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."
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.
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
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.
"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
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.
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
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?
You do realize that the G5 and latest Intel chips are all 64bit. The fact that you don't notice it or that there aren't five different versions of the operating system just to get 32bit/64bit working together nicely doesn't mean it isn't that way even if not all of the layers are full 64-bit (thats Leopard). You may or may not realize that a universal binary actually contains four binaries, one for each platform (PPC and x86) and for each word size (32 and 64 bit). The fact that every time I read about 64-bit Windows its some form of gripe (XYZ app doesn't have a native version, hacks to run in 32bit mode) and that even Microsoft documentation clearly designates a difference (why not just like "Vista XYZ Edition" instead of "Vista XYZ Edition 64-bit" if its the same) is a problem with the Microsoft platform. To be honest Apple have made transitioning between architectures a breeze, my Mac runs some PowerPC applications (like my Palm synchronization software and my TI software) without blinking. And thats PPC running on an Intel. Perhaps when Microsoft get building across the 32-bit/64-bit bridge (hey remember how long it took to get a full 32bit native desktop operating system from Windows?) it'll be smooth again. The issue for Microsoft is that when people went to 32 bit, the CPU was there in almost every machine, they were catching up. Now they're trying to push ahead and it isn't as easy as last time (Windows 95). Perhaps they should look at what Apple have done and try to copy it...again.
I always wondered where this setting was...
If Microsoft didn't want x64 to be mainstream, why do they require that any software and hardware with a Certified For or Works With Vista logo to be tested and pass on x64 editions? Vendors got a free pass on XP x64 since it wasn't in the logo requirements so that is how we've gotten into this mess, but any new retail boxes with a logo for Vista must work on all version of Vista.
My understanding was that 64 bit Vista was going to be somewhat more finiky about doing the right thing.
Apple is just lazy. It's also a good thing they don't want to put so much as a "Works with Windows Vista" logo on any of their software since they would fail the certification process (must work with x64 Vista editions).
Well yes, and it is all the more irritating that they don't build products to Windows look and feel when they get all snotty about Windows products that don't have the Mac look and feel. There are plenty of shops that write Windows device drivers that pass certification. Why not use one of them, it would cost rather less than just one of the stupid iPhone ads drumming up business for a product thats going to be out of stock.
iTunes on Windows sucketh. I did a three part series on my blog on the various dimensions of its suckiness. If I could get Windows Media Player to do AAC and talk to an iPod I would switch back.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
> And 64 Bit Vista drivers have to be signed
That's a very good point. Getting the Microsoft blessing is very expensive, and if you're a competitor to them, impossible. We've given-up supporting Windows with our newest products because Microsoft will not allow our drivers to be installed into Vista because we make a health-care product that they are going to attempt to compete against in the near future. I can easily see Microsoft not allowing Apple to use the iPhones with 64-bit Vista like they did to so many other companies.
I can solve one of those problems for you:
MGTEK dopisp iPod plug-in for Windows Media Player
In 10.5, Carbon was not ported to 64-bit.
Uh no... The only part of Carbon that wasn't ported to 64bit are the GUI layers of HIToolbox.
http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon