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?
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
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,
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
Anyone willing to pay $500+ for a phone will not be satisfied with an entry-level iMac device.
"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.
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).
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.