Vista 64Bit

[XSF]

Did apple ever say if they're working on it? iPhone doesn't work with the 64bit os and I'm starting to wonder if they'll ever support it.

 

[Jocko]

With 64-bit Vista, I would imagine the iPhone is just one item on a long list of things you don't have support for. No matter what hardware I had, I would always go with the 32-bit version. As if it wasn't bad enough that the poor driver developers have to write and support two different drivers, M$ made the driver signing requirements for the 64-bit version of Vista much more strict. All of this makes writing 64-bit Windows drivers less appealing for companies.

 

[TBi]

With 64-bit Vista, I would imagine the iPhone is just one item on a long list of things you don't have support for. No matter what hardware I had, I would always go with the 32-bit version. As if it wasn't bad enough that the poor driver developers have to write and support two different drivers, M$ made the driver signing requirements for the 64-bit version of Vista much more strict. All of this makes writing 64-bit Windows drivers less appealing for companies.

This driver signing requirement will also make windows more stable. A lot of windows instability is caused by shoddy drivers. Now those shoddy drivers won't be allowed to install.

To the OP: You could do what i've done and install XP 32 (or Vista 32) onto virtual machine with VMWare or parallels for windows. This is assuming of course you have a spare license lying around (which thankfully i do).

You can then redirect the iPod to sync with itunes in this virtual machine. This will also let you use older un supported programs and hardware while running in vista 64. Not very elegant but it works for me.

(Funny side note... XP running in a virtual machine in Vista was actually faster than the Vista it was running on)

 

[appleii2mac]

It would be nice to get a "we're working on it" response from apple though. While doing it through vmware is possible, it is not the best solution. Plus I end up itunes in my 64 bit environment (for my nano) and the 32 bit vm. All in all, quite lame.

I can understand the problems for a small company in getting 64 bit drivers working, but I don't think apple suffers from a lack of available resources.

Although some of the blame can undoubtedly go to MS as well. I shouldn't have to choose between decent driver support OR 4+ GB RAM support in this day and age.

 

[TBi]

I can understand the problems for a small company in getting 64 bit drivers working, but I don't think apple suffers from a lack of available resources.

Microsoft is still their competition and they are trying to further the idea that 64-bit windows is not as compatible as the 32-bit version by not releasing the drivers needed.

This way they can say that that have an easy to use 64-bit OS (leopard) while Vista is still stuck in the dark ages.

 

[appleii2mac]

Microsoft is still their competition and they are trying to further the idea that 64-bit windows is not as compatible as the 32-bit version by not releasing the drivers needed.

This way they can say that that have an easy to use 64-bit OS (leopard) while Vista is still stuck in the dark ages.

They could still say that if they had 64 bit drivers for the iPhone. Now we can just say that Apple can't write 64 bit drivers.

Considering I paid $600 for the damn thing, I think a set of 64 bit drivers isn't too much to ask.

 

[hard-case]

They could still say that if they had 64 bit drivers for the iPhone. Now we can just say that Apple can't write 64 bit drivers.

Considering I paid $600 for the damn thing, I think a set of 64 bit drivers isn't too much to ask.

Like the old saying goes, hold not thy breath. For example, the driver to fix the problem on 64-bit systems of itunes complaining about improper installation and inability to read/burn CDs has been around for almost a year now. Apple isn't putting it into iTunes, and there've been at least three or four posts in the last week on the Apple support forums about the issue. They just don't seem interested in the issue, and most people in the support forums believe it is due to the 64-bit install base being so tiny.

Nor if I understand it, is Leopard going to make any difference in this. IIRC, the universal binary system OS X uses is capable of handing the whole shebang natively, so there won't even be a need to update iTunes for 64-bit support, when it will run just fine on a 64-bit Mac running Leopard.

 

[TBi]

Nor if I understand it, is Leopard going to make any difference in this. IIRC, the universal binary system OS X uses is capable of handing the whole shebang natively, so there won't even be a need to update iTunes for 64-bit support, when it will run just fine on a 64-bit Mac running Leopard.

iTunes works fine on Windows x64 too. The problem is the lack of 64-bit drivers for the iPod. Leopard needs 64-bit drivers for the iPod too. However they have been working on these for a long time since they've had 64-bit since back when the G5 came out.

 

[hard-case]

iTunes works fine on Windows x64 too. The problem is the lack of 64-bit drivers for the iPod. Leopard needs 64-bit drivers for the iPod too. However they have been working on these for a long time since they've had 64-bit since back when the G5 came out.

Yeah, I should have been more clear, in that updating iTunes for 64-bit was more about writing and packing in the drivers necessary.

They've had 64-bit processors, yes, but I was unaware that OS-X was working as 64-bit operating system, aside from certain portions, so that there was never a need to write a 64-bit version of iTunes or drivers. And my understanding of Leopard is that the architecture will, unlike Windows, not require emulation and thus will be able to natively utilize 32-bit drivers even on a 64-bit system. Considering the benefits of a 64-bit architechure aren't going to be maximized in this particular situation, and lacking a concise need, I don't see 64-bit drivers (even for Leopard) as a major consideration for the Apple dev team.

Push comes to shove, my guess is they'd just toss their hands up and blame Microsoft for not providing 32-bit driver support in x64/Vista. And they wouldn't be entirely wrong in that position, either.

 

[TBi]

Drivers for 64bit OS have to be 64bit. This is a limitation of the chip itself not the OS. How easy it is to convert them is the problem. It seems to be easier on OSX (and linux) than Windows.

 

[hard-case]

Drivers for 64bit OS have to be 64bit. This is a limitation of the chip itself not the OS. How easy it is to convert them is the problem. It seems to be easier on OSX (and linux) than Windows.

Driver's are handled by the OS, though, so theoretically they could develop methods in the kernel to handle 32-bit device drivers....and everything I've read on Leopard says it will work just fine with them:

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/08/14/64-bit-leopard-knocks-spots-off-vista

There will be just one version of workstation-based Leopard (plus an accompanying server edition), and it will come with 64-bit and full non-emulated 32-bit support.

Starting with Xcode 2.4, the OSX Universal binary format has been extended to support 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel processors inside the same file, giving OSX quad universal binaries. Users don't have to choose between processor architectures nor 32-bit or 64-bit processors, either at the OS or application layers, it's all abstracted away from them - as it should be.

Note that the non-emulated support in OSX is for applications and drivers.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/12/fret-not-64-bit-leopard-will-still-work-with-your-machine/

We discussed this with Apple, which expressed that this latest version of OS X takes a far simpler approach for the end-user than multiple hardware-centric OS versions, opting instead to run both 64 and 32-bit apps and drivers on any 64-bit machine (read: Core 2 Duo-based), and defaulting to the usual 32-bit app / driver operation on 32-bit Macs.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6200517.html

And the driver requirements for Leopard are much looser. Hardware vendors can create 64-bit Mac OS drivers once there's sufficient demand, since they know their 32-bit drivers will work just fine with the 64-bit applications on Leopard, Croll said.

Some applications require the extra performance delivered by 64-bit drivers, but most don't, at least not right away, McCarron said. "The sacrifice that's being made here is fairly small, and affects a small set of users."

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/64bit.html

And since you get full performance and compatibility for your 32-bit applications and drivers, you don’t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit application.

Now whether it actually works the way they say, that I can't wait to find out. But they're saying it will.

 

[TBi]

That is like saying you can run 64-bit drivers designed for a G5 on a 64-bit x86.

64-bit X86 chips have a slightly different architecture when running in 64-bit mode versus 32-bit mode. Drivers need direct hardware access so these differences will lead to problems.

Applications on the other hand rarely, if ever, need direct hardware access so it is much simpler to run these. However the OS has to be designed so that it's 64-bit libraries can handle the 32-bit code.

It may be possible to run 32-bit drivers on 64-bit machines but from all i know this is impossible.

As i said earlier though, it may be easier in OSX to recompile a 32-bit driver directly to 64-bit without much modification.

 

[Jocko]

Use of 64-bit Windows is just not very wide spread. It's a very niche market that really doesn't intersect with the consumer demographic at all. iPhone is just one example. You'll never have the same level of support. That's a huge con for going 64-bit. The reality of the situation is there's rarely ever a pro for choosing 64-bit. Some people like to talk about how they actually need the larger memory address space because of some huge data they process, but I think most of the time those claims aren't true. Might as well bite the bullet and upgrade to the performance and compatibility benefits of using a 32-bit consumer OS. For people who actually need a 64-bit OS, it would probably be best to simply have 2 machines.

 

[Nemisis]

Um...I just got an iPod Touch, which also isn't compatible with 64bit version of windows. I happen to have a 64bit version of windows...which pisses me off cause now I cannot use my iPod. Does anyone here know of ANY way to get around this? Any free way that is...I heard of that VMware...but have no clue how to use it, or even which product to install...or even if it's free. So, could someone help me out?

 

[hard-case]

As i said earlier though, it may be easier in OSX to recompile a 32-bit driver directly to 64-bit without much modification.

I'll admit, all of my programming has been in the 32-bit environment, and what little I know of the difference says you are absolutely correct. Apple says they can do it, though....and whether or not they can, the fact that they're focused on that concept tells me that pumping out a 64-bit Windows-based driver just isn't in the priority chain, sadly.

Um...I just got an iPod Touch, which also isn't compatible with 64bit version of windows. I happen to have a 64bit version of windows...which pisses me off cause now I cannot use my iPod. Does anyone here know of ANY way to get around this? Any free way that is...I heard of that VMware...but have no clue how to use it, or even which product to install...or even if it's free. So, could someone help me out?

Nope, you're in the same boat as we few 64-bit OS iphone users. The driver needed to recognize the devices is 32-bit only and cannot be used in a 64-bit environment, and there isn't any way around it. VMWare is a Virtual PC type program...it will create a virtual "machine" in software that you can install on operating system onto. The whole idea is you'd set up a VMWare "system", install say Windows XP on there, install itunes there, and then just load that up when you want to sync the touch. Problem is using VMWare isn't something for the novice use, plus it is only on a 30 day trial download. After that I think it's $190 bucks. Only thing I can really recommend is to go to Apple's website, and in their feedback section request support for 64-bit operating systems.

 

[Nemisis]

I already did that...but honestly, what are the chances of that actually making them change it?

Can this be changed with an update? Or is this a hardware problem?

 

[TBi]

Problem is using VMWare isn't something for the novice use, plus it is only on a 30 day trial download. After that I think it's $190 bucks.

VM Ware Player is free and is great if you don't want to install Windows again.

You can also download premade VMWare Appliances (i think that's the name) which are basically VMWare images of OS's already installed in VMWare. If you know where you look you can get an unregistered image of XP which will take your serial key.

The main problem with this is paying for the XP license if you don't already have one.

Funny story though... i was running Vista 64 and had VM Ware Player running XP (i made the XP image with fusion on the mac). Amazingly XP running in virtualisation seemed faster than Vista it was running on.

I already did that...but honestly, what are the chances of that actually making them change it?

Can this be changed with an update? Or is this a hardware problem?

Not a hardware problem, it is a combined software plus laziness problem. There is no technical reason why it won't work.

 

[Nemisis]

I am trying to get people to post feedback on Apple's website about getting support for 64 bit OS's...You guys should digg this:

http://digg.com/apple/Help_me_get_iPod_support_for_64_bit_versions_of_Windows