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."
Unfortunately Virtual PC has no USB support so your plan fails :(
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.
Apple would address linux before 64 bit windows. With that said, the manual says it in quite a few places that it's not supported.
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
> Oops debunking a 64 bit platform in just 5 lines of text
Hardly. I've been running AMD64 native Gentoo for 3 years, being able to address over 4GB of RAM isn't of any benefit to me but the extra registers are.
I use iTunes to play my MP3s which unfortunately requires QuickTime be installed. Is QT opening the MP3 because of your browser settings because it's not happening to me in Firefox (and I just had a computer upgrade at work and had to reinstall QT and iTunes).
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
They have two free products. VMware Player can play any VM out there. VMWare Server is their hosted product. VMWare server is completely free, no strings attached and it works great.
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..."
You don't know what you don't know.
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).
My Zune works fine on 64 bit Vista.
"Are you on some kind of medication?"
"No"
"Well, you should be."
--Bean
Not that it is useful to respond to an inarticulate troll, but whatever I'm bored.
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.
All a 64-bit OS does it run applications built with 64-bit libraries. If 1 link in the chain of code from the application itself, down to the lowest level library linked in, is 32-bit, you generally need to build the whole application 32-bit. Often, a 64-bit does not automatically install all the 32-bit versions of the system software (and why would it, since the vendor wants to spend most of their time developing and testing the 64-bit installation) ergo, the 32-bit software won't run.
P.S. In my experience, it is almost never worth it in terms of performance vs. sotware availability to run a 64-bit desktop. People do it to look macho, then get incensed when all their favorite consumer-grade software won't work.
Cheers,
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!
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Quicktime Installer gives you the option to change it's MIME type associations when it's finished installing.
What is...?
Boo-yah, baby. $200 cheaper than an iPhone.
I like it like that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
If Microsoft doesn't support Zune on Windows 64 bit, then why in the heck should Apple bother to write drivers for iPhone? 64 bit Windows is *not* mainstream and never has been.
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 access to the iPod/iPhone interface specs.
Apple does give access to specs to create iPod/iPhone accessories, via licensing. It is a reasonable approach. In fact, it created a whole new market for accessories.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information? Apple should be held to the same standard
Again, your facts are a bit off. Microsoft was found to be illegally using its monopoly to get into new markets. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. Second point - Apple does not have a monopoly and is actively pursuing efforts to open iTunes music to all players (by removing DRM). Effectively, they're opening up to more competition.
I sense a "All software should be free" mentality here.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly and they have always tried to hide technical details.
Except for the FREE development tools (Xcode, IB) that come with EVERY copy of OS X. And the tons of API specifications that show you how to write for OS X. So developer unfriendly! How dare they not expose every single line of code.
Your comments speak of ignorance of Apple's actions or just plain contempt (which means no amount of reasoning will change your mind). Either way, you're off base in your assessments.
An awful lot of electronics manufacturers offer downloads of their product manuals online in pdf format.
You may have iTunes installed, but if you did what I think you did, you had to copy files from a 32bit Windows install. Meaning, iTunes does not support your OS.
No, I don't even have a 32-bit installation of Windows. I downloaded the iTunes installer and installed it. I'm telling you that iTunes works just fine, straight from the Apple web site to a 64-bit Windows XP installation. Does that not make sense to you?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
http://www.apple.com/support/manuals/ There you go. Apple makes their manuals available online.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
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?
Here I thought the Zune was a piece of hardware targeted at the consumer market. XP x64 was not a consumer release and not in the XP logo certification requirements. Vista x64 IS a consumer release and compatibility is REQUIRED for certification. Apple does not have theirs so it's not even guaranteed their stuff will work with Vista.
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...
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.
The x86_64 version of java from sun has been on their bugzilla for 4 and a half years and its in the top five requests to be fixed. If it was as simple as changing some compiler options I think it would be done by now. Also Adobe has released a version of flash for SPARC ahead of x86_64, so I somehow don't think its that easy. Not that this is an excuse, but I don't think its as easy as changing the arch for compilation.
I'm not not licking toads.
"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.
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.
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 about 32bit or 64bit, the customer just needs to read "requires Vista" and the IHV just needs to print "requires Vista". Nice and simple. Apple is writing "requires Vista" and then behaving differently than the rest of the Windows ecosystem. While this is shameful for any company, it's extra shameful for one that prides itself on just working.
Who needs 64bit? Today, all Vista users that are gamers. Company of Heroes (for non gamers out there it's a RTS set in ww2 that is a Games For Windows game and it won a ton of Game of the Year 2006 awards-It's a pretty big fully windows designed game, not just some weird exception to the rule nobody plays that I've found.) will actually run out of Virtual Address space and crash in Vista when CoH worked fine on the exact same system using XP drivers! The user can either figure out how to boot into 3 gig mode in Vista32, or just use Vista 64.
CoH was released in September 2006 and is bumping into the 32bit Virtual Address space limitations! (A 32bit PC can only see 4 gigabytes, generally 2 gigabytes is for the OS and each application gets 2gigabytes. In 64bit mode the 32bit application gets a full 4 gigabytes of VA space.) What is going to happen with all the new games released this coming Autumn? They're obviously going to use more memory than year old games.
Every new computer should have a 64bit OS now.
Due to job requirements I run XP Pro x64. trust me. If you run the 64 bit windows version, you are aware of the differences between XP and XP64 and if something does not explicitly say x64, you know its a crap shoot.
To be honest, though, WOW works pretty well, the only REAL major issues are things that integrate into the shell extensively (icon customizers, shell extensions, etc) or things that rely on the regular windows XP 16 bit subsystem. regular XP runs 32 bit with a 16 bit emulation layer (WOW, or windows on windows) the WOW layer for x64 is the 32 bit emulation layer, and there is no 16 bit layer.
That said, unless this beast integrates into the shell or has some legacy 16 bit code, I'm not relaly sure what would keep in from running under WOW on XPx64.
just for the record, you're not using the phrase 'word size' correctly, because both ia32 and amd64 have the same size word, 16-bits, with a dword being 32 and a qword being 64. i understood what you meant, but between that and talking about how smart apple is you lost any credibility i might've thought you had.
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.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Unloading bundles containing Objective-C was enabled in Mac OS X 10.4.7, and presumably works in 10.5 as well.
...
[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 code may now be unloaded. However, there are some restrictions on the bundle's contents and on the behavior of the unloader. These caveats include:
* An unloadable bundle must not define a category on a class that will exist after the bundle is unloaded.
* A class in an unloadable bundle must not pose as any class that will exist after the bundle is unloaded.
* A class in an unloadable bundle must not be the superclass of any class that will exist after the bundle is unloaded.
* No instances of any class defined in an unloadable bundle can exist when the bundle is unloaded. In particular, autoreleased instances of unloaded classes will behave incorrectly when the autorelease pool is popped.
* Foundation's Key-Value Coding and Key-Value Observing may not behave correctly when used with classes that are then unloaded.
objc_unloadModules() remains unimplemented. Use the NSBundle, CFBundle, or dyld APIs to unload bundle libraries.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Actually, thanks to some ancient badness, x64 OSes are needed by anyone requiring more than 2-3GB of RAM!!11!one All of your PCI devices take a bite out of that 4GB space long before it gets matched to your physical RAM. It's a corner case, but if you have two GeForce 7950 GX2s, that's 2GB of address space gone. Throw in another PCI device or two and you won't even get 2GB of usable physical memory without x64. It's time. Anyone claiming x64 is unneeded just hasn't paid attention to all the little details.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
I already mentioned this in another thread, but take a look at the iPhone: Minimum system requirements page
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...
I can't help but wonder where you read that rubbish. If you check chapter five in the intel developers manual, specifically the section titled 'fundamental data types' you will find the following sentence:
'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 consider the syntax of the instruction when you actually program in it, you also realize that a word on intel is 16-bits, i.e.
mov dword ptr [...], [...]
Or if you prefer at&t syntax it becomes even more prevalent, i.e.
movw 0xFFFF, %[...]
So really, I don't see how you or anyone else could claim a word size is >16-bits on an intel architecture, because its plainly not.
I guess my first example wouldve made more sense if I had actually used a word instead of a dword, so i.e.:
mov word ax, 0xFFFF
and in the at&t syntax I needed to put a $ in front of the immediate value