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:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
virtualize man! (Score:5, Insightful)
or install your legal 32bit copy of windows in vmware
or google for running osx in vmware [imageshack.us] like im doing
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Suprised about what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (Score:4, Insightful)
If they made their dfrivers right that should not be hard, But we are talking about apple here...
Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh?
You would think that with the supposed capabilities, you would it could be your computer.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Locking down (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway (Score:1, Insightful)
Cheer up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway (Score:1, Insightful)
You have to have iTunes to activate the phone. Apparently it's "simpler" to include the sim card in the phone (not user accessable), require you to install a new version of iTunes on your computer, _and_ give it your credit card for the new $60+ service plan (or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.).
If you don't, the phone is unusable. Personally, I suspect they do it that way to ensure that you have iTunes installed, making it more likely you are going to buy songs.
Free Software and Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:virtualize man! (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of like how I had to install XP inside a Parallels VM to use my Nokia smartphone on my Mac?
Mac users have to live with that kind of crap all the time, and we hear it's because Mac OS is not mainstream enough. Well guess what, 64 bit Windows is not mainstream either.
64 Bit Support is new to everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware," they have been sued for cutting corners on things like display back lights.
It's not saying much that they have been sued. Have they been convicted? A great deal of people seem to agree that Apple does in fact make superior hardware, although any opinion is bound to be just that: An opinion. Yours is as valid as anybody elses, but I'd say that it depends on what you compare it with. I know it's an ongoiong discussion here and elsewhere whether it's possible to get a better deal on the same quality hardware as Apple delivers, but I've never seen anyone who claimed that Apple hardware is downright bad.
Why do people only seem to complain when a company in a monopoly position doesn't release technical information?
Firstly, they don't just complain when it's a monopoly as you claim. You must be new here. Secondly, the reason why they may complain more when it is a monopoly is because it's considered illegal only in that case. Please eloborate on the ethical principle that tells us why Apple (which is not a monopoly) should be forced to make life easier for it's partners and competitors.
Of course, Apple has never been very developer friendly, and they have always tried to hide technical details. Why do they keep trying to roll with the strategy that failed during the 80s?
Again, I'd like to emphasise that your statement is a matter of opinion. You may be a developer and you may feel that Apple has been unkind to you, but I'm confident that lots of other developers feel differently. Your statement about Apples strategy is downright ignorant. Apple has had about as many strategies as they've had CEOs. The current strategy (since 1997) is seen as a departure from the "not-invented-here" strategy of the mid-90s. It's this strategy that has seen Apple embrace open source (Darwin, WebKit), open standards, interoperability, and partnerships a-plenty. This strategy btw has proved to be hugely succesful, which should answer your question as to why they're sticking to it.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being funny... but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're suggesting people should RTFM for products they haven't even bought yet? BWAAHAHAHAHAhahaha.. heh... hooooo... oh, you're serious, aren't you?
Re:virtualize man! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Relatively speaking, how many users do you think really are using Windows 64 vs. Windows 32? Maybe
Windows 64-bit is not mainstream AT all. And Microsoft has insured it never will be -- at least until such time as they follow Apple's lead and create a Vista 32-bit/64-bit combo that allows 32-bit apps to run alongside 64-bit apps with no compatibility issues. At that point, it won't matter than iTunes is 32-bit.
Troll Feeding Time ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Customer service, security, and quality are at best an afterthought at Apple."
Curious, Business Week [businessweek.com] 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
Re:Free Software and Open Source (Score:1, Insightful)
I highly doubt it.
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)
After which you'll discover sixty missing symbols because the versions of the libraries the tool was linked against were about ten iterations out of date, and if you email the author, he'll say it's your fault for having the wrong versions of the libraries, and it's your responsibility to repair the code to conform to the new interfaces.
, 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??
Hey, that's right, because if there's anything the open-source community is known for, it's consistency!
Open source is a great thing, but it is not some sort of magic panacea. It has just as many problems as closed-source -- it's just that the problems are different.
It's not my Zune! It's a false one! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you know what it's like to be a Mac or a Linux user.
Pedantic if not downright false (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:virtualize man! (Score:1, Insightful)
"Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bit edition"
Re:Technical technicalities, techincally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also annoying when you find out that a game has licensed a copy protection system that doesn't work on 64-bit Windows, and so stops you playing. In some cases without any message or anything, leaving you guessing about the problem. The last game that I got that did this also had a no-dvd crack out before release, so it seems to me that the companies should give up on copy protection.
Re:Pedantic if not downright false (Score:3, Insightful)
x64 isn't like the difference between Home, Pro, and MCE. Or between Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc.
x64 isn't a feature set its an architecture.
Suppose I released a Microsoft Office plug in, and just listed 'any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 or later' as the requirement. Would you really expect it to work with "Microsoft Office 2004: Mac" without a specific mention of the Mac platform? Of course not.
I concede a lot of consumers don't really know what x64 is. (Hell, a LOT of IT nerds don't really know what x64 is. In fact, I know almost nobody who actually needs or really benefits from an x64 desktop OS. 64-bit Linux users *included*. )
Re:Pedantic if not downright false (Score:3, Insightful)
PAE works extremely poorly (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (Score:3, Insightful)
And as I've said at least 4 times now, the name "Windows XP Professional 64-bit edition" (or whatever) implies that it's being sold as a version of "Windows XP Professional". Regardless of some convoluted argument based on something squirelled away on MS's website.
The fact that Apple acknowledge the 64-bit incompatibility elsewhere (why bother if it was as cut-and-dried as you imply?) shows that even they acknowledge the potential for confusion.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, they don't matter.
Re:This is just utter nonsense (Mac talking points (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Technical technicalities, techincally (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot's web server has a portable Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field Generator, I tell you.