suppose I released a Microsoft Office plug in, and just listed 'any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 or later' as the requirement. Would you really expect it to work with "Microsoft Office 2004: Mac" without a specific mention of the Mac platform? Of course not.
I probably wouldn't, but I think a lot of people would, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iPhone requirements [apple.com] as of today:
Windows system requirements
* PC with USB 2.0 port
* Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later
* iTunes 7.3 or later
It does not specify 32bit. There is no indication Vista Ultimate needs to Vista Ultimate 32bit.
MS is really pushing 64bit. You can't get a 32bit driver WHQL certified anymore unless there is a 64bit version. This is so people don't need to worry abou
Re:Technical technicalities, techincally (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot's web server has a portable Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field Generator, I tell you.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just go to their website and you will see that when 64-bit is not specified, the version of Windows being discussed is a 32-bit one.
No, you provide a link to that page, thank you.
And as I've said at least 4 times now, the name "Windows XP Professional 64-bit edition" (or whatever) implies that it's being sold as a version of "Windows XP Professional". Regardless of some convoluted argument based on something squirelled away on MS's website.
The fact that Apple acknowledge the 64-bit incompatibility elsewhere (why bother if it was as cut-and-dried as you imply?) shows that even they acknowledge the potential for confusion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It will be supported (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
'The fundamental data types of the Intel architecture are bytes, words, doublewords and quadwords (see Figure 5.1). A byte is eight bits, a word is 2 bytes (16 bits), a doubleworld is 4 bytes (32 bits) and a quadword is 8 bytes (64 bits)'
That itself is pretty hard to argue against, but then when you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
mov word ax, 0xFFFF
and in the at&t syntax I needed to put a $ in front of the immediate value
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: (Score:3, Informative)
[Although the new Obj-C garbage collection mechanisms could throw a wrench into the works...]
There are some restrictions, most of them obvious (don't unload a class that is a superclass of instanciated objects,
or that is attached to a Key-Value Binding, etc.)
From the Release Notes:
Mac OS X Tiger Release Notes
Objective-C Runtime
Unloading bundle libraries
Bundle libraries containing Objective-C cod
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it does on OS X.
It is kind of like getting angry that your Zune didn't work on a 64-bit version of Linux.
The fact of the matter is that Apple makes good hardware and a good solid OS, but they really suck at making software run on things that isn't theirs. (I'm looking at you Quicktime!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware,"
Nice opinion -- although based on my own experiences, my Macs have much longer life than my PCs.
And anyone who bases their OS on BSD will have something solid (even though OS X still has more unpatched vulnerabilities than *BSD).
I love how you absolutely refuse to give any credit for Apple's efforts and as a bonus claim they're just riddled with security holes beyond anything *BSD has - all without real evidence.
ut their competitors should have acce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Relatively speaking, how many users do you think really are using Windows 64 vs. Windows 32? Maybe
Windows 64-bit is not mainstream AT all. And Microsoft has insured it never will be -- at least until such time as they follow Apple's lead and create a Vista 32-bit/64-bit combo that allows 32-bit apps to run alongside 64
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's correct... (Score:3, Interesting)
So blame Microsoft, not Apple. Even Microsoft's own Zune didn't run on XP64 when it was released.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also annoying when you find out that a game has licensed a copy protection system that doesn't work on 64-bit Windows, and so stops you playing. In some cases without any message or anything, leaving you guessing about the problem. The last game that I got that did this also had a no-dvd crack out before release, so it seems to me that the companies should give up on copy prot
Re:That's correct... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding was that 64 bit Vista was going to be somewhat more finiky about doing the right thing.
Apple is just lazy. It's also a good thing they don't want to put so much as a "Works with Windows Vista" logo on any of their software since they would fail the certification process (must work with x64 Vista editions).
Well yes, and it is all the more irritating that they don't build products to Windows look and feel when the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why does the iPhone software need a driver? Why don't they make it an application? Just about any standard Win32 app will work on Win64. Why do drivers need to be involved? Mozilla doesn't need a driver, why should iPhone?
A driver is a program that allows you (i.e. the OS) to interface with a piece of hardware. Driver is short for "device driver". The iPhone is a hardware device, so it needs a device driver to allow the OS and software to control it. The question about Mozilla doesn't make any sense: Mozilla is not a hardware device, it's a web browser (your network card or modem do need device drivers).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, they don't matter.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you see any mention of iPhone working with 64 bit Windows? Me either.
Um... So? You seem to be under the impression that the 32 and 64-bit editions of Windows are marketed as different products, sold seperately, and generally kept distinct. While this was true with XP, it is no longer true with Vista: -- if you buy a retail copy of Vista, both the 32-bit and 64-bit editions are included [amazon.com] (OEM copies are still sold seperately, for obvious reasons). Whether your installation is 32 or 64-bit is just another decision to make whilst installing Windows. If I bought a copy of
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Zune doesn't work on 64 bit windows, either. (Score:3, Funny)
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)
It's not my Zune! It's a false one! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Locking down (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Missing the Point (Score:3, Informative)
First, nearly all big-time software vendors wait quite a while before moving their products to the next flavor of OS. They don't allow engineering to get started unless the PHB's see compelling adoption of that platform. XP 64-bit is in a very awkward place in this regard. Microsoft has all their eggs in Vista.
Second, it's a heck of a lot more work in the average big company dev environment.
Third, it's really important to re
virtualize man! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't know the multi touch interface had a Braille component. Cool.
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:virtualize man! (Score:5, Informative)
Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
To be honest this isn't just a problem with Apple software on Windows. Under XP the wireless service is enabled by default, even on machines which have never seen any wireless hardware...
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but for that matter, one could say the same things over time about Microsoft programs on the Mac OS. Word 6.0 on the Mac was a disaster because Microsoft tried to use the same codebase as the Windows version. It goes both ways. If iTunes on Windows were as good as iTunes on the Mac, a lot of complaints about it would go away.
With respect to Safari, I think one reason could be the development angle. Apple wants Safari to
Some or the other (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh?
You would think that with the supposed capabilities, you would it could be your computer.
YES, Sim Is Accessible (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.powerbookmedic.com/iphone/simcard.html [powerbookmedic.com]
an interesting thing i saw posts say that once the iPhone is activated (through iTunes), you can pop out the sim card and all the non-AT&T based stuff still works. the web browsing, email etc will revert to WiFi.
that makes me think that maybe the computer is only needed for activation, syncing songs and future software updates. if that's true you could probably find somebody else's co
not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Join the club (Score:5, Informative)
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.
OpenMoko Neo1973 (Score:3, Interesting)
"Too expensive, too locked down." Well, one for two ain't bad. From the OpenMoto [openmoko.org] site (for the mass market version):
"We will sell this device through multiple channels. Direct from openmoko.com, the price will be $450 for the Neo Base and $600 for Neo Advanced."
Not much of a price advantage, although discounts and subsequent costs are unknown.
I agree with you about the lack of third party access, although access to the source code while nice is not of great importance to me. YNMV.
"... if I upgrade
No, Joke AC. Neo1973 out next month. (Score:3, Informative)
Boo-yah, baby. $200 cheaper than an iPhone. [wikipedia.org]
I like it like that.
Apple Forums (Score:5, Informative)
Insane relatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheer up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Software and Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
I don't see how you can make that mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His own fault. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Suprised about what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
may possibly have service. I cannot imagine that even just to service rally week customers it would not be profitable to put up some towers. It is a wide open space but next month it will get pretty crowded when 2 m
you're wrong (Score:2, Informative)
A 64 bit CPU is able to move 64 bits at a time where as a 32 bit CPU only moves, you guessed it, 32 bits.
Besides that most of the registers are 64 bits as well.
If you - for example - want to multiply two integers larger than 32 bit you can do that in one
operation on a 64 bit CPU (since EAX is 64 bit), on a 32 bit CPU you will have to split the operation
in two parts. (because the numbers won't fit in the registers).
debunking you in way to many
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.
PAE works extremely poorly (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why anyone wants to hate on 64-bit. Processors are 64-bit now, that's just
Re: (Score:2)
Why people think 64-bit OSes is only for more than 4GB of memory is beyond me. That being said I've had several computers with more than 4GB of addressable memory (e.g. 1GB PCI hole + 4GB of memory, and another with 6GB of ram). If you do a lot of compiling or host multiple users it's easy to burn through a couple GB of ram.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Signed,
Apple
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
P.S. In my experien
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
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's no surprise that I've heard dif