iPhone not supported under 64-bit Windows XP or Vista -- oops
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jun 30th 2007 12:26PM
posted Jun 30th 2007 12:26PM
Update: Apple's official (read: the non-marketing document which no one reads) iPhone: Minimum system requirements document does say that "64-bit editions of Windows are not supported." Go ahead, try to find it in the small print, we'll wait...
[Thanks, Rishard and Andy G.]
Read -- iLounge 64-bit thread
Read -- Apple support forum thread
Read -- Apple article 301301
Read -- iPhone Technical Specification
I`m a double stupid. Besides moving to vista, i opted for a ultimate 64-bit only edition, thinking i was going to make a fair use of a 64-bit processor...
Ive found a simple way to make it work on Windows XP x64
Simply download the x32 version from here using your 32 bit browser and then get the 64 bit installer from here.
run the 32 bit installer and then open the 64 bit installer with WinRAR or a similar program and extract Bonjour.msi and AppleMobileDevices.msi (or something like that).
open Add or Remove Programs (usually in Control Panel or can b accessed from Set Program Access Defaults link on the start menu) and uninstall Bonjour
Run the 2 programs u just took out of the 64 bit installer (bonjour and applemobiledevices)
Now u should have iTunes working with iPhone support however to get CD burning you must download GEARS 64 bit drivers from here.
look its quite simple if you are a windows x64 user. All you need to do is download leopard and dual boot it with windows ... job done best of both worlds. pssst find the iso kalyway burn it to disk, install. its that easy ;) hardware permitting, but if you have a core 2 duo your half way there.
I just installed the 32 bit version of iTunes, hooked up the iPhone, got the driver for it successfully installed, then uninstalled the 32 bit iTunes, and re-installed the 64 bit version of iTunes. This allowed me to register the iPhone under the Vista 64. So it is doable, just not real easy.
Ok, now I'm confused. The iPhone doesn't work with a 64-bit, correct? (I am not good with tech so bare with me here.) Now, I am apparently running a 32-bit (Whatever that means.) and the new iTunes won't work on my computer, so I cannont download apps onto my iPod Touch. And I can't find this alternate, 32-bit version on Apple anywhere that people are saying exist. So, my question is, where can I get the version of iTunes that will work for me and how? Oh, and besides this terrible problem with the processors or whatever, how is the new iPhone? Decent?
Hello All,
I have built an installer to install iTunes v8.01 on Windows XP 64-bit.
It includes all required files including Quicktime 7.5.5 and GEAR Drivers for CD burning.
All you have to do is click next, next, next, no special step required. ENJOY!
Download Link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/152407131/iTunes801XP64Setup.exe
Wow ....what ever happened to the simple life???... lets see download to x32bit, transfer program to Quicknet 7.5.5 unplug phone, go to leapord and download, find itune v8.01, plug phone to computer.....Or waite was it download tigers, turn off your iphone, unplug the computer and plug back in your iphone to computer...and wait.....Did it work???...ha ha. if your computer does'nt work check your electicity breaker see if it's on..first turn off your iphone so you don't take a picture by accident. Waite what's this plug for....
Wow I'm going back to the instamatic camera...and watch my picture develope right in front of my eyes....I think that's cooler.
Windows XP Pro 64bit fix for iTunes 8.2
Fix includes......
*CD\Driver fix
*iPhone/ipod's Working with 64bit
**DOWNLOAD**
http://rapidshare.com/files/251967667/iTunes_Fix_64bit_Overkilll.zip
Please Remember To Donate if I helped you "toolscom@hotmail.com"
1.) Remove iTunes if installed and remove all apple software related to iTunes
2.) Extract zip files in to folder
3.) Install "GEAR Driver Installer.exe"
4.) Go to "C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers"
5.) Create "C:\WINDOWS\Sysnative\drivers"
6.) Copy "GEARAspiWDM.sys" to "C:\WINDOWS\Sysnative\drivers"
7.) Install "AppleMobileDeviceSupport64.msi"
8.) Wait till install is complete then install "iTunes64.msi"
9.) Restart Computer
10.) Enyjoy
******** Credits ********
Overkilll & GenX
Please Remember To Donate if I helped you "toolscom@hotmail.com"
Guys/Gals - I was able to fix this. I don't know for all versions, but here's the system/setup I was having problems with:
iPhone 3G software version 3.1
iTunes latest two versions (current 9.0, also previous version before I tried upgrading)
Windows Vista 64-bit
I've been able to connect my phone to iTunes and download pictures in Windows, but after a recent Windows Update, OR a recent iTunes upgrade, OR a recent Norton 360 update (I don't know which was the killer) I could no longer see the iPhone in Windows OR iTunes. Nothing could. I couldn't transfer music, couldn't transfer photos.
I did a restore on the iPhone and upgraded iTunes this week and finally got a solid connection between iTunes and the iPhone. But still couldn't "see" it in Windows Vista Explorer.
After reading and reading and reading, and finding no solution (and I tried shutting off User Control, tried shutting down the Firewall, and tried reinstalling iTunes, and multiple configurations), I also tried resinstalling the drivers, looking on my computer for usbaapl.sys (not there), I started looking on the web for it - but I'm always nervous about downloading drivers unless from the specific vendor's site), I finally did a search for "usbaapl" - and FOUND a driver in c:\windows\system32\drivers\ called "usbaapl64.sys".
On a fluke, I created a copy of the file, and renamed it "usbaapl.sys" (since that file did NOT exist on my machine previously).
Voila. I can now see the phone in Windows Vista Explorer. Someone at Apple isn't talking to someone at Microsoft, I think. Microsoft Vista x64 (with all current updates) is still looking for usbaapl.sys - iTunes is now shipping with usbaapl64.sys. C'mon guys.
Burn down the disco,
Hang the little DJ,
Because the music that they constantly play,
Says nothing to me about me life.
I like it!
But it's actually "Hang the *blessed* DJ," as any lyrics site will confirm. You did get me to listen to the song again though, to see if I'd heard it wrong all these years.
I'm sure an update is coming soon.
hahahahaha
Vista users already know that iTunes doesnt really work for us. But the update will come one day...right?
itunes works fine for me in Vista. The only issue I had with it was podcast syncing back in beta but it's been fine for months now.
Amen to that. iTunes and QuickTime have been a pain in the butt ever since I got Vista. It's not like Apple had no warning that Vista was coming. All I want is to be able to play .mov and .mp4 files without crashing. I know, I know, VLC player plays them and I've got it installed but doesn't it seem strange that I've got to install a third party app in order to play Apple's video formats? There are a host of other problems that I pray will get fixed SOON but hey, it's Apple, and that means they'll fix it when they darn well please.
Using Vista Ultimate and iTunes. No issues so far. (Except for the disaster that was iTunes 7.0, but those problems have long since been resolved.)
Uhh yeah I've been using iTunes on Vista for the last month or two, synching my iPod, buying songs, listening to music, downloading podcasts, etc. I haven't seen any problems. The only problem I did have was Quicktime's plugin crashing Firefox... But just disable DirectDraw acceleration and it's all fixed.
Hope no one bought an iPhone based on you know, the system requirements. They said it runs under Vista, and it doesn't
Dick move Steve.
It does run under Vista...it does not run under 64bit Vista. There is still a 32bit which most people actually buy.
It says Vista, that implies ALL Vista, not just one version of Vista. Why didn't they just put "32-bit" on that box? It might have prevented a lot of people dropping half a $G on a toy they can't use.
Good thing I was gonna wait a while before getting one.
I don't know anyone running a 32-bit version of Vista, only someone with a new cheap Dell/HP would be on a 32-bit version of Vista. The type of person that would buy an iPhone is probably the same type of person with a 64-bit system which is almost certainly running a 64-bit O/S. I would be incredibly irritated with my purchase if I had to use one of my other computers to sync with my new $600 toy.
Hey Jeff,
I don't know anyone running 64-bit Vista. All the video editing software I run isn't compatible with 64-bit, so I run 32-bit Home Premium.
@Clayton,
It does not so it is simply compatible with "Vista." Look at the screenshot at the top. It lists 6 different versions of Windows that it is compatible with. Does that list include Windows Vista 64-bit? No, it absolutely does not.
@Jeff,
Just an FYI, 99.99 percent of PC users don't use 64 bit Windows and I highly doubt anything more than 2% of Windows Vista 64bit has been sold. Apple, just like every other software company, frankly doesnt care. If Apple can build full 32 and 64 bit support in the same version of Leopard then why cant Microsoft.
"If Apple can build full 32 and 64 bit support in the same version of Leopard then why cant Microsoft."
Vista 64 supports both 32 and 64bit.
Guys!
The solution is very simple. Sell your Windows based PC and just get a Mac where you can use both OS. Windows and OS X.
The best matching OS for the elegant and revolutionary iPhone is the also elegant and the most user friendly OS X. Leopard is not even out yet but the present OS X is still better in many-many aspects than ANY VERSION of Windows Vista.
>Does that list include Windows Vista 64-bit? No, it absolutely does not.
The list doesn't say Vista 32-bit either, it just says Vista. I guess I assumed if I was running Vista, and this says it works with Vista, then it would work.
>The solution is very simple. Sell your Windows based PC and just get a Mac
Thats Steve's idea I think. See, you can't jut buy an Apple product without getting sucked into Steve's walled garden. Apple is a fascist company. Freedom!
>The solution is very simple. Sell your Windows based PC and just get a Mac
Wow, thanks. Cause we totally wanna drop an extra couple grand on a system with mediocre performance, crappy graphics, hardly any games, etc. - just to run Windows (or in this case, just to run some iPhone software). My Windows PC can already run Windows, thank you. Maybe if I were an average person that was incapable of understanding how to run Windows/Linux, I would consider a Mac because they are dumbed down for the "common folk".
Oh and about 32-bit vs. 64-bit... It is common fact that not everything works on a 64-bit system. That's why I chose 32-bit over 64-bit... It's just not supported enough yet, and the downsides outweigh the benefits. However, I am very glad to see that more people are running 64-bit, and perhaps I will switch over in the near future. But things like this just keep making me glad I am still with my 32-bit OS.
to clayton.coffman
I have vista 64 bit , I bought Iphone ,and it didn't work but . it was a pain, but all I had to do was install the 32 bit version(that came with the 64)and It worked. I am waiting till bill and steve work this minor detail out. SIMPLE !!
I bet iTunes will run better on Vista than the piece of crap software like Windows Media Player Microsoft makes for the Mac.
Apple is fraud... why couldn't they write it on the box... this new iphone is just a money making scam... its just an ipod with a mic... ok cool with that... what the hell do i do with a phone which i can't sync with my laptop... and apple isn't even doing anything for the 64 bit users windows...
I bet someone finds a way to blame Microsoft for apple screwing people out of $599 and a 2 year contract, and the price of a new copy of 32bit Windows.
I bet Steve Jobs is great at the game "monopoly" he runs his company like one.
This is so funny to me. There are a lot of applications that do not run under the 64 bit version of Windows. This is just poor programing on the part of MS. The Mac OS is able to run both 32 bit and 64 bit apps with no problem without having 2 versions of their OS. Write a better os, is what you need to tell MS. Just look what happen when MS went from 16 bit to 32 bit a lot of apps just stopped working. Windows developers are so lazy with all their legacy code. If you are stupid enough to run the 64 bit version of windows on a personal computer you need to have your head examined anyway.
Hahaha, that's hilarious! It was Microsoft, not Apple, who was taken to court for being a monopoly. They're still fighting that battle in Europe. Why? Because Microsoft is one. Apple starts to gain a little ground or doesn't support a 64-bit version of Windows very few people use at the *launch* of their new product, and all the Windows fanboys begin the whining.
Engadget also reported a story that Apple was delaying the iPhone until fall and Leopared even further out. Remember that one recently?
@ kev
MS lazy with legacy code, maybe. But the bottom line of this matter is that apple needs to write software for an OS not expect 2 different OS to operate the same way when they use different fundamental hardware.
More testing and development should have been done by apple to prevent a lack of support this big.
"This is so funny to me. There are a lot of applications that do not run under the 64 bit version of Windows. This is just poor programing on the part of MS. The Mac OS is able to run both 32 bit and 64 bit apps with no problem without having 2 versions of their OS."
OK, first of all you are obviously NOT a programmer, nor (at a guess) even a moderately sophisticated user. So it's now the fault of the OS that a crappy coded application won't work? Why not blame MS (or Apple for that matter) for your crappy salary, or the fact that you don't have a girlfriend? Talk to me when you've written an OS - or even compiled your own Linux kernel - about who's fault it is when a 3rd party application doesn't work.
Let me guess - when MS Office for Mac didn't work - that was MS's problem... not that ITunes doesn't work on windows... oh that must be MS's fault again. You guys need to just buy consoles and have your computers taken away from you IMHO. End Subrant/End Rant
hmm.. Why do you ask that? Don't all you Microsoft worshipers have a zune and use a WM6 phone? It's is soooooooo much better right?
Yep like stated elsewhere Kev is an idiot That statement "If you are stupid enough to run the 64 bit version of windows on a personal computer you need to have your head examined anyway." is pretty much the stupidest comment I have seen online in a while. This is exactly the type of newb I love to frag with my higher performing 64 bit xp running twice the fps.
There'll be an update soon, sure, but that's pretty crappy. I'd be pissed if I bought an iPhone and found out that never has it been said in any of the big press releases that it doesn't work on x64 yet. Considering that's all I have at home and work, that wouldn't have gone over all too well. Luckily I'm just intelligent enough not to spend that much money on a phone that's nothing more than a fancy touch screen and interface.
I hope they don't correct the problem. Let MS write one OS that works everywhere. How many different versions of Windows are out there any way. MS made the choice to write a 32 bit, and a 64 bit OS that is not capable of running the same code. If Apple can do it why can't MS, they have made a business of copying Apple.
Hey Kev,
The reason there are 2 separate versions of Vista one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit is because Microsoft is creating a new ecosystem for Windows under the 64-bit version. 32-bit Vista's only purpose is to be compatible with more legacy software and hardware. For new software and hardware products to be certified for Vista it has to be compatible for both 64- and 32-bit. Windows Vista 64-bit will not allow software or hardware drivers to be installed that is not first certified. This move was to ensure the security and stability of hardware and software running with 64-bit windows. In Vista 32-bit you can still install uncertified drivers and software.
Apple is probably not supporting 64-bit windows right now, and probably won't until after leopard is released, to try to hinder 64-bit windows adoption in order to maintain that it's the first "mainstream" OS to fully support 64-bit computing. Just like apple warned customers to not upgrade to vista right away because iTunes doesn't work quite yet. But apple doesn't have as strict a security as Windows 64-bit. And of course they do that to look more appealing to customers saying something like, "look at us! we are wide open, less secure than windows, and don't have any enforcement of our license agreements, so addopt mac! We have too small a marketshare for hackers to know that we're alive!"
so you say, "Now we know." and I say, "and knowing is half the battle"
You guys bashing Apple about an update? How many updates were there THIS week for Vista? Lost count?
hahah Apple didn't had time/skills to write iTuna propetly?
I guess not, when I opened up the lid it didn't smell too good.
I was screwed over by this. Thankfully the laptop is kind of new so it wasn't too big of a deal to format and re-install a 32 bit version of vista and install all of my apps. Still installing and synching my old ipod before I try to connect up my iphone though.
Wow... you changed your OS for the iPhone? That's ridiculous.
I would have just ran a 32 bit version of vista in a virtual machine.
So let me get this straight... i-tunes was never fully supported by 64bit Vista.... and now you expect it to magically because of a new device made by a competing firm who's own system architecture isn't completely 64bit? Riiiiight... What about all the cell phone makers who never made their phones compatible with my Mac? Or all the windows only devices like the Zune (which I would never buy because its horribly designed user experience)...
Cry me a river.
Regardless I don't see why Apple wouldn't want to support Vista across the board. I most likely isn't that hard to change iTunes to support the 64bit OS. Maybe when Leopard comes out they'll write 64bit drivers across the board.
You said the zune had a horrible user experience, then immediately said that you have never owned one. I personally have a zune, and before owned an iPod. The zune experience is exponentially better than that of the iPods. Both have basic syncing and can only use one program, the difference being that Zune (software) doesn't suck, and looks better than iTunes. Also, it rips into a format that you can actually use on something other than the device. Also, zune has the best user interface on the player than anything else out there. It is absolutely perfect. Plus, no matter how much I babied my iPod (and i did) it got scratched horribly. Meanwhile, I never had any sort of covering for the zune, threw it around, and the thing still looks perfect, brand new.
Please do not make a fool out of yourself by commenting on the experience of using a product, and then immediately saying you have never owned that product.
pwned!
So now let me getthis straight... because i do not own one means I have never touched one? or used my friends? or sat at any target in America and used it?
Please. I shouldn't have to preface every opinion I make with some short story about how I have used one.
and Pwned? hahaha... wow. Loser.
Does the iPhone have the "MAde for Vista!" Logo? You would have thought Apple would have been smart and had it certified before release..
Actually...they wouldn't do that, because they would have had to submit it to the hardware labs, which I am sure they don't want to do. Apple == control, so I doubt they would have done the customer friendly thing.
Vista drivers get submitted as 64bit FIRST, then get ported to 32Bit. This is was a smart move by MS to drive 64bit computing to the mainstream...
(Written on Vista 64)
How do you figure mainstream. Main stream means at all versions of the OS can run 64 bit apps like Apple did some time a go. What is the count on versions of Windows anyway?
Mainstream as in the dominant platform. Mac is surely not dominant, so I was saying how I could see how developers/product designers don't design for it naturally. I think that Mac is an afterthought for the general considerations when thinking of the population who will use the product.
This is getting better though, as soon the platforms will start converging. I'm not digging at the Mac for being a minority, but with that, there are reasons why support is not as robust as in the Windows world. What is the current MAC % of the Computer population? Still at 4%?
64bit will have the same growing pains, but I suspect it 64bit will make more traction in the Windows world, than in the Mac world. XP64 was an afterthought, but Vista was 64bit from the ground up, and that makes a huge difference.
Mac could be 128bit, but it's still a minority in the marketplace, and will be for quite a bit of time.
Does Apple have a Certified for OSX program outside of Apple and licensed accessories?
kev: you're an idiot. the only reason mac apps can run on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms is because they're not apps. they're directories. and guess what? they contain a binary for both platforms. this has nothing to do with the "code" of OS X, they could have made the entire structure completely different and it would still work. this is the same way they got around the huge ppc-x86 jump. at least WINDOWS has WoW, allowing 32-bit applications which are completely 64bit-unaware to run without issue on Windows 64-bit. right now i'm using firefox, mirc, world of warcraft, windows live messenger, skype, tor, etc through the Windows on Windows layer, and i've never in all my days of using 64-bit windows had a problem with it. the only problems in 64-bit windows arise from drivers, since the Windows on Windows layer doesn't work that low.
Shawnz:
You are misunderstanding. A 64-bit OS should be able to run 32-bit software with almost 100% compatibility, but Windows XP x64 does not. In my personal experience, WinXP x64 has HUGE compatibility issues with 32-bit software. That's a fact.
Apparently, Apple computers have much better backward compatibility when running 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit OS. I can't verify, because I don't have a Mac, but I wouldn't expect 32-bit compatibility to be nearly as bad in Mac OS as it is in WinXP x64. No one has said for a moment that Windows 64-bit operating systems CAN'T run 32-bit apps, just that we are encountering case, after case, after case, where it does not support apps that work fine on the 32-bit OS. Unacceptable.
Apparently, compatibility was never a priority for Microsoft. Why else would they rename the folder for legacy x86 apps as "Program Files x86"? That's not how you maintain backward compatibility! Changing the folder name BREAKS compatibility with many apps. Granted, most well-made applications know to check environment variables for paths such as the Program Files directory, but MANY do not. A comparable example is what happens when Windows is installed on a drive with a letter other than C:. Many applications and installers have broken compatibility. Working on computers for other people, I can't tell you how many times installing an NVIDIA driver has led to 100+MB being extracted onto my USB flash drive or SD card (causing the installer to hang for a looong time) because it assumes I want to install to drive C:. I think NVIDIA still has not fixed this with their various installers.
If Microsoft felt compelled to create separate folders for 32-bit and 64-bit applications, then they should have kept "\Program Files" for x86 apps and "\Program Files x64" for 64-bit apps. Creating separate folders doesn't make any sense at all if it only serves to break compatibility with older apps.
J.Evans:
You should be aware of how Folder Redirection works in WOW.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384187.aspx
thought I am not sure if it works with Program Files. I am venturing to say that it does since it works fine on my 64bit pc at home.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/running_32_bit_applications.asp
As a developer you must test and test your device in all theatres of operation.
It has to work in ALL environments—If it doesn’t it down to poor testing...period!!
Let’s face it Apple in the UK has a terrible reputation they will fight tooth and nail not to repair their products, shuffles and iPods’ at best last 6/12 months respectively.
Their software updates can do more harm than good. Remember they are in direct competition with Microsoft.
MAC – Make good looking pieces of junk fancy making a new product that doesn’t work on 64 bit window products........
Just found this out the hard way - 2 hours in line and 2 hours on hold with support. Back to the store I go...
Regarding the complaints about not being designed for Macs..
Apple is still the minority, so I can see why Mac support is an after thought for many programs/devices. I would agree that 64bit OS is the minority as well, so it's understandable why Apple did not think to support it. This is another place where they should have thought ahead and had it certified.
Maybe Apple and Microsoft should support my GEM desktop on my Atari ST as well...
You need itunes to activate the phone and synch pim and music and movies. Steavie has you locked in.
you're kidding, right?
I hate a 64bit machine and Vista. It sucks but I have Virtual PC so it's not really THAT big a deal. I'd just like my shit to work when I buy it.
"Apple, it just works" My ass.
if you hate it then why did you install it? :)
(Yes, I know it was a typo...or a Freudian slip.)
You said: "Apple, it just works" My ass.
No, it should be "Apple, it just works better than Windows-anything" Then it would be accurate.
Perhaps I am being dumb, but the requirements CLEARLY state, XP Pro SP2 or later.
Now considering XP Pro is NT5.1 and XP x64 is NT5.2, then is is later...
I was in the store this morning at 6 am on 5th ave, and the guy was looking at the system requirements online. He didn't see anything that mentioned 64 bit vista wouldn't work. He went over everything line by line.
Now that I have 32 bit vista running I have a completely different problem. My iphone skips like 3 steps and goes to the AT&T activation screen as if I already had an AT&T account. I can't activate this phone now because it won't let me back up to say I'm not an AT&T customer. I've now talked to 2 different apple specialists and I was supposed to be transfered to a 3rd now that is a project specialist, but someone hung up on me along the way. I have a feeling I'm going to have to make another trip to 5th ave to replace my iphone.
Does anybody know if you can put a version of SQL on the iphone...if so can you provide a link or a name for it?
I think most of you should talk to your beloved Bill Gates who runs the company with the shittiest software. Vista is a piece of shit, and XP was only a little better. Plus, the whole 64 bit thing WAS listed, so next time read through all the requirments.
well, shitty all really depends on what you are looking at. if you mean shitty as in something that is the target of a lot of viruses, since ~95% of the world uses it, then fine. you have about 4% of the world agreeing with you on that one.
but if you think shitty, is an OS that actually REQUIRES you to buy a COMPUTER (ie apple hardware) from them in order for it wotk(last time i checked, windows will work on anyone's x86 based hardware, including apple's), and even then is only more secure because A) it RIPPED OFF BSD (don't even get me started), and B) it is FAR less common, then you might have actually aquired a little bit of common sense.
sure, it's easy as hell to be secure through obscourity, if the situation was reversed (95% apple, 5% windows), the situation would be considerably different.
also, some people seem to think that apple software is better because "it just works". now, of course it " just works", because Apple is such a draconian company, they wont open up their software for others to add to it. they make all the software, so of course it works. i would love to see the reaction if microsoft tried to do the same thing now. the world would scream in rage, yet it is alright for apple to do that very same thing. everything with that company (that i has noticed, since i don't work there, nor would i ever want to), is very tightly controlled, which is ironic considering the foundation that their new OS is based on. and if allowing for backwards compatability with older software is a "shity" feature, then mabye apple has more than just a thing or two to learn, like i already knew they did.
@Nell - would you like to explain how apple "RIPPED OFF BSD" when their OS is based on a build of BSD that is Open Source? Read a little about the OSS movement before you shoot your mouth off.
Oh and by the way, the 'security through obscurity' theory is tired, old, and flat out wrong. I wish people would drop it already. If you think it has something to do with that, then how come security flaws and exploits are not as common on BSD server machines (of which there are hundreds of millions fewer than Windows machines) as they are on Windows machines?
As for adding backwards compatibility, you are way out of your depth. If you run OS 10.4 or below on a Mac, you can run applications developed for Mac OS 9, Power PC chips, or Intel chips. How exactly is that not backwards compatible? And yes, Apple machines are a -closed- architecture. That's why they work. :P Regardless of your philosophical aversion to a closed system, that is the truth about the "it just works" factor, not some bulls**t argument about security through obscurity.
Pah...
I feel your pain....but shame on your for not taking note of the specs and doing some research for a new $500.00. I don't have money to burn and personally wouldn't have spent that much money on a phone with outdated features.
Ha ha, this whole issue is halarious. the real issue here is Apple's future at stake. the ipod is getting old, they just keep re-releasing new "
versions" of the same old shit. and now, they are getting a litte more desperate with every new product release.they are looking for the next big thing to keep them alive and kicking. you would think that it would make Apple look better if they only had a little bit of openness and honesty, by just being up front, telling people that it doesn't work on windows 64 bit. i mean, some "offical" documentation, is VERY different than the more publicly released specs, which say it does run on Vista. now when a peice of software says that it runs on vista, it had better run on ALL versions of vista. it's like a sign for a road with a max weight limit, but only if you have michelin tires. give me a fucking break apple. if apple thinks that this is a good way to encourage a transition to their software/hardware, becuase it "just works", they are very sadly mistaken. i am for one, using vista 64 bit, and i have no complaints. at least when Microsoft says that a peice of their software will work on their competitor's OS, say like Microsoft Office, IT ACTUALLY DOES. Apple just lost a lot of respect from me, from a small detail that would have taken someone in a dingy cubicle 3 seconds to add to the marketed system requirements.
>>the real issue here is Apple's future at stake. the ipod is getting old, they just keep re-releasing new "
versions" of the same old shit. and now, they are getting a litte more desperate with every new product release.they are looking for the next big thing to keep them alive and kicking
Looks like the forum didn't like the way I tried to quote you. Anyway...
Neil, your statments have little relation to the facts. Apple is hardly a "desperate" company. They continue to sell millions of iPods ever quarter and maintain over 70% share with them, their revenues and stock price have never been higher, and their computers continue to gain market share on Windows PCs. Hardly the signs of a desperate company. That's a better description of Apple in 1997, not 2007. Microsoft's stock, by contrast, has gone nowhere since the crash of 2000.
Should Apple have noted the lack of 64-bit Windows compatibility? You bet, they should have done better. Considering the iPhone is a brand new product that will be upgraded in the future with better software (on existing models) and better hardware (newer models), Apple will adjust according to what the market wants and expects, just like they've done with the iPod.
So now let me getthis straight... because i do not own one means I have never touched one?
You may have touched one, but because you haven't owned one means you haven't had the proper user experience to give an opinion to thousands of engadget readers.
You have:
Touched a zune
You haven't:
Hooked it up to a computer
Had any experience regarding file types/commpatibility
Had any music you liked on it
Used Zune software
Listened to it
By my, and probably everybody else's, standards, you have too little Zune experience to make an intelligent comment on it, therefore making an assumption regarding user experience would make you look foolish.
By the way, the user interface (the one thing you may have actually used) is actually widely regarded as the best thign about the zune, its smooth, looks better than an ipod, sorts by more fields than an ipod, have changeable backgrounds, the horizontal view for videos. Also, you can hook it up to a TV.
The part of the zune you have had most experience with is the screen. The giant, beautiful screen.
For the sake of engadget readers, and the quality of the blog itself, please try to think about the comment before you make it.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."-- Mark Twain
Jay, I'm not so interested in the Zune/iPod debate (I own a video iPod and love it), but...
iPods CAN hook up to a TV. I plug mine into my stereo/AV system with a video and audio cable, and can play music and show music videos, photos etc on the TV. It's so great that I find it difficult to go out and get an AppleTV - just now.
And seriously, I couldn't carry around a brown lump and feel too proud.
PS Zune doesn't work with my Mac either :-)
HAHAHAHA
Just a bunch of Apple haters in here...
No one will ever play nice. It is called the corporate world.
Some will say it is Apple's fault, and some will say it is Microsoft's fault. Well here is the thing. It is both companies faults. Microsoft for not making one OS that supports 32-bit and 64-bit (come on it is not that hard) and Apple's fault for hating a crappy OS like windows.
64bit Vista and XP both support 32bit apps.
@Jason: But has serious compatibility issues, as I can attest.
"Mike Botros @ Jun 30th 2007 4:08PM
Hey Jeff,
I don't know anyone running 64-bit Vista. All the video editing software I run isn't compatible with 64-bit, so I run 32-bit Home Premium."
What apps are you using? 3d Studio Max + Pinnacle Studio running fine on my 64 bit. Also being as everyone above has pulled random "Almost everyone, no one buys that" numbers and %'s out of their ass as they see fit, I can't take any of it seriously. I'm sure there are plenty of both 64 and 32 bit copies sold. Sucks for the 64 bit xp/vista useres though, I always would be quite ticked to get an iPhone and have it incompatible with what was a misleading read on Apples end. I mean the phone is not the least expensive toy, and that doesn't include the service plan I'm sure isn't cheap either.
I'd love to have an iphone though! Hopefully you guys get an update soon.
I'm using the Sony line: vegas, acid, etc. The only Sony software that has a "Works with Windows Vista" logo is Sound Forge 9 that was released after vista. All the other stuff, from what I've read isn't compatible with vista 64-bit. I never actually bothered trying it out. When they all have logos I'll probably start making my way over to 64-bit.
Plus some of my audio recording hardware still doesn't have vista drivers, but the 32-bit xp drivers work.. for now..
yeah, last time i checked, vista 64 bit fully supports 32 bit apps, including the browser i am typing this in Berg. get your shit straight buddy. the 32bit version of windows was solely there for legacy compatibility with 16 bit apps, which a lot of in-house I.T departments have custom made over the years. you claim that this issue is related to the corporate world, you clearly don't seem to have experienced it very much. i would much rather support a company, that even IF it's product wasent as good, at least it was honest about it's capabilites.
and now i am sure you're going to have a smart ass comeback to that one, now before you reply, check out this forum, and see just how honest apple really is with all of their "features". i was rather surpised myself at the shortcommings of a device that was supposed to be the "best new cellphone". http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1190824&page=1&pp=15
Jason @ Jun 30th 2007 6:47PM
64bit Vista and XP both support 32bit apps.
In an emulator, but I guess not for 32-bit iTunes huh...
Has anyone tried it on XP 64 or only Vista?
No, not in an emulator. Natively. And yes, itunes works in 64bit Vista. Has for months. I use it daily.
Well show me another phone where all these issues can be solved by a free software update and not having to buy a totally new phone to get all the new feature.
Please guys give it a rest. It has been a day. Just wait for the updates and all will be fine.
you see berg,you're right. many cell phones don't have that ability. they also don't have that listed amoungst it's features.
and besides, most other cell phone companies just get the features right the first time (i.e working out of the box), without having to bother with an update for the firmware. I believe it is called Q&A testing.
You should tell Motorola about getting it right the first time. How many RAZR have they released??
very true, which is why i said most. but taking that argument, look at how many ipod's have been released. anyone remember the ipod photo? they released the next gen ipod within a couple months(can't remeber exactly) which was capable of video.
Apple's tiresome buisiness model is simply annoying to most people i know. release an o.k. product, while releasing very little about the actual capabilites, then have it meet most of the promised specs, so that they can relaunch a VERY simlar product(or should i say generation, using apple's terms) so that people are encouraged to buy the latest and greatest. how many times have they done this already for the ipod? i lost count around gen 5. i somehow sense a recourring theme, this time, it's going to be a $600 toy, that locks you into a 2 year contract, instead of the $300 one they were playing us with before.
again, like i have said before, i won't endorse a company that i feel is just trying to fool me into overpaying for a gimmicky toy, just so they can try to make me keep paying for essentially the same product 3 months later.
the lack of 3g is a BIG clue as to what they are doing this time around, which is the exact same bullshit they pulled with the ipod. just watch, i wouldn't be surprised if in about 3-4 months time, we get a new version, costing about the same, with the full complement of features that it led us believe it would have had in the original product( bluetooth access to something other than a headset, 3g, etc, just for starters), assuming they actually said anything usefull about the product before the launch date so consumers could make a balanced decision about their very expensive purchase.
@Nell you're absolutely right about how Apple does business.
It's called CAPITALISM.
Grow the f**k up.
(I bet you wouldn't be bitching if you owned AAPL shares now, would you?)
Why does that picture look photoshoped?
My God you're M$ fanboy Neil, just how much are they paying you for this erhm.. *blogging* ?
lol i wish i was getting paid, but seriously, i wouldn't say i am an m$ fanboy, i just hate apple, however you want to look at it. i routinely use Linux for work, i just use vista at home for the better multimedia support. but it really does annoy me when people say that a peice of software is "shitty" when they have no real reason to back it
Look, anyone who is familiar with the good old Amiga knows that most software out there today is shitty and bloatware, especially Windows.
Now, what makes Apple different, is that they are making complicated products simple for the average none techi person. You may not like it, but alot of people do.
I have no problems with the idea of making things easier for the less technically inclined among us Nash. Vista is Microsofts attempt at the very same thing. the thing i take issue with the Apple Buisiness model, which is completely based around style and hype, i.e looking cool though exclusivity, since most people wont pay their excesive prices for realtively avergae technology.
and one other thing, most bloatware, is not the fault of the OS itself, it is due to system maufacturers being greedy for ad revenue. but that in no way makes a particular program or OS "shitty" on it's own.
Is -anything- compatible with 64-bit Vista? Including a lot of Microsoft software? And by the way, isn't getting a 64-bit OS to play with 32-Bit Windows Apps Microsoft's problem? I can't see how Apple is to blame here.
@ Neil.
Last time I checked on prices between Apple and lets say Dell. Laptop for laptop (one can not spec them 100% the same) the prices were within 100 bucks if not that much the Apple was cheaper. Part of that is the move to Intel. So about that argument get off it and move on. It is old and has been beaten into the ground.
no it's not MS's problem... microsoft can define the ecosystem for 64-bit windows however they want since it's still relatively young... if software developers want a "works with windows vista" or "certified for windows vista" tag on their software or hardware.. they have to make sure it works on both 64-bit and 32-bit vista machines... apple did not stick either lable on their product and do not have to make it work with 64-bit windows vista or xp... but they also won't have me as a customer unless it has the certified or works with tags...
that was for itchyshoes77
This is not really a problem with iTunes, it works fine with my 64bit Vista. i mean, it takes an age to start up, and it often turns completely black after it has been minimised, but it still plays music and videos.