×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No iPhone For 64-Bit Windows

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the very-fine-print dept.

Communications 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

762 comments

Look on the bright side... (5, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705819)

the rep said I needed to downgrade my computer

Look on the bright side, he could have told you needed to upgrade to OSX.

Re:Look on the bright side... (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705837)

Yeah, whatever. The customer should not have to worry that his/her computer is 'compatible' with the iPhone in any way, as long as it's fairly modern and mainstream. Isn't one of Apples 'soundbites' "It just works?"

Re:Look on the bright side... (5, Insightful)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705869)

It "just works" with *our* hardware and *our* software.

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?

Re:Look on the bright side... (2, Insightful)

_pruegel_ (581143) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706047)

Well, my pre-(first-gen-iPod) noname MP3 player does work pretty well with XP, Vista and the 64bit versions thereof.

No.. requirements list itself omitted the info. (5, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706201)

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?
That's a poor and downright misleading comparison. The listed product requirements [blogsmithmedia.com] mention XP and Vista, but didn't (and at the time of writing still don't [apple.com]) mention anything about incompatibility with 64-bit versions.

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:Look on the bright side... (1, Informative)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705953)

Apple would address linux before 64 bit windows. With that said, the manual says it in quite a few places that it's not supported.

Re:Look on the bright side... (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706127)

Apple would address linux before 64 bit windows. With that said, the manual says it in quite a few places that it's not supported.

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:Look on the bright side... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706209)

"Building software for 64-bit windows would usually be a matter of a few compiler switches and using the proper types and macros."

Building is easy. Supporting is hard. If you can't use the phone with your OS of choice (a bad choice, IMHO) then return the phone and get a refund.

Re:Look on the bright side... (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705965)

64-bit Windows isn't mainstream.

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... (2, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706073)

Oh dont worry it works. If not they'll just delete any evidence to the contrary!

Re:Look on the bright side... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706113)

Isn't one of Apples 'soundbites' "It just works?"

Well it does on OS X.

It is kind of like getting angry that your Zune didn't work on a 64-bit version of Linux.

The fact of the matter is that Apple makes good hardware and a good solid OS, but they really suck at making software run on things that isn't theirs. (I'm looking at you Quicktime!)

Re:Look on the bright side... (0, Flamebait)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706275)

First of all, Apple does not make "good hardware," they have been sued for cutting corners on things like display back lights. And anyone who bases their OS on BSD will have something solid (even though OS X still has more unpatched vulnerabilities than *BSD).

That being said, I agree, Apple shouldn't have to develop software for their competitors. But their competitors should have access to the iPod/iPhone interface specs. 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: they should release technical information so that third party developers can create software that syncs up with the iPhone (if Apple's software is so good, then the fact that other people produce lower-quality applications shouldn't be a problem...unless...).

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?

Re:Look on the bright side... (0)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706263)

Apparently not. My macbook pro is now refusing to boot with a stop symbol at startup, and the x key doesn't work. I'm not very impressed, considering that it is only three months old. I'm a little miffed right now, $3300 is a lot of money for a laptop.

Re:Look on the bright side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19705841)

That Would be an Upgrade.

Re:Look on the bright side... (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705897)

Not much to see, but Apple has two small knowledge base articles that mention this. I guess the folks at Apple Stores and AT&T stores should be very specific when asking about your OS.

Does no '64-bit Windows' mean that no AMD Athlon users can sync their iPhones? I wonder if this is a little bonus for Intel?

Re:Look on the bright side... (2, Insightful)

dleifelohcs (777508) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705951)

I think you miss the concept of a 64-bit _OS_ entirely. The CPU doesn't matter! An AMD or an Intel CPU running a 32-bit OS will work just fine. An AMD or an Intel CPU running a 64-bit OS will _NOT_ work.

Another world first for Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706019)

All-New OS-X Leopard! The World's First 64-bit iPhone-Compatible Operating System!

RELIGION OF PEACE STRIKES AGAIN! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19705847)

Okay, hands up who is surprised. ?

Suprised about what? (1, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705909)

Suprised that it does not work on X64? Or suprised that the kool-aid drinking employees would delete anything that didn't say that the iPhone was not almost God like?

Re:RELIGION OF PEACE STRIKES AGAIN! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706245)

I'm certainly not surprised. After all, you're talking about people who think it's okay to gouge out a young girl's clitoris with a shard of glass so she won't ever be tempted to cheat on her preselected husband. But I am extremely offended that Muslims think that targeting random civilians for acts of war is an acceptable political strategy. How would the world be different if Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi had used such tactics? Where are these moderate Muslims the media keeps assuring us are the majority? I say that if they won't stand up and denounce these acts publicly, then it's time to throw all of their anti-civilization asses into internment camps.

Locking down (5, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705849)

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.

Re:Locking down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19705903)

People also seem to be having difficulties synching their Zunes to 64 bit OSX, but I'd guess that that's Apple's fault.

Pffffft.

Re:Locking down (0)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705921)

No, that would be Microsoft's fault if it's true, and I'd say the same about them. Thing is, we're talking about iPhones and Apple here, not the Zune and MS. Try to stay on topic.

Re:Locking down (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706003)

wow - I've never actually seen someone use "through" for "threw." I've seen the opposite - but you've correctly spelled the longer, incorrect, homophone. Congratulations sir.

Re:Locking down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706023)

Never seen it before? Whey're do your live and ca'n I come to?

Re:Locking down (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706037)

It's called not having had my coffee yet when I posted. I'd been awake only a few minutes, hence the horrid spelling and bad mood ;)

Re:Locking down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706155)

Yeah right. You geeks always spit out the "not had my coffee" yet line to make up for your inadequacies.

Re:Locking down (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706069)

I think you're confusing a "manic desire to maintain total control over their hardware and software" with Apple just not doing what you wish they would do. (You haven't specifically said what that is though.) I'm not sure why Apple should want to make you happy with their actions. They're offering some products. Your choice is to take them or leave them.

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:Locking down (1)

Elsapotk421 (1097205) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706139)

I'd say that their proprietary-ness (Lay off the grammar) is more for quality control than anything....if you control all the variables, you control performance. Let's face it performance is key. I'm waiting to hear that someone had a bad experience with it on osX.

Re:Locking down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706153)

Arrogance? Apple?
Oh c'mon now, you're gonna make my head explode!
Microsoft is, without a doubt, the single most arrogant tech company on the planet!
Do you own a PC with Windows on it?
Wrong.
You *bought* a PC with Windows on it.
In MS's opinion, you do not *own* what you've bought, you're bowing on your knees and kissing Bill's pinky ring, begging Microsoft's permission to use it.
MS suck-ups are the worst 'lil beeyatch's out there, and they can't wait to drop trow, bend over and beg for more.

Well it depends (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706191)

If it is all a user-mode app, as in no kernel drivers or anything, should be no porting necessary. 64-bit Windows has a 32-bit emulation layer that works real well. Thus programs needn't be ported at all, they run as is. However that works only for user code, there can be nothing but 64-bit code in the kernel. This is still no big deal, supposing it was written right. I should almost just be as simple as a recompile. However if it is written poorly, well then it could be a major rewrite. I've come across more than one app that has done stupid things like assume that pointers will always be 4 bytes and thus won't compile for a 64-bit target.

Given the over all poor quality of iTunes and Quicktime on the PC, I'm guessing they are probably NOT very well written and thus a 64-bit port is a more major problem.

I personally find it rather amazing that they'd mandate iTunes to use the phone. I mean I have a PDAphone that runs Windows Mobile and while you can install a program to sync it to Windows, you need never do that. The phone is happy to work even if you don't own a computer at all. Seems like an extremely unnecessary move to mandate the use of iTunes for thier phone.

Re:Well it depends (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706329)

It's an app which your iPhone connects to in order to activate and sychronize... there are drivers involved. Even if they could have, why would they (bear in mind I am writing this from a Dell laptop which I use everyday, that runs XP x64 - so I would be SOL too). x64 XP has been a market test. Vista x64 deployment is a novelty for now - not supporting it means less work for vendors to develop and test. If Microsoft cared about x64 deployment, they'd be pushing harder for ISV's to develop for it. I don't find it surprising that they'd mandate iTunes. It's an iPod. It has to sync somehow or you lose 90% of the utility of the device...

Huh? (1)

r3f4rd30n (1030822) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705853)

Well, thats odd - Mac OS is 64bit, or is it? And anyway, syncing what is basically an external hard drive? That can't be too hard...

Re:Huh? (1)

Movi (1005625) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706009)

OSX Tiger has 64bit BSD subsystem (if sufficient hardware is found), but the aqua layer and apps are 32bit (unless the application explicitly does something 64bit which i think is possible, but i can't name any). Leopard will be totally fat-binary eg. it will use 64bit in all components when 64bit hardware is used, however it will have a linux-like /lib32.

Re:Huh? (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706161)

10.5 / Leopard, due in October, is 64bit. 10.4 / Tiger (currently in stores / shipped on new macs) is 32bit.

virtualize man! (5, Insightful)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705857)

install xp in a virtual machine! virtual pc + windows xp FREE from microsoft! [msdn.com]

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! (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705863)

Or buy a phone that doesn't make you jump through hoops to use it? I can't believe you're actually saying people should use kludges just to use a phone. Amazing.

Re:virtualize man! (2)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705933)

well looks like the thread starter is already the bigger fool for buying an Apple product, so i was just trying to help the poor soul (well not poor financially anyways if he afforded an iphone)

Re:virtualize man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706291)

I can't believe people still say kludge, much less use Apple software/hardware.

Re:virtualize man! (4, Insightful)

weave (48069) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706325)

I can't believe you're actually saying people should use kludges just to use a phone. Amazing.

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.

Re:virtualize man! (3, Informative)

ditoa (952847) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705865)

Unfortunately Virtual PC has no USB support so your plan fails :(

Re:virtualize man! (1)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705899)

oops ur right! sorry but vmware does support it (i believe vmware have free trial as well?)

Re:virtualize man! (4, Informative)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706109)

They have two free products. VMware Player can play any VM out there. VMWare Server is their hosted product. VMWare server is completely free, no strings attached and it works great.

Re:virtualize man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706203)

QEMU does [dion.ne.jp]

Microsoft: "Where do you want to go years after everyone else?"

Apple lists this problem in fine print (5, Insightful)

ragingmime (636249) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705873)

...on this page [apple.com].

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?

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (3, Insightful)

doctormetal (62102) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705923)

How hard would it have been to recompile the iPhone software for a 64-bit machine?
It is not just about recompiling the code. The device drivers for the iphone must be rewritten to run on a 64 bit OS.
If they made their dfrivers right that should not be hard, But we are talking about apple here...

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (4, Informative)

weicco (645927) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706125)

The device drivers for the iphone must be rewritten to run on a 64 bit OS

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:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706175)

There's more to it than just recompiling the code.

Not a lot more... but the drivers have to be signed, or Windows won't let you install them.

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705961)

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?

To be honest this isn't just a problem with Apple software on Windows. Under XP the wireless service is enabled by default, even on machines which have never seen any wireless hardware...

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19705975)

Ummm...let's see here... iPhone = Mac company, OSX = Mac company, Windows is not a Mac company. I highly doubt Billy is gonna give code to operate seemless with 64 Windows. There flagship especially on this move that puts them ahead of the mobile computing race. From a business point of view yeah...this makes sense to get more people on OSX. This is simple business. Not a screwed by the man mentality but we want people to use OSX. Makes sense to me. Why should Mac support windows and vise versa.

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (3, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706065)

I use iTunes to play my MP3s which unfortunately requires QuickTime be installed. Is QT opening the MP3 because of your browser settings because it's not happening to me in Firefox (and I just had a computer upgrade at work and had to reinstall QT and iTunes).

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

ragingmime (636249) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706193)

Yup, it is the browser settings - I'm just angry because I don't think QuickTime should change my browser settings without asking me first. I just installed iTunes (with QuickTime), and I had to change all the file type actions back to "download" from "open with QuickTime plugin" after I installed it. I didn't have any problems before I installed QuickTime. Maybe if you change the settings manually and then reinstall QuickTime, the program is at least smart enough not to change them back?

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

Thrudheim (910314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706129)

Why do Apple programs "break" the usual look and feel of Windows programs?

True, but for that matter, one could say the same things over time about Microsoft programs on the Mac OS. Word 6.0 on the Mac was a disaster because Microsoft tried to use the same codebase as the Windows version. It goes both ways. If iTunes on Windows were as good as iTunes on the Mac, a lot of complaints about it would go away.

With respect to Safari, I think one reason could be the development angle. Apple wants Safari to have a broader share and make it easier for web developers to test for Safari compatibility. If this is the goal, it makes sense that they would want the Windows version of Safari to render just like the Mac version. The font anti-aliasing looks out of place on the Windows side, since Microsoft does it differently, but any additional Safari users from the Windows side are just gravy.

How hard can it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706149)

Well, where there any smarter-than-the-ISO-standard developers who wrote the code that just knew that "size_t" was an "unsigned int"?

If you get just one of those morons, making 32-bit code 64-bit compliant can be a time-consuming pain in the ass.

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

tsjaikdus (940791) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706255)

also, iTunes is so slow to get it going and doesn't properly react on a mouseclick. Except for the Windows' search function, nothing is as frustrating to use as iTunes.

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706277)

I agree with all your points save one: lots of Windows software breaks the Windows look and feel. I'd go so far as to say that these days, programs that don't break the Windows look a bit austere. So iTunes fits right into that lousy pattern.

But yeah, the rest of your points stand. iTunes on Windows is clunky even after years. They should get some (more) top notch Windows programmers and tighten that shit up. It makes them look bad.

Cheers.

Re:Apple lists this problem in fine print (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706317)

On iPod Service: It's because of Apple's desire for a seamless experience. Once you install iTunes the iPod service starts running. When you plug in an iPod for the first time, it gets recognized.

Don't like it? Use Windows Media Player.

And before an uniformed comment comes back. Quicktime IS available without iTunes. And you can set your program associations.

Some or the other (4, Funny)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705925)

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.

Wahhhhh.... (-1, Flamebait)

Ogman (591131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705927)

Somehow I can actually imagine a 64-bit user going out and buying something they know will not work with their "special" Windows version. 64-bit geeks are the whiniest geeks of all and seem to live to patrol the world looking for places where they've been excluded and victimized. And before any 64-bit victims shout bias, I don't have (or desire) an iPhone and am OS neutral. I'm not, however, neutral on crybabies.

Re:Wahhhhh.... (-1, Offtopic)

Ogman (591131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706115)

Ain't it great when the mod proves the point!?

Re:Wahhhhh.... (0, Offtopic)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706305)

Ain't it great when the mod proves the point!?
The mods that you got were justly deserved. You were acting like a crybaby, whining and complaining, accusing a poster of being a crybaby, just because he has issues with the stuff he bought. Now you're being a crybaby again, this time whining about the mods you got. Try to avoid being such a crybaby.

Of course I, posting like this, explaining to you how it works, will deserve an Offtopic mod, or maybe even a Flamebait. Too bad. But unlike you, I'll take it like a man.

Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway? (5, Insightful)

C R Johnson (141) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705941)

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.

Re:Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway (2, Insightful)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706135)

I'm thinking (hoping) that they mean just to put songs in iTunes or whatever. I would -assume- that you could use the phone capabilities with just the cell service provider. But who buys an iPhone just to be a phone?

Re:Why do I need a computer to run my phone anyway (1, Insightful)

karmatic (776420) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706197)

Nope.

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.

not surprising (4, Informative)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705947)

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.

Re:not surprising (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706223)

A lot of apps still aren't supporting 64 bit. Might have been a good idea to ask.
No, it might have been a good idea for them to mention it in the requirements, since they stated that it was supported under Vista and XP. Any restrictions they should have mentioned.

No iPhone for South Dakota either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19705963)

Re:No iPhone for South Dakota either (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706077)

I like the blurb about 10 people per square mile... In a few weeks here it is about to be 1000 people per square mile... I go to this area every year(sturgis) and of course quite a bit of time in Rapids city. The phone service always sucks so I take a additional old school cell phone with me so I
may possibly have service. I cannot imagine that even just to service rally week customers it would not be profitable to put up some towers. It is a wide open space but next month it will get pretty crowded when 2 million bikers move into the area.

64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (0, Redundant)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705967)

I just wonder for all the home PC's 64 bit platform do you have more then 4 GIG ram inside ?
If not why did you install a 64 bit OS ?

To me it makes no sense to be capeable of adressing lots of memory in a 64 bit architecture, while not having this amount of memory (then i gues it's rather more overhead then a performance gain)...

So probaply they where right.

Oops debunking a 64 bit platform in just 5 lines of text

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706055)

> Oops debunking a 64 bit platform in just 5 lines of text

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:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706093)

Exactly. That and it drops some of the segmentation bullshit [long mode doesn't work like protected mode in terms of descriptors and all that].

Why people think 64-bit OSes is only for more than 4GB of memory is beyond me. That being said I've had several computers with more than 4GB of addressable memory (e.g. 1GB PCI hole + 4GB of memory, and another with 6GB of ram). If you do a lot of compiling or host multiple users it's easy to burn through a couple GB of ram.

Tom

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706151)

We're sorry, the iPhone is not compatible with your "I like to multiply 32 bit integers" lifestyle. Please consider multiplying smaller integers, or maybe just adding them.

Signed,
Apple

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706159)

I dont think anyone in this thread said they gave a rats butt about the OMG eye-ponies!!

Re-debunking in two words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706071)

Virtual memory.

you're wrong (2, Informative)

biscon (942763) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706097)

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 ;)

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (0, Troll)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706131)

Oops debunking a 64 bit platform in just 5 lines of text

Which leads me to believe that if they have a legitimate use for 64 bit Windows, they would have something like May3d or Photoshop up and running.

Which either means they shelled out a lot of money on computer hardware to listen to MP3s on a powerful work station or simply pirated everything anyways. If they intended to use this as a development platform for iPhone apps, I wondering what the heck for seeing you don't need a supercomputer to do so.

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706167)

  • On x86-64 you gain an additional eight machine registers over the x86's eight. In some applications that gives a significant speed boost.
  • Being able to operate on 64-bit values is quicker on a 64-bit architecture. You can also eg. copy eight bytes in a single instruction.
  • Even if you don't have more than four gigabytes of physical memory you can certainly use more than four gigabytes of address space. With all expansion cards and all, the memory map is getting real crowded, and being able to directly mmap huge files can come in handy.

Re:64 bit but do you have the memory ?? (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706253)

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.

Join the club (4, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | more than 6 years ago | (#19705979)

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.

Apple Forums (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706031)

I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed.
There are several threads in the iPhone forums mentioning that 64-bit Windows isn't supported. I'm guessing Mizled's iPhone post may have been removed because it might have been less charming than this one about his iPod [apple.com] calling iTunes 7 Junk and crappy software. I don't think Apple should remove a legitimate post (and Mizled's iPhone issues are definitely legit), but perhaps it was a little too unpleasant (and who can blame him after dropping $$$ on an iPhone).

Re:Apple Forums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706225)

Don't shoot the messenger! iTunes is crappy software. If Apple doesn't want people calling it that on their message boards, maybe they should make it so that it isn't a piece of junk or at least making it so that iPod owners don't have to use it. Seriously, is there any reason they couldn't have made it appear as a USB drive other than the fact that they want you to install their shitty software?

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706053)

leavin6 cor3. I

So what's the problem? (-1, Troll)

Farfnagel (898722) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706117)

If you're stupid enough to pay $500.00 or more for Bling AND run Windows on your computer, you're too stupid to have money. So you might as well give it to one of Satan's many minions. My $40.00 cell phone does everything a cell phone needs to do and I could still use it if my only computer was Commodore 64.

Re:So what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706341)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but it is often the stupidest people who have and make the big bucks.

Pot to Kettle -- Yer Black! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19706143)

Let me see if I understand this; a select group of Windows users, who use 64 bit, consider themselves elite knowledgeable computer users are complaining that the other group of elite computer users is shunning them.

There's some delicious irony there.

It's only been on Slashdot a few dozen times that iTunes isn't supported on 64-bit Windows. And it's only been on Slashdot a dozen times in the past week that you need iTunes to activate your elite cell phone.

Re:Pot to Kettle -- Yer Black! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706237)

Let me see if I understand this;
Going by the following, you don't:

a select group of Windows users, who use 64 bit, consider themselves elite knowledgeable computer users are complaining that the other group of elite computer users is shunning them.
No, they're complaining that Apple omitted information from the product requirements. Apple said it ran under Vista and XP, but neglected to mention that this excluded the 64-bit versions.

Cheer up. (5, Insightful)

jrq (119773) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706163)

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.

Meanwhile (1, Troll)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706219)

Meanwhile, my Motorola V3 RAZR syncs just fine with Bluetooth, and cost me £100 over a year ago. ...yeah.

Cell Phones could be the greatest but (1, Interesting)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706235)

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 [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.

 

Apple's attitude (0)

jvlb (636475) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706267)

With the possible exception of Oracle, Apple is the most arrogant organization in the high-tech business. Customer service, security, and quality are at best an afterthought at Apple. Marketability is the only real concern, that and lock-in. Like Ronald Reagan, Apple's long list of misdeeds and affronts to their customers slide off as if Steve Jobs is made of teflon. It is a mistake to expect value or serviceability from an Apple product; occasionally an Apple product may exhibit such qualities, but it is nothing more than a happy accident.

Free Software and Open Source (3, Insightful)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | more than 6 years ago | (#19706295)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...