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.
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
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).
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,
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/
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.
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...
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.
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...