No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows 762
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."
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Informative)
not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:1, Informative)
Join the club (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Apple Forums (Score:5, Informative)
Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (Score:1, Informative)
Hardly. I've been running AMD64 native Gentoo for 3 years, being able to address over 4GB of RAM isn't of any benefit to me but the extra registers are.
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:4, Informative)
you're wrong (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:virtualize man! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you did it the right way at the beginning. MSDN has contained information on this one for quite a time. I remember that back in 2000, when I was writing network driver for Windows 2000, I thought "What are these stupid macros, why I can't just write unsigned int instead of that ugly looking DWORD." Luckily my code wasn't compiled to any 64 bit Windows since I think I unintentionally left couple of mines there :)
But device drivers are just a small part of "iPhone software" what ever that is. I can envision that GUI and data transfer parts are much bigger things. User-space components are much easier to write to be 32/64-bit compatible unless you really don't know what you are doing.
I don't know why Apple can't produce quality stuff for Windows (and many other companies). Or maybe they are and this is just a marketing decision "See? It doesn't run nicely on Windows because Windows sucks. Luckily we have nice OS X here for you..."
Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (Score:1, Informative)
No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
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'...
Re:The Zune doesn't work on 64 bit windows, either (Score:4, Informative)
Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:32bit windows runs 16bit apps (Score:3, Informative)
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,
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
The default search option only hits "Manuals" and ignores technical documents, leading any casual search to _appear_ empty. Changing it to search _everything_ rendered that link. Notice footnote (1) in the Windows section...
Missing the Point (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
No its not.
64 Bit Vista uses the new driver model. It requires code to be done right. The botchwork that programmers could get away with for 32 bit Windows no longer works.
And 64 Bit Vista drivers have to be signed. Which is something that vendors should do for all versions of Windows, its only been a recommendation for like 5 years.
That said, I beleive that to get the 'designed for Vista' logo you have to support 64 bit.
Taking the comment off the bulleting board is doubleplus lame. Makes it look like Apple can't deal with non cult members as customers.
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:2, Informative)
No, Joke AC. Neo1973 out next month. (Score:3, Informative)
Boo-yah, baby. $200 cheaper than an iPhone. [wikipedia.org]
I like it like that.
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Business 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit Edition
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
This is not a raw deal. Until Apple offers to support its products on 64-bit editions of Windows, no such contract as you describe exists.
Re:The Zune doesn't work on 64 bit windows, either (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware,"
Nice opinion -- although based on my own experiences, my Macs have much longer life than my PCs.
And anyone who bases their OS on BSD will have something solid (even though OS X still has more unpatched vulnerabilities than *BSD).
I love how you absolutely refuse to give any credit for Apple's efforts and as a bonus claim they're just riddled with security holes beyond anything *BSD has - all without real evidence.
ut their competitors should have access to the iPod/iPhone interface specs.
Apple does give access to specs to create iPod/iPhone accessories, via licensing. It is a reasonable approach. In fact, it created a whole new market for accessories.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information? Apple should be held to the same standard
Again, your facts are a bit off. Microsoft was found to be illegally using its monopoly to get into new markets. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. Second point - Apple does not have a monopoly and is actively pursuing efforts to open iTunes music to all players (by removing DRM). Effectively, they're opening up to more competition.
I sense a "All software should be free" mentality here.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly and they have always tried to hide technical details.
Except for the FREE development tools (Xcode, IB) that come with EVERY copy of OS X. And the tons of API specifications that show you how to write for OS X. So developer unfriendly! How dare they not expose every single line of code.
Your comments speak of ignorance of Apple's actions or just plain contempt (which means no amount of reasoning will change your mind). Either way, you're off base in your assessments.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Informative)
YES, Sim Is Accessible (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.powerbookmedic.com/iphone/simcard.html [powerbookmedic.com]
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?
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's correct... (Score:3, Informative)
Requirements omit to mention Windows 3.1 (Score:5, Informative)
What a shocker.
The official name of the 64 bit product is Windows XP Professional x64 Edition [microsoft.com].
That name is not listed on the iPhone page, don't expect it to be supported.
You don't pay Microsoft to sign the driver. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:1, Informative)
"iTunes for Windows not currently supported on any 64-bit editions of Windows"
Published Feb 06
On the box it only lists "Windows Vista". The poster above is correct, if Windows *64 was supported, the trademarked name of the 64-bit product would have been listed.
Re:It's not my Zune! It's a false one! (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong. Most 32-bit software actually runs just fine on Windows x64. I realize it's fun to hate Microsoft and all, but can we at least act like we know what we're talking about before posting? I mean, seriously, this is common knowledge. Where you actually have a point, though, is that HARDWARE is often difficult to get running on Windows x64. The driver model makes that difficult, so companies have to put extra effort into making their devices run with it. In that respect, you're right, the guy doesn't have a lot of wiggle room to complain.
It is not because Windows 64-bit is a 'database server' or a 'non-consumer' OS. It's because the hardware's different and Microsoft fiddled with their driver signing agreement. That's it, no need to write fiction.
Re:Pedantic if not downright false (Score:3, Informative)
iPhone requirements [apple.com] as of today:
Windows system requirements
* PC with USB 2.0 port
* Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later
* iTunes 7.3 or later
It does not specify 32bit. There is no indication Vista Ultimate needs to Vista Ultimate 32bit.
MS is really pushing 64bit. You can't get a 32bit driver WHQL certified anymore unless there is a 64bit version. This is so people don't need to worry about 32bit or 64bit, the customer just needs to read "requires Vista" and the IHV just needs to print "requires Vista". Nice and simple. Apple is writing "requires Vista" and then behaving differently than the rest of the Windows ecosystem. While this is shameful for any company, it's extra shameful for one that prides itself on just working.
Who needs 64bit? Today, all Vista users that are gamers. Company of Heroes (for non gamers out there it's a RTS set in ww2 that is a Games For Windows game and it won a ton of Game of the Year 2006 awards-It's a pretty big fully windows designed game, not just some weird exception to the rule nobody plays that I've found.) will actually run out of Virtual Address space and crash in Vista when CoH worked fine on the exact same system using XP drivers! The user can either figure out how to boot into 3 gig mode in Vista32, or just use Vista 64.
CoH was released in September 2006 and is bumping into the 32bit Virtual Address space limitations! (A 32bit PC can only see 4 gigabytes, generally 2 gigabytes is for the OS and each application gets 2gigabytes. In 64bit mode the 32bit application gets a full 4 gigabytes of VA space.) What is going to happen with all the new games released this coming Autumn? They're obviously going to use more memory than year old games.
Every new computer should have a 64bit OS now.
Re:Pedantic if not downright false (Score:1, Informative)
To be honest, though, WOW works pretty well, the only REAL major issues are things that integrate into the shell extensively (icon customizers, shell extensions, etc) or things that rely on the regular windows XP 16 bit subsystem. regular XP runs 32 bit with a 16 bit emulation layer (WOW, or windows on windows) the WOW layer for x64 is the 32 bit emulation layer, and there is no 16 bit layer.
That said, unless this beast integrates into the shell or has some legacy 16 bit code, I'm not relaly sure what would keep in from running under WOW on XPx64.
Re:It will be supported (Score:4, Informative)
Here's The Thing... (Score:2, Informative)
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 [apple.com] 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 [apple.com]
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.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unless you want to unload a DLL. (Score:3, Informative)
[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.
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pedantic if not downright false (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's correct... (Score:4, Informative)
1. 64-bit editions of Windows are not supported
Not sure if Apple added this after the fact or whether this little tidbit of information was there all along...
Re:It will be supported (Score:3, Informative)
'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.
Re:It will be supported (Score:3, Informative)
mov word ax, 0xFFFF
and in the at&t syntax I needed to put a $ in front of the immediate value