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."
the rep said I needed to downgrade my computer
Look on the bright side, he could have told you needed to upgrade to OSX.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
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.
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
...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.
People are waiting in line to buy our product and you are complaining about not working in 64 bit OS. Man, this was not released to people like you. The buyers we thought would shell out this kind of money to buy our product will only be running 32 bit OS. You sir, should get a life. Thanks Apple Customer support.
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.
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
Is there anything that DOES?
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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 ----
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!
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.
"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.
You BOUGHT a Zune! Bwa ha ha ha
"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
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
Boo-yah, baby. $200 cheaper than an iPhone.
I like it like that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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?
Anyone willing to pay $500+ for a phone will not be satisfied with an entry-level iMac device.
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 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...
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?
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...
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).
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.
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
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.
"Anyone willing to pay $500+ for a phone will certainly pay $400 or less for some entry-level iMac device."
Absolutely. Anyone who has just spent $500 on a phone would be more than happy to almost double their spending to use a main feature of the phone. It's common sense.
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.
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.
Anyone who would spend several hundreds of dollars on an iGadget from any company WITHOUT FIRST confirming that it is supported on their OS, is simply naive.
Anyone who goes out of their way to get the 64-bit implementation of any Windows (in the first place), and THEN spends said fortune on a shiny iToy WITHOUT FIRST confirming support under their 64-bit Windows OS, is a chump.
Perhaps using Macs has gotten me used to checking system requirements religiously when making software and peripheral hardware purchases. However, even when I have owned/used Windows systems, I always checked to make sure those systems were supported before shelling out a fistfull of cash.
So, cry me a river. 'nuf said.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
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".
you're right, it's not a democracy over here like people want to think it is. government follows the golden rule "He who has all the gold makes all the rules" and politicians are nothing but corporate puppets. George Bush is the biggest puppet of all, the Bush empire is all oil money and war in the middle east has served to bring the price of gas up at the pump not because of lack of supply but because of FUD propagated by the political powers who use fear to win votes.
It's no surprise that I've heard different unrelated people talking about revolution recently (older people who've been around for awhile) because of the widening gap of those who have and those who have not in our society. Foreclosures on homes are at an all time high and when housing becomes out of reach of the common man who works 60 hours a week something has got to give. I have hopes that advancing technology will change the equation and level the field between individuals and large companies, and erase centuries old programming that religion has placed on a large portion of otherwise free thinking people. It's a strange time we live in.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
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