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."
Yeah, whatever. The customer should not have to worry that his/her computer is 'compatible' with the iPhone in any way, as long as it's fairly modern and mainstream. Isn't one of Apples 'soundbites' "It just works?"
-- Cheers!
The rep should have said "Stop whining. Noone supports desktop 64 bit windows"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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
It "just works" with *our* hardware and *our* software.
Come on, who'd buy a first-gen iPod without checking to see if it would work with their XP box? Or a Newton without checking to see if it could data transfer with Windows 3.1?
...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!
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.
I think you miss the concept of a 64-bit _OS_ entirely. The CPU doesn't matter! An AMD or an Intel CPU running a 32-bit OS will work just fine. An AMD or an Intel CPU running a 64-bit OS will _NOT_ work.
64-bit Windows isn't mainstream.
Linux is more mainstream than 64-bit Windows. iTunes doesn't support Linux either. But if you complain about that on the Apple forums, no one will listen to you. Why should it be different with 64-bit Windows?
Well, my pre-(first-gen-iPod) noname MP3 player does work pretty well with XP, Vista and the 64bit versions thereof.
I think you're confusing a "manic desire to maintain total control over their hardware and software" with Apple just not doing what you wish they would do. (You haven't specifically said what that is though.) I'm not sure why Apple should want to make you happy with their actions. They're offering some products. Your choice is to take them or leave them.
Apple doesn't owe each individual person their dream product -- specifically tailored to your personal individual desires and biases. No one owes you that. And it's not "arrogance" when folks don't focus on what you want.
If you don't like their products, you're probably outside their target market.
Oh dont worry it works. If not they'll just delete any evidence to the contrary!
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Building software for 64-bit windows would usually be a matter of a few compiler switches and using the proper types and macros. Or just building a 32-bit app that runs properly in 64-bit. Apple might have some crazy in-house cross-platform environment or a lack of QA resources which prevents doing either but that isn't much of an excuse.
They could be doing it for political reasons of course which isn't forgiveable either.
Considering Apple's reputation for software which "just works", their recent offerings on Windows seem to be doing anything but.
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
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!
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.
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
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 ----
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware," they have been sued for cutting corners on things like display back lights.
It's not saying much that they have been sued. Have they been convicted? A great deal of people seem to agree that Apple does in fact make superior hardware, although any opinion is bound to be just that: An opinion. Yours is as valid as anybody elses, but I'd say that it depends on what you compare it with. I know it's an ongoiong discussion here and elsewhere whether it's possible to get a better deal on the same quality hardware as Apple delivers, but I've never seen anyone who claimed that Apple hardware is downright bad.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information?
Firstly, they don't just complain when it's a monopoly as you claim. You must be new here. Secondly, the reason why they may complain more when it is a monopoly is because it's considered illegal only in that case. Please eloborate on the ethical principle that tells us why Apple (which is not a monopoly) should be forced to make life easier for it's partners and competitors.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly, and they have always tried to hide technical details. Why do they keep trying to roll with the strategy that failed during the 80s?
Again, I'd like to emphasise that your statement is a matter of opinion. You may be a developer and you may feel that Apple has been unkind to you, but I'm confident that lots of other developers feel differently. Your statement about Apples strategy is downright ignorant. Apple has had about as many strategies as they've had CEOs. The current strategy (since 1997) is seen as a departure from the "not-invented-here" strategy of the mid-90s. It's this strategy that has seen Apple embrace open source (Darwin, WebKit), open standards, interoperability, and partnerships a-plenty. This strategy btw has proved to be hugely succesful, which should answer your question as to why they're sticking to it.
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.
You're suggesting people should RTFM for products they haven't even bought yet? BWAAHAHAHAHAhahaha.. heh... hooooo... oh, you're serious, aren't you?
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Next up: complaints that iPhone won't sync with Sun, Amiga, Atari and Coleco systems.
.5%. 64-bit is great for certain types of applications and is seriously overkill for others (like iTunes).
Relatively speaking, how many users do you think really are using Windows 64 vs. Windows 32? Maybe
Windows 64-bit is not mainstream AT all. And Microsoft has insured it never will be -- at least until such time as they follow Apple's lead and create a Vista 32-bit/64-bit combo that allows 32-bit apps to run alongside 64-bit apps with no compatibility issues. At that point, it won't matter than iTunes is 32-bit.
"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
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.
"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.
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).
MS's naming/marketing clearly implies that it *is* being sold as such (regardless of the actual underpinnings), so it's disingenuous to suggest that Apple didn't imply compatibility when they listed "Windows XP Professional" without qualifying that in any way.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Windows x64 does run 32-bit applications. However to plug something in you need a 64-bit DRIVER, and that's a whole other story.
It's also annoying when you find out that a game has licensed a copy protection system that doesn't work on 64-bit Windows, and so stops you playing. In some cases without any message or anything, leaving you guessing about the problem. The last game that I got that did this also had a no-dvd crack out before release, so it seems to me that the companies should give up on copy protection.
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.
And as I've said at least 4 times now, the name "Windows XP Professional 64-bit edition" (or whatever) implies that it's being sold as a version of "Windows XP Professional". Regardless of some convoluted argument based on something squirelled away on MS's website.
The fact that Apple acknowledge the 64-bit incompatibility elsewhere (why bother if it was as cut-and-dried as you imply?) shows that even they acknowledge the potential for confusion.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
No, the main reason is that Windows x64 users don't need a 64-bit browser plugin because they still use a 32-bit browser, meaning the only people who need a 64-bit version are running linux x64, and they both: are a very small market share and have that workaround.
Essentially, they don't matter.
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.
Give it up. If you're against Apple, you'll be modded Troll into oblivion, and getting anyone to agree with you is downright impossible. Apple can do no Evil, you know? The Great Jobs Will Save Us.
Slashdot's web server has a portable Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field Generator, I tell you.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".