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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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 ----
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
"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
"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).