Slashdot Mirror
No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows
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."
the rep said I needed to downgrade my computer
Look on the bright side, he could have told you needed to upgrade to OSX.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Okay, hands up who is surprised. ?
Apple has been so intent on totally locking the iPhone that you *have* to use iTunes just to use the damn thing. They through the anti-DRM a small bone with DRM free iTunes, but in almost every other area they show an almost manic desire to maintain total control over their hardware and software.
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.
Well, thats odd - Mac OS is 64bit, or is it? And anyway, syncing what is basically an external hard drive? That can't be too hard...
install xp in a virtual machine! virtual pc + windows xp FREE from microsoft!
or install your legal 32bit copy of windows in vmware
or google for running osx in vmware like im doing
...on this page.
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?
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Suprised that it does not work on X64? Or suprised that the kool-aid drinking employees would delete anything that didn't say that the iPhone was not almost God like?
Fight Spammers!
People are waiting in line to buy our product and you are complaining about not working in 64 bit OS. Man, this was not released to people like you. The buyers we thought would shell out this kind of money to buy our product will only be running 32 bit OS. You sir, should get a life. Thanks Apple Customer support.
I am required to have a computer to use the phone?
Huh?
You would think that with the supposed capabilities, you would it could be your computer.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
A lot of apps still aren't supporting 64 bit. Might have been a good idea to ask. That would have been my first question. I have both Macs and PCs so I don't forsee a problem when I make the plunge. Personally I'm waiting for the dust to settle. There seems to be a few issues that are going to be resolved with software upgrades and the service provider wasn't ready for the onslaught so I can wait a few weeks to make the switch.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/2 9/news/top/doc46846ee87d9c5298277741.txt
I just wonder for all the home PC's 64 bit platform do you have more then 4 GIG ram inside ?
If not why did you install a 64 bit OS ?
To me it makes no sense to be capeable of adressing lots of memory in a 64 bit architecture, while not having this amount of memory (then i gues it's rather more overhead then a performance gain)...
So probaply they where right.
Oops debunking a 64 bit platform in just 5 lines of text
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Join the club, I bet the iPhone doesn't support Linux at all either.
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.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
All-New OS-X Leopard! The World's First 64-bit iPhone-Compatible Operating System!
Is there anything that DOES?
Virtual memory.
64 vs 32 bit is not just about being able to address more memory.
;)
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 lines
I'm thinking (hoping) that they mean just to put songs in iTunes or whatever. I would -assume- that you could use the phone capabilities with just the cell service provider. But who buys an iPhone just to be a phone?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Well, where there any smarter-than-the-ISO-standard developers who wrote the code that just knew that "size_t" was an "unsigned int"?
If you get just one of those morons, making 32-bit code 64-bit compliant can be a time-consuming pain in the ass.
At least if you downgrade you can run Google Desktop, and a whole host of other programs and utilities that don't properly support XP 64bit.
My UID is prime!
If you must play Quicktime Files, don't install Apple Quicktime! Try Quicktime Alternative instead.
e rnative.htm
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alt
If it is all a user-mode app, as in no kernel drivers or anything, should be no porting necessary. 64-bit Windows has a 32-bit emulation layer that works real well. Thus programs needn't be ported at all, they run as is. However that works only for user code, there can be nothing but 64-bit code in the kernel. This is still no big deal, supposing it was written right. I should almost just be as simple as a recompile. However if it is written poorly, well then it could be a major rewrite. I've come across more than one app that has done stupid things like assume that pointers will always be 4 bytes and thus won't compile for a 64-bit target.
Given the over all poor quality of iTunes and Quicktime on the PC, I'm guessing they are probably NOT very well written and thus a 64-bit port is a more major problem.
I personally find it rather amazing that they'd mandate iTunes to use the phone. I mean I have a PDAphone that runs Windows Mobile and while you can install a program to sync it to Windows, you need never do that. The phone is happy to work even if you don't own a computer at all. Seems like an extremely unnecessary move to mandate the use of iTunes for thier phone.
Nope.
You have to have iTunes to activate the phone. Apparently it's "simpler" to include the sim card in the phone (not user accessable), require you to install a new version of iTunes on your computer, _and_ give it your credit card for the new $60+ service plan (or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.).
If you don't, the phone is unusable. Personally, I suspect they do it that way to ensure that you have iTunes installed, making it more likely you are going to buy songs.
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'...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Why the hell a 64bit OS don't runs 32bit apps?
Meanwhile, my Motorola V3 RAZR syncs just fine with Bluetooth, and cost me £100 over a year ago. ...yeah.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
there's way to many feature lock downs from not letting you use your MP3 files as ring tones so you'd have to buy ring tones from your cell provider (thus also needing to pay for the data access plans), to the stupid Itunes music phones which won't show up as a removable storage device when you plug into your USB and require you to use Itunes to transfer music files to the phone. Bluetooth mostly only lets you use a headset but not share or transfer photos to another phone or your computer (requiring the data plan to get your photos off the phone)
buy an unlocked phone and have the freedom to use your hardware. I got a Motorola A780 from celluloco.com and nothing is locked down like the Iphone or the other offerings from various providers. It cost more initially but 2 years later there still isn't a phone available that does those things that I'm aware of from a cell provider (wish it had WiFi though)
F Apple, F Microsloth, long live Linux, down with the greedy evil cell companies. Sooner or later, someone will bring unlocked service to the masses and only then will they have to adapt to the demands of a liberated consumer.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
My Zune works fine on 64 bit Vista.
"Are you on some kind of medication?"
"No"
"Well, you should be."
--Bean
With the possible exception of Oracle, Apple is the most arrogant organization in the high-tech business. Customer service, security, and quality are at best an afterthought at Apple. Marketability is the only real concern, that and lock-in. Like Ronald Reagan, Apple's long list of misdeeds and affronts to their customers slide off as if Steve Jobs is made of teflon. It is a mistake to expect value or serviceability from an Apple product; occasionally an Apple product may exhibit such qualities, but it is nothing more than a happy accident.
So,
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.
-><- no
Of course I, posting like this, explaining to you how it works, will deserve an Offtopic mod, or maybe even a Flamebait. Too bad. But unlike you, I'll take it like a man.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but it is often the stupidest people who have and make the big bucks.
Linux
Just to clarify, the SIM is user accessible.... but only accepts AT&T versions...
...that the percentage of 64-bit Windows desktop installations is less than desktop Linux installations.
...and they are telling us that they are the driving force in development ? HA!
Realize it: you are just another casuality of the 32 bit wintel monopoly...
just say hello to mr. Who-need-64-bit (Intel) and mr. We-only-support-intel (Microsoft).
I presume You've got a lot of native 64-bit applications on that machine.
--
I once visited the iTunes forums. The majority of posts were windows users being driven insane by iTunes adding a shortcut to itself on their start menu, quicklaunch and desktop every time *any* user ran it.
You can count the number of apps that currently support 64 bit windows on one hand.. ( ok, not quite that bad, but close ).
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Very intersting... i made the logical assumption that it would be supported under 64bit, even more interesting to know microsoft don't even support the zune under their own 64bit os's..
altho someone saying "apple will support linux 64 bit before windows"... well, when did apple do anything linux related again?
Im not an apple user so my comments are possibly quite inaccurate but I do find it quite odd that apple seem more intent on supporting and getting support for microsoft products in their platforms that OSS. At least, thats my perception
Getting one proprietary product to play well with others can be a challenge. You want to proprietary products from two different vendors to play well together. I'm afraid you are not in for an easy task. Your problem is exactly the reason why people are talking so much about openness.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Apple can afford to have lousy customer support because the products are great. But nobody could soberly be considered more arrogant than Microsoft, which has overcharged for cruddy software and cheated in the marketplace for decades.
If Apple is like Ronald Reagan, Microsoft is more like the Soviet Union.
I for one say "Who cares!?". This isn't Apple customer service! Stop complaining this is a Beta Phone!
This is slashdot, not the whining and spoiling center where you complain about everything!...
oh wait.
Typical Slashdot user... without an iPhone
Not just because it's Apple software, and Apple fanbois claim that Apple stuff Just Runs(tm).
It's x86 code, 32bit, that uses all whopping eight registers of the IA32 CPU architecture.
AMD64 is nothing but a superset of x86. It has more registers (but the old ones are available), it has new opcodes (but will happily execute any old ones you throw at it). How does any 32bit software NOT run on a 64bit operating system?
Hell, Panther (Mac OS) was said not just to allow 32bit apps, but to not fully support 64bit apps (as the GUI libs didn't yet run 100% fine when thrown into a 64bit context). Now we get the news that Windows doesn't only support 64bit, but when it does, it won't run 32bit apps? What's that madness all about? Is the Intel architecture, unlike the PPC, constrained that it can only ever run in one mode? That all processes on a 64bit OS have to be 64bit as well? Doesn't make any sense to me, frankly, *especially* given the superset-ness of the 64bit command set and registers.
CAPTCHA: endemic. Well, maybe to Apple's attitude. Make it look like 64bit Intels can't run that stuff. Just like an AMD can only support five Skype connections.
Um...so your phone can get you directions to that business meeting you've got in an hour? Oh wait, business, right you probably don't have any of that either. I'm not going to buy an iPhone anytime soon either, but I can't live and work without my blackberry. (or SOMETHING) These days, if your in the information business, a $40 cell phone isn't going to cut it sir. Welcome to 1998...
You'll have that sometimes...
I use 64-bit Windows XP on my computer. All of my software works. All of my hardware works, including things like a bluetooth mouse, a firewire DVD burner, and a fancy GeForce video card. Long ago there were many problems, but those days are gone. The only current programs I can think of that I have problems with are the installers for the Oblivion downloadable content, which is very stupid because if you extract the files from the installers via other means, they work fine. I've played many other games that worked just fine, too.
Do you have any actual evidence that the number of apps that support 64-bit Windows is "close" to being countable on one hand, or are you just spreading rumors?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
I think Apple like to frustrate Windows users on purpose. There's no reason why 64-bit wouldn't simply be a re-compile?
Steve Jobs is the devil! Apple is a monopoly! It's a threat to democracy! Beware!
Aside from VPC not supporting USB, another problem is that XP image FREE from Microsoft expires in 1.5 months. From the blog you linked to: "Just a reminder that both images expire on August 17th, 2007. PEte LePage, Product Manager".
I would rather use VMWare's free VMWare Player assuming I have a legal copy of XP. The latest version of the Player has no problems running on Vista either as a host, or guest. It also supports USB 2.0 for the guest VMs.
This surprises me just a little. How hard could it be to port iTunes to Vista x64?
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 remember there is even more kernel-level DRM in vista64 such that it's easy for me to imagine the USB hacking changing more code than just some usb bits.
Finally, why are you surprised that another corporations intent is to create vertical silos that don't interoperate?
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I'm not being funny, honestly, but why (as a Windows user) are you so shocked? This is the kind of thing that Microsoft have being doing to all non-Microsoft users for years already. The difference is, I'm willing to bet that it's only a case of waiting for Mac to finally port iTunes or whatever it needs to Win64 (as apposed to waiting for the moon to turn blue for Microsoft to port Office / PocketPC Sync / Windows MP / whatever to Linux for example). If you buy a device such as an iPhone, which much alike the iPod is very clearly an Apple device which is stated to require Apple software, are you so suprised that it's not working for you on Windows? I personally steer as far from all closed source stuff as I can. I use Windows when I practically need to use Windows and I'd absolutely love to own a MacBook for the benefits they bring (stability, size, weight, battery life, usability etc). However I don't kick up a fuss when something doesn't work on Linux because it's Windows only, because /that's life/. People are so quick to accept Microsoft's marketing on their own stuff, but "oo dear", when Apple's new toy doesn't work on it everyone goes awol.
If I were you, I'd be asking myself why I'm using an Apple device on Microsoft's platform. If it's because I need both, I'd not be complaining that I have to buy a Mac to use the Apple hardware (when infact you don't, all you need is 32bit Windows).
I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
Someone should port Wine to run on Windows. That should solve everything! ;-)
You can't download music or video to it without iTunes and a computer... kinf of makes sense why they'd require it. If you don't plan on watching video or listening to music on it, perhaps you should reconsider spending $500+ on a phone whose main reason for being is just that...
Don't downgrade. Just put on all the OSes needed.
Last time I installed Windows on a 64-bit PC, I hedged. I made it a triple boot with a 64-bit edition of Windows, a 32-bit edition of Windows just in case, and a 64-bit edition of Ubuntu Linux. So far, that's been righteous-- I have not run across any silly limitations that would force me to add a 32-bit Linux, while I have run across several Windows things that are 32-bit only. The biggest 32-bit only problem was a driver for an old Canon laser printer. (No Linux driver either.) Canon even says on their website they aren't going to put out a 64-bit driver-- too old a printer, not worth their time. Yet somehow Canon did find time to make a new driver for that printer for 32-bit Windows Vista, hmmm. And, yes, Apple's software was another one that wouldn't work in 64-bit Windows.
What I didn't know was that Windows Server could be inferior. AVG Free and another antivirus product (don't recall the name offhand) refuse to work on any "Server" version of Windows because according to them, home users don't use Windows Server, only rich businesses run that. Until that, I had no reason to think Server was "inferior". Oh well, dumped AVG Free and used ClamWin. Yet another reason Linux is better-- no purely artificial divisions or natural divisions made bigger through artificial means. Though there is Linux software that comes binary only ands runs only on specific versions of specific distros.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
"Too expensive, too locked down." Well, one for two ain't bad. From the OpenMoto 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 $600 for Neo Advanced."
Not much of a price advantage, although discounts and subsequent costs are unknown.
I agree with you about the lack of third party access, although access to the source code while nice is not of great importance to me. YNMV.
"... if I upgrade any time soon it'll be to the FIC product."
Anyone interested in this phone should review the FAQ. The current time table is for the mass market phone to ship in October.
An interesting project. I hope they pull it off.
SteveM
My Zune works fine on 64 bit Vista.
Kneht is obviously using some M$ definition of "works". The rest of us don't see it that way.
The new M$ party line is that Vista is "perfect" and anyone complaining is a malicious liar. Looks like a temper tantrum to me. M$ is dying.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Vista is a downgrade from XP.
~Candera
The iPhone doesn't support any of these 64-bit OSes either:
AIX
Solaris
HP-UX
Irix
Digital UNIX
OSF/1
Tru64
Linux64
MVS
Windows Srv 2003 64-bit
So why should it support Windows 64?
The iPhone requires iTunes to work. Does iTunes support 64bit Vista or XP?
I don't see how you can make that mistake.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
This is not about incompatibility, it is just a simple excuse to tell you: You are not worthy.
Jobs' creation isn't just for everyone.
(note you might find that the poster is not allowed to drink from the holly grail either).
You BOUGHT a Zune! Bwa ha ha ha
How hard could it be to port iTunes to Vista x64?
It could be impossible, ask the anti-virus makers that one. DRM is impossible snake oil but M$ is going to use it to M$ advantage with Vista.
This is nothing really new, M$ screws competitors on their program then blames the competitor. Google and anti-virus makers are feeling the pain now. Previous victims include Netscape, Word Perfect, Lotus, Notes, DRDOS and so on and so forth. In each case, technical sabotage is followed by smear. Adobe is next and then who's left? Windoze is like barren.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You should know better than to question the wisdom of Apple......
"Customer service, security, and quality are at best an afterthought at Apple."
Curious, Business Week 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
You don't. Just have it activated at an AT&T store like all the other phones they sell.
But you obviously will need a computer if you want to sync with it. But if you don't have one then there isn't anything to sync with, but you still have a phone, browser, email, but no iPod.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed.
Chinese tactics at Apple.
Just to clarify, the SIM is user accessible.... but only accepts AT&T versions...
Where?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
(or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.) Nope the base unlimited data plan for the iPhone is $20/mo.
A lot of apps still aren't supporting 64 bit.
All the trolls are blaming Apple for this one. Where is that famous Windoze backward capability when a competitor needs it? M$ should have a way of supporting legacy 32 bit software. Instead, 3rd parties have stepped up to the plate with virutlization and emulation. Shame on the M$ treadmill.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
the customer shouldn't have to worry about compatibility. When they buy a product called "Windows XP," it should provide compatibility with all programs written for "Windows XP." Microsoft claims that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition gives you access to greater amounts of memory while continuing to support 32-bit applications." and "seamlessly run 32-bit...applications." (emphasis added)
So blame Microsoft, not Apple. Even Microsoft's own Zune didn't run on XP64 when it was released.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
To start with, there are very few 64bit users out there. Does anyone have statistics on how many have taken the plunge?
The reason only few users have switched is that there are plenty of incompatibilities with existing software. Microsoft themselves say "The 64-bit editions of Windows Vista are not for everyone, and require a system with a 64-bit processor and 64-bit system drivers. Please confirm that your system, applications, and devices are compatible with a 64-bit edition of Windows Vista before installing."
In other words, if you run 64-bit Windows, you already have a problem. You should not just assume that all previous software works with 64-bit. You should make sure that there is an explicit specification: "Hey! We promise that we work in 64-bit." If not, it is unlikely that it does.
Besides someone who runs 64bit Vista also necessarily has the software to run 32 bit, unless I am mistaken. If you are unlucky enough to have bought an iPhone and only have one computer and that one runs 64 bit, you already have the software to downgrade it to 32 bit for activation.
Is it inconvenient? Yes. Is it surprising that there is an incompatibility? No.
Regarding your deleted post, I am sure it was not because you revealed the truth to mankind. There are dozens of posts in the discussion forum about people with 64 bit problems. Not many out of 6000 posts and many thousands sold units, but some, probably reflecting the number of users in this situation. Posts are deleted when they do not follow the terms of use. They should be constructive, polite, and they should not discuss Apple policies. Further they should not include ads and so on and so on. I do not know what rule you broke against in your post, but it was hardly that you mentioned a technical problem.
Apple already has this "gotta have it" insanity built in to whatever they release. The decision to support Windows at all is a mistake in my opinion... at some point they need to ween people off of the idea and I think the iPhone would have been the perfect item with which to do that.
Release the iPhone and just before that time, release a *VERY* inexpensive iMac...perhaps one just barely good enough to support the iPhone and make sure the cheap iMac integrates easily with PCs through some convenient means like, say, a USB datalink cable or some such. This would give people even more reason to buy Apple and move away from Windows.
Anyone willing to pay $500+ for a phone will certainly pay $400 or less for some entry-level iMac device.
Erm, owning a Zune doesn't necessarily buy you bragging rights. At least, not here.
Boo-yah, baby. $200 cheaper than an iPhone.
I like it like that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Went to ATT store on teh 30th - about 20 people milling around, I'd guess 15 or so were there for iPhones. Three on display - once someone shooed three kids away (10 - 14 yo; they were playing with the phones) the rest of us got to check them out.
Pretty neat interface, really nice screen, great form factor. A bit hard to type on the on screen keyboard, but then I'm used to Treo.
My name is called - said I wanted to ask some questions. The lady said she was the expert there - so I asked about synching via exchange active synch. Blank stare.
I asked about tethering as a modem - assured it can be done, costs an additional $60 per month.
I like the phone, but until it uses Exchange AS to synch with corporate email and can be used as a modem it's not that useful for me.
My guess is Apple and ATT are milking the early adopters by getting full margins on the phone, in a year or so we'll see $100 iPhones with real corporate connectivity. I hope the current price points aren't loss leader pricing; if Apple can't make decent money on each phone it is in trouble.
Ideally, the European ones will not be SIM locked and have removable SIMS o I can buy one there and use it here in the US, but I'm guessing Apple will replicate the locked phone model in Europe as well; given their insistence on doing things there way despite what the rest of the market is doing.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Even Tru64, which *never* ran on 32-bit hardware, has a 32-bit mode (using the amusingly obscure option "-taso"), and system libraries linked for it.
Every other 64-bit operating system is upgraded from a 32-bit OS, and everyone but Windows that I've ever used has supported 32-bit applications.
Why is Vista different?
Of course it was removed: it was critical of Apple. You seem to think this is notable enough to be worth mentioning: it isn't. Apple is every bit as vile and amoral as M$, just with better dress sense.
BTW, since your iPhone is a newly released Apple product, not working with win64 is not your main problem: your problem is that your product will soon break, and you'll spend the rest of the warranty period in an endless cycle of return/replace.
Sorry to sound like a troll, but I read your post and my first thought was 'what a brain-dead sucker'.
*I* don't use iTunes, and I can use my iPod just fine. It's a choice, you see. I use Gtkpod, though many other music systems also support the iPod.
The reason Apple uses iTunes rather than just setting it up as a USB drive is simple: the iPod software requires an internal database to know all about the music. Keeping that database up-to-date requires external software that knows how to manage that database. It's just that simple. If Apple made it a USB drive, dolts who didn't know better would complain on the Apple forums that, "I put music on my iPod, but it's not in the playlist!"
There's a lot of reasons I don't use iTunes, but mostly because it's crap. It requires all music on the iPod to be part of its internal system, making management of very large music collections difficult in a multi-OS household. (I have about 1k CDs stored on a central media server, served up to Linux boxes and my PS3 using UPnP, which Apple doesn't properly support in iTunes, damn them.)
So, you see, you *do* have choices.
As far as that goes, I find it funny when MS-Windows users complain that another company is locking them in to proprietary software in some way. In fact, I laugh my ass off.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It's funny how it's always someone else's fault when something does not work with Windoze. Despite the frequency and virtual inclusion of "everything" in "something" you trolls never blame M$, do you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OMG conspiracy they deleted my posts:
D =4833220�
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageI
You know it's too bad about the lack of 64-bit support across the industry. I have Windows XP 64 and trying to find wireless drivers was an adventure. It's too bad that companies aren't getting on bored considering the mainstream Windows 32-bit OS is going away eventually.
May I just say - Welcome to Apple Product Ownership!
Feel free to visit the Newton group and ask about Apple's SYNC product.
I'm sorry.
Windows 64 bit is not listed as supported.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
How is this guys problem anything but his own fault?
A WITCH! A WITCH! BUUURN HIM!
Everything except my logitech webcam works in 64-bit XP. BTW, games that can take advantage of the 64-bit environment (like ut2k4 and others) will smoke their 32-bit OS crippled versions any day. 800 FPS in 64-bit as opposed to a paltry ~85 FPS in 32 bit. No contest.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Does anyone use 64bit windows?
I tried 64bit XP, and it had incredibly poor support for my hardware.... Vista was just as bad too.
As for apps, lots of games that use ridiculous anti-piracy kernel drivers fail to work on 64bit windows too.
The 64bit version does run faster, especially if you have lots of ram since it doesnt need to use nasty kludges like PAE, but that gets thrown out the window if it runs your video using a generic driver.
Amongst the hardware not supported on my AMD64 machine...
An early revision radeon card wouldnt work
A DEC tulip ethernet card wouldnt work (and these cards were actually designed for 64bit machines, over 10 years ago)
My soundblaster pci128 card (i think) wouldnt work...
Now i can understand removing support for some old ISA devices, since i'm not aware of any 64bit machines supporting them.... But is it really so hard to recompile the 32bit pci drivers for 64bit? It seems to work ok for linux.
Just face it, proprietary software and microsoft especially are keeping people stuck in the 32bit dark ages just like they did with 16bit many years ago. There were 64bit processors and OS's before microsoft even came out with a 32bit version of windows.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Could it simply be that the compiler they are using doesn't support it?
First, when hardware vendors talk about MS-Windows XP/Vista/2003 Server, they default to the 32-bit version. If they *mean* the 64-bit version, they *specify* the 64-bit version. MS-Windows 64-bit drivers do not necessarily come in the box. And I have yet to see a hardware box that isn't from Apple that doesn't have the "Built for MS-Windows version X" logo.
Second:
Welcome to the club, buddy. As a looooong-time Linux user (13 years now), I'm used to vendors telling my their hardware is "not supported." It's only been over the last few years that most hardware vendors have started loosening up some about Linux support. It'd be nice if the did the same for the *BSDs and OpenSolaris as well, but Linux support is a small victory.
So buck up, kiddo. It'll happen. Your favorite niche operating system may get support from hardware vendors yet.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There are multiple surviving threads about the lack of 64-bit support that predate this Slashdot post went live. If your's was deleted, might it not have simply been a dupe?
= &q=64-bit&objID=c201&dateRange=last90days&userID=& numResults=15&rankBy=10001
http://discussions.apple.com/search.jspa?threadID
Perhaps you were not aware that some $40 phones do have navigation software? Or perhaps you were not aware that a Pocket PC + GPS could do this exact same thing for less than an iPhone / crackberry, don't restrict the programs you load, and don't have a monthly fee? Perhaps you like being tied to one device that does everything poorly, but I'd rather have a phone that worked well as a phone, and other devices that perform their functions well...
x86-64 windows (xp and vista) are a complete and utter disaster. No driver support. No performance benefit. Why is anyone even running it in the first place?
"My iphone doesn't work with my ITANIUM?!?"
Y'know, If you went onto Microsofts websites to ask why your xBox360 won't work properly with a Mac, you'd get laughed out with comments like "you should've got a real computer" - not that I condone this, but it's kinda expected.
When I bought a xBox360 I pretty much knew that I wasn't going to get every benefit unless I had Windows.
Does a Zune work on OS X at all? I doubt it.
I think the same should be assumed by non-OS X users when buying an Apple product. You will get 90% of it working, but it's not quite going to be the same experience.
I think you should count yourselves lucky, the same courtesy is seldom extended in the other direction.
Every other phone comes with a software CD, but I've never seen one with OS X software. Now Mac users have one (count 'em) phone & everyone else is complaining. Unbelievable.
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
According to the system requirements page from Microsoft's official site, "Zune software is not currently supported on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or Windows Server." It says Vista is supported, but the x64 edition is not specifically mentioned, and googling for Vista x64 and Zune indicates it isn't exactly a smooth process for some people.
This is a very silly and utterly artificial debate. Anybody running a 64-bit version of Windows on their PC surely has access to a 32-bit version of Windows. They also know enough about 64-bit Windows to know that precious little software actually runs on 64-bit Windows, simply because it's not a consumer operating system. It's designed basically as a database server OS. The original parent is a Troll.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Another company (lets call them Apple shall we?) releases a product thats compatible with "Windows XP Professional" and a user is surprised that it doesn't magically work with the other product? Er... These are two separate products and you shouldn't assume that because the names are similar that they are automatically compatible. Its a bit like buying a tomato from the grocers and then complaining that they didn't explicitly tell you that you shouldn't use it in a fruit salad...
~Pev
At least you're not a commercial Mac app developer being told "The hell with you peons, we're not going to release 64-bit Carbon APIs even though they're finished. Instead you must throw out all of your Carbon-based code and rewrite everything in Objective-C and Cocoa." Thanks a lot, Apple. Once again, you've screwed over third-party developers.
If it makes you feel better Microsoft doesn't have everything for Win Pro x64 either, last week I tried to find OLE drivers for IIS and it turns out MS decided they aren't making them. Yeah Windows!
... when you enslave yourself to a closed-source operating system, not just on the computer but on the phone.
Every time I hear about 64-bit something not working on Windows, I have to laugh a bit. Basically every open-source package has worked flawlessly on 64-bit systems since around 2002, with some of the code released *before* the Opteron/Athlon 64 actually came out. All the open-source drivers work too.
The way I see it, if you want progress and portability in computer systems, forking over lots of money to buy proprietary hardware and software isn't a good way to get it.
My bicyles
iTunes may not be supported (formally) under Windows XP-64, but it works just fine.
However, the continued lack of software support for Vista and XP-64 (which has been out for YEARS, for God's sake) is totally ridiculous. Adobe STILL hasn't released a 64-bit native version of Flash and Shockwave for the 64-bit Internet Explorer 7.0 -- how hard could that be?! If you're running XP-64 (which is the preferred platform for the 3D graphics software I use for work), then you have to use the 32-bit Firefox, running the 32-bit Flash/Shockwave.
And as much as I hate RealPlayer, many websites use it to present music sound clips from CDs -- but you're SOL if you try to listen to them under XP-64 -- no 64-bit version of RealPlayer exits.
Since 64-bit OSs are the future, it's ludicrous that software vendors haven't stepped up to the plate earlier -- they've had years to practice development for Windows XP-64, and they're still sitting on their asses.
Furthermore, the split betwixt 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows is likely the result of years upon years of sub-optimal architectural decisions accumulated within the operating system that made it too difficult or expensive for them to provide a unified 32-bit/64-bit OS. Microsoft undoubtedly would prefer that their systems could seamlessly handle both 32-bit and 64-bit programs, as Mac OS X Leopard does. (Of course, even given the technical capability in the OS, they might still disable certain features from the 32-bit version and package and charge extra for a 64-bit version, but the latter would run programs from 32-bit world.)
The article is a Troll.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
This isn't the 1st time somebody put out a product that doesn't upon release do everything it says it does. Its classified as a known bug and they downplay it like everybody else.
Besides, Apple doesn't put out a 64 bit version for Mac either. (FYI: 10.4 requires 64bit apps to run in background with the GUI running 32bit) Most likely they are beta testing iTunes in 64bit on 10.5 at this point, with the windows version likely being behind that.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed."
When companies sensor information that the consumer needs make an informed decision, I suspect that it's the tip of the iceberg. If you knowingly supress information about your product that would influence consumer choice you are in effect misrepresenting that product, aka fraud. Of course this is another example of where if you are a big corporation you can get away with what ever they want. Yes their products are nice, but if this is how they act when they have such a small piece of the pie could you imagine how they would be if they had 95%. I suspect Apple would be as bad or worse than Microsoft.
"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."
Now you know what it's like to be a Mac or a Linux user.
No Palm or Treo works with Vista 64. Any Palm product only has "limited" capability even with Vista 32, and that doesn't even include the capability to install apps. Now how long has Vista been out?
Will a 32-bit Xp Home/Pro setup in VMWare work with a 64-bit host? I thought it would. If so, just do that, and viola, you can tell apple to screw themselves.
I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed.
Dear Apple,
WTF?!! My PC rox with 64 l33tn355 and ur iphone is teh suxx0r! Can't u do anything right?! U b3tt3r not delete this cuz people n33d 2 no!
Regards,
A Concerned Windows XP 64-bit User
(Yes yes...I'm sure the post to the Apple forums was nothing like this. I've just spent too much time on MMORPG boards with disgruntled people and I'm familiar with how "concerns" are expressed there...)
I'm running XP 64 and I absolutely love it! I've been using it for about 2-years now. Used to take 40 minutes to decrypt/rip/burn a DVD, now it only takes 20. All my old and new programs/drivers work (with the exception of some really old logitech hardware). Now thet I've tasted it, tested it, used it... never going back to 32-bit OS.
And that's why you don't let nerds name products.
> You forgot to mention that 64bits instructions (in general terms) can require twice
> the amount of bytes in program code.
Exactly how do you figure that? 64bit code is usually somewhere around 20% larger in my tests. Pointers are larger but never twice as large, plus you have more alignment padding.
Perhaps because there's already a http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID= 1019793&tstart=0forum discussing it? And answering too?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
It's a phone. It shouldn't REQUIRE a PC to begin with. Sure, it's a given that you should have to have a PC to send your music collection to the phone, but to even USE the phone? No, this is unacceptable. A phone should not require a computer to use functions that don't involve a computer.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
...and Vista64. I thought those were mutually exclusive, like having a Volkswagen and a Metallica CD to play in it. I mean, you're into computers enough to know what a 64-bit OS is and to go out of your way to buy one, and then you buy a Zune?
On the other hand, that's very convenient for gathering statistics. Find four more people just like him and you can account for every copy of Vista64 and every Zune sold. Instead of paying for expensive focus groups, you can just ask Kneht, Bob, Tom, Cletus, and Randy what they liked about them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
That's funny. It doesn't seem to work with anything else.
you have to use a paperclip or pin to release it, but it pops right out.
http://www.powerbookmedic.com/iphone/simcard.html
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 computer and use it to setup the phone till this is sorted out.
the fact that the phone requires no in store activation makes me wonder if you will be able to buy them at other Apple retailers in the future?
Installing is possible on a Tungsten, of course with Vista Home it was "Allow? Deny? - Allow? Deny?" for every freakin' file added *and* the Palm Desktop help file was in .chm, so it wouldn't display with the hh.exe download.
:P
Which leads me to say, the more I support Windows, the more I love my Mac.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
What? It also conquers time and space?! This can't be a coincidence...
Instead of the Apple logo on bootup, can I get "Don't Panic"?
"OSX Leopard: It's Prefect."
Apple's lack of support for 64-bit machines is embarrassing. After all, their PowerPC line was 64-bit, so all their own software should have been 64-bit compatible. Then they went to 32-bit IA-32 architecture for their own machines, even though 64-bit Intel CPUs were available. It was late in the IA-32 life cycle to do that. Now they're not supporting 64-bit hardware under either MacOS X or Windows, let alone Linux. That's kind of retro.
Users shouldn't need a computer to use an iPhone, anyway. The thing has an Internet connection of its own, after all.
maybe you should talk to microsoft about their 32 bit app support?
it is the extra DRM in 64 bit MS OSs that trip up compatibility. Proper 64 bit os like Linux does not have this issue.
What a shocker.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
This and so many other things are the reasons why I told everyone I know to avoid the thing for a little bit...
:)
Especially for someone running a not-so-mainstream OS (sorry, 64-bit windows isn't a "standard" OS as of the moment), I'd have waited and let someone else take the plunge for me... Actually, we should all thank you, as someone had to do it for us, and who better than a slashdotter?
I went and checked it out yesterday, and while it was pretty cool, i'm wont be terribly impressed until more real world reviews come through.
My current gripes; the onscreen keyboard is much less intuitive than an actual built in keyboard... I only gave it a few minutes of trying, but i couldn't get the thing to recognize much of what i was writing - maybe i have finger that are too big for it? I admit, I dial while driving, and even send text messages while doing so... however, with any regular phone or a treo, i can do so without taking my eyes off the road... not so with the iphone. Woe to car insurance companies whose drivers buy these things!
Also, i'd like to see how the nice shiny display holds up after a few months of real world use, in and out of pockets, rubbed against keys, etc. How about a few drops from a desk, or clattering down to the concrete; my blackberry has done so many times, and the silver outline around the face place is now gone, but it's still just as functional as the day i bought it.
Next, what will real world experiences with the battery be like? It's soldered in place, so should there be a problem, it's not a DIY job to replace the thing.
And lastly, since the gadget is ostensibly for internet centric folks, i was more than a little disappointed that at the apple store, I could not find a unit on display that was connected to the EDGE network, they all ran from the store's wifi. Given that that's been an issue in the news recently, not allowing people to get a real world handle on how it will operate in the "real world" doesn't seem right.
And then there's software issues...
So yes, i'm glad i didnt rush out to buy a 1.0 product. And my friends that have gone to check them out have come back and agreed they they too will be waiting a while before buying the new gadget.
Apple clearly listed iTunes as a requirment for the iPhone. The original poster does not have a supported iTunes on his 64-bit Windows system. Apple doesn't have a supported iTunes for 64-bit Windows. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301 301
He should have known he didn't meet the requirements, since he didn't have a supported iTunes installed. This is a well known issue with iTunes, not a surprise that suddenly appeared on June 29. The Apple article was created April 7, 2005.
Grab a copy of VMWare Workstation, install XP and iTunes into a new image and activate your iPhone. Or do the same, but with Linux and WINE and see how far you can get installing iTunes that way (I've never tried, so ymmv). Although this may not be the most ideal solution, it will get the job done.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
You can't get the "Designed for Windows" logo or the WHQL driver signature anymore without running on Win64. In the WHQL case, that means a 64-bit driver.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
...would someone please explain to me why a Windows user would join the rush to buy an Apple branded iPhone? I can understand the Apple faithful -- they're already brainwashed. Waiting in line overnight to buy a PRODUCT on opening day is a little absurd, considering the state of the world. It's downright satire for a Windows user to be doing it. How humiliating! Don't we have better things to do as a society? This makes me want to go out and join a Fight Club!
...since there is so many versions. If you don't care about the 9x versions and NT4, which people actually still use, or the obscure versions like fundamentals, embedded, tablet PC, itanium etc. you'll have to support:
Windows 2000
Windows 2000 64 bit
Windows XP
Windows XP 64 bit (Which is actually a 64 bit windows 2003 relabeled as XP.)
Windows MCE
Windows 2003
Windows 2003 64 bit
Windows Vista
Windows Vista 64 bit
And it gets even worse due to the fact that each windows have several different versions (home, pro, premium etc.) which you have to make sure your driver works with. So the manufactures just chooses to support what most people use. I know other hardware that claims to support windows XP but doesn't work under windows XP 64 bit.
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, hey, they're sold as "Windows XP Home" (etc.) not "Windows XP".
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
He could use a virtual machine to solve his problem. Yeah it's lame, but it *is* a solution. He could download the free version of vmware and install the 32 bit version of xp on it to run the iPhone software. There is no need to downgrade the OS.
The drivers can be signed by any valid certificate authority. Microsoft doesn't even run one, so you couldn't pay Microsoft to sign the driver if you wanted to. Most developers buy a verisign certificate and sign their own code, drivers, patches, etc, it's a one time cost.
You can't take the sky from me...
Send a load and clear message to Apple: take your iPhone back to the store where you purchased it and ask for your money back.
Just my $0.02 worth.
This is not deliberately meant as flame-bait, but honestly, I've never seen so many people whining about how they just despise this company (they can't write WIndows software, they're arrogant, they don't "just work") and how they are so upset that they can't run an iPhone on their 64-bit WIn box. Why would you possibly want to own an iPhone if Apple is so horrible? Why even waste the keystrokes bitching about it? Weren't you over all the iPhone hype before it even came out, or are you secretly jealous that you didn't stand in line to get one?
I'm digging MY iPhone - it runs great on my partially 64-bit Mac OS and I'm thrilled that I've not been forced to run XP for any of my music or communications gadgets. (okay, that last part was probably flame-bait - haha).
--- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
The reason it doesn't work is because the iPod Driver is a piece of shit (and not signed). That's it. That's the only reason it doesn't work.
iTunes works on Windows XP 64bit, I have been using it for over a year on my development workstation.
Vista x64 and XP x64 are DIFFERENT products than Vista and XP. they are ALWAYS listed differently, with x64 being EXPLICITLY mentioned. ALWAYS. so NO, they are not listed as supported.
why is that so hard for the haters to admit ? because hatin' is so fun huh ?
Just drop another 600 on another computer and use your iPhone with that, Daddy Warbucks.
Jesus I'm cranky today.
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
In 10.5, Carbon was not ported to 64-bit. Its sole alternative, Cocoa, requires Objective C. DLLs using Objective C cannot be unloaded, period.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Servers? Sure. I don't think anyone's going to be hooking up their iPhone to their servers, though.
For the desktop? Linux? More mainstream? You dream. Or perhaps hallucinate is a better term.
If they want to go this route, let's reverse engineer their driver to source, then compile it for Win64. Linux people would love to have that so they can make their own iPhone software. Double loss for Apple.
And it's all legal too, since compatibility is a specific exemption to the DMCA.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
A *lot* of devices and apps aren't supported in XP 64-bit. Apple's not the only one.
on the ass. I know I run Gentoo :-)
Gotta go there's new files to emerge!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Even $40 phones generally support text messaging these days.
You can get directions through Google SMS.
http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/mobile/sms/
More or less it is a throwback to the old EMS/XMS days. What happens is an app will map a certain section of its virtual address space for high memory access. It'll then page around to get at the data it needs. This is inefficient, and requires special support on the app level. 64-bit removes and and all problems with that. There's simply more memory available and programs and the OS use it as they see fit.
What I don't understand is why anyone wants to hate on 64-bit. Processors are 64-bit now, that's just how it is. They are not going to revert to 32-bit, there's no reason. Thus it is perfectly feasible to run a 64-bit OS (I'm doing so right now). Pointing to old technologies like PAE is silly. It's a hack, always was, and there's no reason to use it when you've got something better.
It's also not hard to support. If you do a quick search, you discover that almost all hardware these days has 64-bit drivers. It's really not a big deal to do if they were written properly in the first place. Thus there's no reason to hate on it or say "Why do you use it? That's stupid." Like it or not, it is where things are going. OS-X will be 64-bit soon enough (Leopard is supposed to have full 64-bit support), and the next generation of Windows will be 64-bit only. The idea is to avoid the problems we had back in the 16-32 bit days when there was hardware but no software and have everything up to date by the time normal systems start needing it.
A dozen times a day I'm reminded that there's no 64-bit Flash plug-in for Firefox -- two years after the last 32-bits-only processor was sold. That's at least as aggravating as an IE-only web site.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Microsoft is a disused lavatory with no lights?
Duke Nukem Forever doesn't really run all that better in XP-64...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
"They also know enough about 64-bit Windows to know that precious little software actually runs on 64-bit Windows, simply because it's not a consumer operating system."
Wrong. Most 32-bit software actually runs just fine on Windows x64. I realize it's fun to hate Microsoft and all, but can we at least act like we know what we're talking about before posting? I mean, seriously, this is common knowledge. Where you actually have a point, though, is that HARDWARE is often difficult to get running on Windows x64. The driver model makes that difficult, so companies have to put extra effort into making their devices run with it. In that respect, you're right, the guy doesn't have a lot of wiggle room to complain.
It is not because Windows 64-bit is a 'database server' or a 'non-consumer' OS. It's because the hardware's different and Microsoft fiddled with their driver signing agreement. That's it, no need to write fiction.
Except the phone is a computer. It can surf to Weird Al's website and there are free mp3s there. As a computer, it ought to be capable of downloading them, and adding them to its library. If it can't, then the second generation should.
The iPhone is one step closer to convergence. In a few years it should be possible to buy a phone that works as a computer the way sub-notebooks work as computers by themselves.
Longs are 32-bit in Win64. Only long longs are 64-bit. This means that long's size is different between x86-64 Windows and x86-64 Linux.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
XP 64 is a non-server build of 2003. It calls itself NT 5.2, and its service pack 2 installer is literally the same
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
The entire catalog of Apple's software runs of 32 & 64 bit versions of OS X (PowerPC *AND* Intel), and sometimes on Win32 as well. Win64? Most of Microsoft's own software hardly works on that piece of shit. It's not even being promoted and for good reason: It's not ready.
... explaining to users why their machines advertised as 64-bit computers can't actually run Microsoft's 64-bit software.
Microsoft breaks compatibility when jumping to wider memory addressing. It's part of their marketing by force initiative. If you can make older applications work, but really poorly, you will encourage customers to purchase new versions. This is the very Microsoft definition of upgrade (everything).
Everyone that's used a 64-bit release of Windows will tell you that driver and software support is atrocious. If they don't, they didn't do much else than run Internet Explorer in 16-color VGA mode. Before Vista, 64-bit Windows was impossible to use on the majority of hardware and it only really ran Exchange and SQL Server (with many many many bugs).
Is Apple to blame for not supporting the under-promoted and known to be flawed 64-bit Windows releases? Not entirely. A disclaimer would have been nice. For that, they should be seriously reprimanded and offer concessions to the four people that have gotten Win64 to work.
If I could speculate, I believe they didn't want to cause confusion. All of those new Dell owners with 64-bit stickers on their computers have no clue they're actually running a 32-bit operating system. Who wants that support headache?
I honestly believe that this problem affects so few people that EVERYONE it affects reads Slashdot regularly.
Apple DOWNGRADED the compatability of itunes along time a gone im not surprised that they didnt make the iphone compatable
Are you going to make the same comment every time the Neo1973 is brought up? How about we discuss the capabilities of the phone instead of hearing constant reminders that you personally don't like the name...
Do any of the people that I see complain daily about things not working in the 64 bit operating systems even have over 4GB of RAM installed that they need to access?
You mean downgrade from a downgrade to OSX (seeing that it is such a primitive OS).
I think it is a raw deal. They should be able to write a 32bit application that can run under Windows x64. No one is actually asking for a 64bit application. Not being able to do this is just nonsense (a simple driver). It only shows how inferior their own software design really is (iTunes and Quicktime are two of the most poorly written applications, ever). This only seems to certify my belief that Apple probably has a group of significantly incompetent engineers.
The iPhone pretends to run applications which are web-based. So any application which follows web standards will work with an iPhone and any PC. At the same time though the iPhone won't let you pretty much do anything (activate it, transfer music, synchronize it), without not just iTunes, but iTunes for selected OS. I find this quite disturbing, almost a joke, actually. The iPhone, the prototype of the mobile machine that does everything you need without a PC, actually is useless without a companion. My idea of true mobile device is something which does not rely AT ALL on a PC/Mac to work, that can synchronize using open standards with everything, possibly wirelessly, that can access online music stores, that can be activated from the device. Some of these features have been available on phones. Where is the revolution?
Games not working on Win64 on their own accord is basically unheard of. It's the copy protection kernel drivers that won't work. The cracked versions typically work fine on Win64!
Legal disclaimer: I'm not recommending that anyone crack anything.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Your critique is valid. I stated the case quite poorly. Microsoft clearly intends Windows XP Professional x64 Edition to be a consumer operating system, in which light I should have said it failed. Although I think that the barriers to its widespread adoption go beyond the issues you describe, in general I agree with your assessment. I'm not particularly interested in a detailed discussion of that nuance however, so with your kind permission I'll simply retract the statement you quoted. I don't consider it to be fiction, but a proper treatment of the topic would be lengthy and not particularly stimulating. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
You're not being silenced because you disagree - you're being silenced because you're injecting a discussion about Islam under a story about the iPhone software not supporting x64 Windows. The mods were wrong to mod it flamebait, it should instead be modded OFFTOPIC. Go hit the Politics section, retard.
Well there is a problem with this. Balmer is upgrading his OS as we speak to 64 bits. we are in the later part of the transitional period but we are still paying for 32 bit OS's.
I wonder if anyone offers a 64 bit OS in stores now I am typing on a Athlon 64 x2 and i am finding it annoying that there is running a 32 bit OS. Thats like having a Ferrari body running a pinto's engine.
As if today i doubt there is any apps, Drivers, OS's that are optimized to run in a 64 bit computing environment. So patience is a virtue it will come in a cowboy neal day.
T~S~S
Half of my post was edited from Slashdot but I'll give you more info on what happened. Everyone at the AT&T store told me that the iPhone works on ALL versions of XP SP2 and Vista. They also had a paper saying it was supported and I quote "The iPhone is supported on Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista and Mac 10.x.x.x". It didn't say only XP SP2 32-bit and only Vista 32-bit. I even have a paper they made me initial to prove this. That lead me and others to assume our 64-bit systems were supported.
Not only this my iTunes works GREAT in 64-bit Windows and my iPod Nano syncs fine to it too. Why would my iPhone be any different than those. Apple even said themselves that it is a "Wide-screen iPod".
Luckily, I do have multiple computers with a copy of Windows XP SP2 32-bit that I could sync and activate my iPhone with. There are some people posting on the Apple forums that can't even activate their phone since their home computer is only running 64-bit Windows. There's even multiple people saying their Windows Vista 32-bit copy won't let them sync their iPhone or activate it.
All the specs I read before hand on the iPhone all stated that it was supported under XP SP2 and Vista. How is it my fault if they can't make it specific? Don't get me wrong, I love my new phone but it would have been nice to know way before hand that this wasn't going to work on a 64-bit OS so I could have been a little more prepared.
Also, My post on their discussion forums was not out of hand and flaming them. It simply stated I was upset and the lack of communication from Apple on the 64-bit OS as well as their representatives telling me to downgrade my computer. You don't downgrade the computer, you upgrade the software to support it. That's counter intuitive. Here's the e-mail I received from them about why my post was deleted.
Your post was removed from the iPhone forums as it does not follow the guidelines specified in our terms of use. These areas are intended to address technical issues about Apple products. Posts that do not conform to the Apple Discussions Use Agreement are inappropriate.
Reasons that your post was removed may include but are not limited to:
-Speculation or Rumors
-Discussion of Apple Policies, Procedures or Decisions
-Off topic or non-technical posts
-Rude or inappropriate behavior/language
Please read our Apple Discussions Use Agreement so that you may discover what constitutes an appropriate post to our service. Section two, "Submissions," is most germane.
Please see the Apple Discussions Use Agreement at http://discussions.apple.com/help.jspa for more information on the proper use of Apple's Discussion forums.
Each Discussion user is required to agree to these terms before gaining posting privileges. You reserve the right to not post on Apple Discussions should you disagree with these terms.
If you would like to send feedback to Apple about a product, please use the appropriate selection at http://www.apple.com/feedback
Sometimes you have comments or concerns for which there is no technical response. If you need the kind of help that a troubleshooting expert can't provide, you can call Apple's Customer Relations group.
Well, Anyway that's just my 2 cents on the whole ordeal.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
It's too funny a name to mock just once.
Skimming through the comments, they appear to be mostly people jumping to Apples defence in saying that "they never SAID it would work on x64!" Surely the point here though is that it's pretty poor that it doesn't support a 64-bit OS and that this is a ridiculous oversight where we have what's supposed to be a "cutting edge phone" refusing to work with the cutting edge OS's of the day. Whether they advertise it or not, it's a poor show that they've not bothered to make it compatible.
The real question I have is WHY? Why does the iPhone NEED a driver? My Nikon D200 plugs into any computer (W2k, XP, XP64, Linux, OS X) and just works. The apps i've written talk to the device through usb, no device driver needed. Perhaps I'm missing something here that a brighter person will point out. Could it be that Apple want's to create a poor experience in Windows, like their complete disregard for the user interface in iTunes/Win?
I'm one of those guys who needs >4GB for CAD and FEA, so I'm running XP64 on a workstation with 16GB RAM. I have yet to see an app that won't work on XP64. I'm sure they exist, and I'm sure there's lots of drivers that don't work - I just haven't seen the problem. And I fully expected to see lots of issues. So it's much better than I'd expected.
My iPod failed again, so I'm on my third replacement. I won't be considering an iPhone any time soon. The need to send it in for battery replacement is so stupid. Imagine being without your phone for 1 to 3 weeks while that goes on... I'm assuming that amount of time, since that's what my iPod experience has been.
Place nail here >+
Virtualization
but VMWare (of which I am a recent convert) is ideal for this kind of annoyance.
Seeing as I bravely installed 64-bit vista (look 64 sounded better than 32 on the install screen, OK?) I have made extensive use.
Handy for the odd thing (currently only an old canon scanner) that doesn't have the necessary scanner. Initially installed it for iTunes when they refused to support Vista x64 (although it's still shonky as f#)
... when Microsoft supports WM-10 on Mac OS X. Fair trade?
Huh, must be the digg moderators in control today. I'm stating pure fact yet I'm modded as a troll. What a laugh riot.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
LMAO! I can't tell if that was a joke or a rant, but either way, it was funny. Mod up!
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Anyone who would spend several hundreds of dollars on an iGadget from any company WITHOUT FIRST confirming that it is supported on their OS, is simply naive.
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.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
It says on the side of the iPhone box that you need Mac OS X v10.4.10 or Windows 2000 (SP4), Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2), or Windows Vista. That's the current version of Windows, the one before that in two flavors, and the one before that also, going back to Y2K.
1 301
It also says online at apple.com:
iTunes for Windows not currently supported on any 64-bit editions of Windows
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
If you can't run iTunes on it, you can't run iPod or iPhone on it. There are 5 year-old kids who can explain the concept to you.
Further, the 64-bit versions of Windows are a software management disaster. The fact that it is incompatible with 32-bit Windows is clearly Microsoft's fault. Every user of 64-bit Windows faces the sad realization that they are running the single most obscure PC operating system in existence, with hardly any third-party support or interest. If you are running 64-bit Windows IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO VIRTUALIZE A 32-BIT VERSION ALSO FOR COMPATIBILITY.
So get your shit together, get a virtualizer, and see if you can't get iTunes running on your box you loser.
Apple has the worst forum to go to for help. When I went there to ask a question about iTunes and XP64 it was also promptly removed. Turns out they purposley broke iTunes for 64 bit systems. I was using it just fine since I got Xp64 with only the miniplayer not working. It updates and all the sudden iTunes doesn't work on 64 bit OS.
This happened shortly before the Vista release.
There is no doubt in my mind that Apple is killing all support for 64 Bit operating systems to remove as many apple products from working with windows' new OS. Probably to get you to buy a Mac, which won't happen as long as MS has DirectX.
Anyways, stick to the AMD64 forums. They tend to have great help there and nice links to 'fixes' to get stuff working on XP64 that should be in the first place. Chances are in a few months top side there will be a unofficial 'fix' to get it working with XP64 and Vista.
Of course they do. They kept the wrong Steve. The Steve they did keep must have brought in guys like him, who are, at least, good at figuring out how to pare the requirements down to what the engineers they do have are capable of and still have a product that works well for quite a few people.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You can't. The iPhone must be activated through iTunes.. you cannot do it in the store.
Thank you for your classy response. I apologize for being a bit hostile when I posted. I really wish more people behaved as you did, here.
My Treo 700w works perfectly with Vista.It also...
* syncs correcty with outlook (notes included)
* voice dials
* can be tethered to my laptop
* runs software that I develop myself
* manages to COPY and PASTE
Unlike the iPhone.
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
Maybe it's time for another e-mail directly to Steve Jobs?
and the article is about the iPhone and ...oh...never mind, damn my immature sense of humour!!
Parent is just so right. In theory, porting to 64-bit on any platform is easy, but I've never seen it work out that way for a non-trivial program. Moreover, the compiler usually won't catch the problems for you; you've got to know how to extensively test your code too, and the ways in which things fail can be very mystifying. (Alignment mismatches are my "favourites"...)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
As irritating as this must be to all the MS fanbouys out there, it's intensley amusing that Apple has "organised" thier priorities the same way MS do, they know they have a product there is demand for, so will use their market power the same way the MS does.
I'll just be happy to wait and watch this unfold over what really is an accessory, few people here will be able to take advantage of 64bit or ever use all the feature of the phone. Personally I think this one is a winner http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/smartphones/fics-linuxb ased-smartphone-213016.php but thats just me, and since it's open source based, it will probably even work with vista ;-)
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Interesting link. I liked this part:
Not quite the effect you were going for, eh?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Is that it was moderated as insightful. You scored on so many levels.
1. Posted a truly witty reply with clear understanding of HHGTTG
2. Getting modded as insightful
3. Being accused of not getting the joke
etc, etc.. (I am tired of listing ways it is funny)
I am still laughing...
A disused lavatory would be clean, or perhaps dusty. Microsoft is more like an overused lavatory, being completely full of shit.
There is a C standard you know, and a C++ one too.
The last big C standard was in 1999, but Microsoft still only supports the 1989 standard. Ugh, 8 years have passed! Nonetheless, even the old standard provides data types that are appropriate.
For example, ptrdiff_t. It's a type that can hold the difference between two pointers.
I really don't give a shit that apple isn't working with microsoft. Neither company really effects me, however the continued reliance on 32 bit enviorments really pisses me off. We have spent along nursing crap hardware and software for the sake of ease of developement. People act like 64 bit systems are a new thing, despite the fact they are something like 35 years old. This is the same reason we have had cisc processors shoved down our throats. If any company should appreciate 64 bit OS's, apple should. Any company failing to support the obvious reality of technical evolution and then tells their customers to downgrade is bullshit. I believe that all these traditional companies are going to fall hopelessly behind the open source community, as more ideas on computer science are being implemented directly into linux or bsd.
Over here in Linux land, we aren't just running a 64-bit OS. It's normal to have 100% 64-bit apps.
Some of us, running the less commercial Linux distributions, don't even bother to install the libraries needed by 32-bit apps. We're losing the ability to run 32-bit apps because we don't care about that old trash. It's cruft that would serve no purpose.
Kinda makes you wonder why nobody bothers to check up on these things before sinking $600 on a device. I'd want to know that my iToy worked on my PC *before* committing..
"They also know enough about 64-bit Windows to know that precious little software actually runs on 64-bit Windows, simply because it's not a consumer operating system. It's designed basically as a database server OS."
Ummm... you are joking, right??? I have XP x64 installed on one of my machines at home, and actually, there is precious little that does NOT run on it. The places where you will run into issues are
a) No 16-bit support (Thank G*d). They killed NTVDM.EXE. Good thing too.
b) Driver support. The breadth and maturity of driver support 64-bit is seriously lacking.
However, neither of the above apply to the vast majority of software out there. Whether it's PhotoShop, iTunes, games, etc. etc. etc. they all work just fine on the 64-bit version of the OS. If you had said "precious little hardware", that might have been closer to the truth.
Win XP pro x64 wasn't designed as a database server OS any more or less than XP was. 32-bit and 64-bit XP and Server share a common code base - the kernel is mostly the same.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, retail versions of Vista support 64-bit and 32-bit installs. If you have modern hardware, it's inconceivable to me that you wouldn't install 64-bit, so I am frankly very surprised that Apple didn't provide 64-bit support. Seems really stupid to me, but whatever.
They kept the Steve who was probably out doing coke with his friends (having probably sold it to them at a stiff markup) while the other Steve was doing the design work that made Apple Computer.
Just wait till Microsoft releases the "Z-Phone". Yup, a Zune Phone.
*shivers*
Yes, I'm cranking on the rumor mill...
Life is not for the lazy.
Meanwhile, iPhone will have revolutionized the market.
When a company has fragmented the same product so badly, any reasonable consumer should be given the benefit of the doubt if he gets confused.
I do not need to know all the mindless bits of technobabble to know if a bloody phone with mediocre standard features (I am not talking about how it is all integrated, which can be a better than the sum of its parts) works or not in a given computer.
And if the manufacturer knows that the product will not work with certain products, it is pure common sense to expect to be told about this explicitly and prominently, specially when it comes to such an expensive toy...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... with pretty much any machine.
If Apple were using open formats and protocols to connect the gadget in the first place (I don't know if the do, but based on past experiences my guess is they don't).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please show us where users are demanding to be inconvenienced by Apple's paranoid approach to controlling all aspects of their offerings.
People using Linux (a small but not for that reason ignorable niche) had to wait for people to reverse engineer the mechanism by which the iPods connect to a computer all because Apple could not be arsed to use open protocols and methods.
People do not want Apple, or any other company for that matter, to solve all the problems, but what many people want is to face artificial barriers to solve those problems themselves, not to be impeded at every corner by the manufacturer of products they have favored with their costum in spite of their shortcomings (when did the slogan "the client is right" stopped to have any value????).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Use a demo or buy an expensive version of Windows (otherwise you will not have a license for virtualization).
The phone should really be platform neutral, and if Apple couldn't be arsed to support Linux (which should be immensely easier than Windows, given OSX's roots) they could have released documentation to let people do this themselves.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are no 5 year olds that can explain that to you.
There are 2 problems here, MS has segmented the product names so badly that you have who know how many flavours to contend with.
And second, Apple should say in a more explicit manner what is not going to work well knowing that people are bound to get confussed with all the Windows Vista naming scheme.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
What a freakin' moron. I guess he doesn't know ANYBODY in the world that has a Mac or a PC that isn't Win64 that he could, you know, borrow for 5 minutes, to log into iTunes and activate his phone?
I was a TechNet Plus and MSDN licensee for many years. I purchased Xeon server grade equipment and tried running XP Pro 64-bit and Windows 2003 Server R2 64-bit and was in driver hell. No support for the hardware adapters in my machine. Trouble with the sound card, Sata interface hardware, Video cards... It went on and on. In the future, hardware vendors will provide 64-bit drivers but for now, the only way to get fully supported hardware seems to be by purchasing OEM machines with driver support provided by the OEM. Is the only difference in you DVD piracy scenario the OS version?
That is right, the bungled software from Microsoft is not available for the mice they make, and the ones that are supported have UNSIGNED drivers. imagine that! 64 bit windows breaks lots of legacy windows things and once that happens the whole house of cards starts to fall....
Your Average Joe
iPhone requirements 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.
And how should it specify that it does not support the 64-bit Windows OS?
Let me put it another way. I have a new item to sell to punters, and I market it. I know that it doesn't work with the 64-bit versions of Windows, so my system requirements only specify the versions of the OS it works with. I come up with this list:
* Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later
There, that should do it. Hmm, I can't seem to specify 32-bit versions only using Microsoft's own naming conventions for their OS software. There's the rub.
Maybe it's a problem in that XP and 64-bit XP aren't compatible enough, or maybe it's a problem in that the names indicate greater compatibility than they should, or it could just be that there is no way of specifying the 32-bit version as cleanly as the 64-bit version. If the system requirements are misleading it's not directly Apple's fault, even if a footnote could have been added to exclude 64-bit Windows versions.
If you're running 64-bit, you know what you're doing. NOBODY runs *only* 64-bit these days ...
UNLESS it's for a specific purpose.
AND if they want to connect with the rest of the world, they use VM's for the 32-bit stuff.
Now, QUIT YER WHINING.
Be glad you had $600 + to spend on your new toy. Otherwise, give it to me. I'll be grateful.
Tell us something *INTERESTING*.
Why do Apple programs "break" the usual look and feel of Windows programs?
Just curious - what is the usual look and feel of Windows programs?
The only user interface option they all have in common is Ctrl-Alt-Del/End Task, in my experience.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Oops, seems I was wrong. You need iTunes to activate the phone. Mea culpa, and apologies for the condescending tone...
I agree that it's (at the very least) silly to require a PC to be able to use a cell phone. They could have easily made it so that the activation process is done on the phone itself, or offered some way of activating it by phone or something.
The 64 bit version of Farcry will not install in vista 64 bit. The 64 bit NVidia video drivers for vista do not seem to have 3D acceleration. Getting iTunes to run in XP 64 or Vista 64 is like pulling teeth. If you manage to get iTunes working, good luck getting the device to sync (iPod, iPhone, etc). They just released drivers for my scanner in vista 64 about a month ago, still no support for XP 64 bit. My webcam does not work in 64 bit versions of Windows. PowerDVD will not install in either the 32 it or 64 bit versions of Vista. No surround sound on the Audigy. But, oh, the 64 bit version of Solitaire runs oh so fast.
No, the thought that the iPhone does not run on a 64 bit operating system does not surprise me. I got sick of stuff not working, and now dual boot. While I love my 64 bit computing, have to go back to a 32 bit version of XP to make sure stuff works.
So why should the iPhone be? Seriously, dude. There's a 32-bit version of XP/Vista that EVERYBODY uses. 64-bit may be the coming thing, but it is very inhospitable to many long-time Windows apps. The updates are coming out in dribs and drabs.
Why not a Linux version? Rock on, dude!
Regardless of the fact that it is available, 64 bit Windows is not designed as a home user OS. It's designed as a high-performance purpose-built workstation and server OS. Driver compatability is bad with all vendors, not just Apple. Doesn't it seem a bit odd to complain about lack of driver support in an OS that basically comes with a warning label that says "Many device drivers are not supported."
Try VMWare or similar.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
It's easy to support C99 without breaking the API. Everybody else did it.
Add some header files. Add support for new syntax. Add a compiler option to recognize new keywords, and recognize them with a double underscore prefix ("__") when that compiler option isn't used.
There. Done. No problem.
C99 is really nice. The thing most people love is the ability to declare variables pretty much anywhere. They no longer have to go at the top of a function. You don't have to use C++ to get this.
The next C++ standard aligns itself with C99. Will that be ignored? Maybe it breaks something? Microsoft finally did get it's ass in gear over the variable scope in a "for" loop, so I suppose there is hope. Still, they are damn lazy.
According to Apple, Leopard will allow you to use existing 32-bit drivers and 64-bit applications in the same system with the same OS version:
Driver compatibility.
Because of its universal nature, with Leopard you don't need a new set of drivers -- or devices. New 64-bit applications work just fine with your existing printers, storage devices, and PCI cards. Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers, your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased throughput.
Microsoft's making the problem worse in Vista, because they changed a lot of the driver APIs in Vista to support its enhanced DRM. Even if they supported 32-bit drivers in Vista existing 32-bit drivers wouldn't be DRM-friendly: even many 64-bit drivers from previous versions of Windows don't work.