WTF! Vista 64-Bit Incompatible!!! Please HELP!

[CWallace]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am about 99% sure that M$ has to individually sign ever driver for 64-bit windows.

therefore it is M$'s fault!

I'll correct you.

Apple first must provide Microsoft the 64-bit iPhone driver to digitally sign, which they have not done. So until Apple provides MS a 64-bit iPhone driver, it is Apple's fault the iPhone does not work on MS 64-bit operating systems.

Now, considering the number of iPhone/iPod users at Microsoft, maybe MS will just write the driver themselves, but they will need Apple's permission to release it. So until Apple gives that permission, it is still Apple's fault.

Only until Apple delivers MS a driver and MS takes their time to digitally sign it will it then be Microsoft's fault.

 

[mikeishi]

Nobody has 64-Bit Vista. Why would Apple, as a company, put the effort into supporting that silly operating system?

The truth is, that as a consumer, it is your fault that you didn't research ahead of time. When you bought the 64-Bit version of Vista, you should have done your homework.

It's not about how long the 64-Bit version of Vista has been out for, it's about how there's relatively no demand and therefore no supply.

Returning it so that "Apple can take a hit" is an immature thing to say. A company does not have emotions and Apple is not a sole proprietorship. When you do things in order to hurt the company, you're hurting everyone who owns that company. Also, the loss that Apple will take from your iPhone is probably less than one millionth of the loss that Apple will take by putting their resources into supporting your foolish purchase of Windows Vista 64-Bit.

When I search on Google for "vista 64-bit incompatible" several sites pop up on the first page that discuss the incompatibility of the iPhone with Windows Vista 64-Bit. (I didn't even search for the word "iPhone" and I found results!)

Also, in the iPhone minimum system requirements it says that 64-bit editions of Windows are not supported: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305703

 

[nikhsub1]

Nobody has 64-Bit Vista.

Wow I'm glad you don't work for me. I guess ignorance is bliss? I also guess that the OP doesn't have 64 bit vista either? Nor do I?

 

[Decrepit]

Nobody has 64-Bit Vista. Why would Apple, as a company, put the effort into supporting that silly operating system?

The truth is, that as a consumer, it is your fault that you didn't research ahead of time. When you bought the 64-Bit version of Vista, you should have done your homework.

It's not about how long the 64-Bit version of Vista has been out for, it's about how there's relatively no demand and therefore no supply.

When you use real computing hardware, doing more than playing games, you will run into situations where a 64 bit OS is required. I have customers with 32 GB of memory in their machine right now. They're waiting for their software vendors to update the applications, and then they'll be running 64+ GB. These are not servers. Windows XP 32 bit, Vista 32 bit can't do the work they need. You *have* to use a 64 bit OS to address that memory.

So, just because nobody in your house is running 64 bit doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who will be. The fact that the iPhone doesn't work under 64 bit Windows isn't a surprise. But it is a shame. That will change eventually.

I use my Mac Mini to sync my phone, I try to keep my 64 bit systems as clean as possible since they are the workhorses. The original poster may have to consider buying an old Windows box at a garage sale or something for $20.00, install iTunes and use that for the phone until Apple/Microsoft get the phone working in Vista64.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I think it is rather poor that a company like apple that claims to be cutting edge has not put out 64bit drivers for the iPhone. Apple has had over 3 years to get out 64 bit stuff for windows and has failed at it big time. Everyone known that a 64 bit verson of vista was going to be out since before XP64 was released and that was over 3 years ago. I highly doubt much if any work would of had to been done to move an Xp64 over to a vista 64 driver.

This is complete shame on apple and is mud in there face. Come on apple if you are going to claim to be cutting edge than do it. Do not pretend to do it and have something this glaring proving you other wise.

 

[ripkord]

Nobody has 64-Bit Vista. Why would Apple, as a company, put the effort into supporting that silly operating system?

The truth is, that as a consumer, it is your fault that you didn't research ahead of time. When you bought the 64-Bit version of Vista, you should have done your homework.

It's not about how long the 64-Bit version of Vista has been out for, it's about how there's relatively no demand and therefore no supply.

Returning it so that "Apple can take a hit" is an immature thing to say. A company does not have emotions and Apple is not a sole proprietorship. When you do things in order to hurt the company, you're hurting everyone who owns that company. Also, the loss that Apple will take from your iPhone is probably less than one millionth of the loss that Apple will take by putting their resources into supporting your foolish purchase of Windows Vista 64-Bit.

When I search on Google for "vista 64-bit incompatible" several sites pop up on the first page that discuss the incompatibility of the iPhone with Windows Vista 64-Bit. (I didn't even search for the word "iPhone" and I found results!)

Also, in the iPhone minimum system requirements it says that 64-bit editions of Windows are not supported: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305703

They should support it, its not difficult! Its just lazy.

 

[skubish]

Where do you come up with this garbage? I have not had ONE app or game that had an issue with 64bit vista. Unless you have some relic hardware or need to run any 16bit software, it is a non issue.

Well you must not get around the net much. It is well known that for software compatibility 32bitVista>64bitVista. Ask Leo LaPorte and Paul Thurott both well respected figures in the industry.

And unless you are running specialized software, you get little benefit for running 64bit. The average user doesn't need 32GB RAM. Obviously if you are running a business processing video or large photos then 64bit Vista would be a benefit.

 

[Sobe]

Try running games on 64-bit OSes.

Sure some will, but a lot won't.

What's the troubleshooting step to fix that?

Run it on a 32-bit os

 

[chewietobbacca]

Try running games on 64-bit OSes.

Sure some will, but a lot won't.

What's the troubleshooting step to fix that?

Run it on a 32-bit os

Really old games will have problems with 64-bit OS's but the majority of games within the last few years will work on 64-bit no problem at all.

And as people have stated, 64-bit *is* important for a lot of people who DO need 4+ gig's.

When Vista-64 bit came out, there were a lot of issues with drivers since a lot of companies had shoddy 64-bit drivers. Now however, the majority of issues are fixed. In fact, Nvidia finally came out with some decent 64-bit drivers in the last few months for my 8800Ultra and I am completely stable now. The mantra used to be "blame Vista" but now it's pretty clear it was the driver issue.

Anyways, from what I know, writing 64-bit drivers is not hard considering that almost every company that offers both versions has it done. Apple themselves are using 64-bit now. And Bill Gates said that Server 2007 will be the last 32-bit compatible OS and all future OS's from MS will be 64-bit. Its inevitable this will be fixed, but its really crappy that Apple hasn't fixed this issue yet, despite it working just fine w/ Leopard.

And yes, it *is* Apple's fault because either they have to give MS permission to write the drivers themselves, or they have to provide the drivers, as it isn't MS's responsibility to get a product to work. Either way, it reflects poorly upon Apple.

 

[nikhsub1]

Well you must not get around the net much. It is well known that for software compatibility 32bitVista>64bitVista. Ask Leo LaPorte and Paul Thurott both well respected figures in the industry.

Please, I actually USE Vista 64 bit do you? Leo LaPorte? ROFL.

 

[jg2000]

'vista' and 'incompatible' show up in the same sentence a lot. solution...get a mac.

 

[cubist]

What applications are you guys running that require over 4GB of RAM?

That is a really amazing amount of memory. If you actually have an application that requires that much memory, you can probably afford to dedicate a machine to that, and build a smaller machine for your games and music.

Personally, I can't imagine any program actually needing that much memory, except for a multiuser database server or something along that line, that should be running on some kind of paired redundant server setup. But then, I've only been a programmer for a little more than 30 years.

 

[planetbeing]

I'm still fuming slightly from having to downgrade from 64-bit to 32-bit. Since then, I discovered that I absolutely cannot use more than 2 GB of memory in my machine. Using 3 GB will kill DDR, using 4 GB seems to make my system unstable (even if I am willing to accept the large memory hole). Under 64-bit Vista, I never had problems like this.

4 GB was really helpful in running virtual machines and keeping a lot going at the same time. I could even pause a full-screen game, alt-tab out of it, and do a lot of other intensive work on the computer. Now I have to be more frugal.

Therefore, I have to say 64-bit Vista definitely has its uses. Paul Thurrott, who I have a lot of respect for, even qualified his statement about 64-bit Vista on Windows Weekly by saying that hobbyists should obviously ignore what he was saying: They know what they want and need better than he does.

Contrary to what everyone says about Vista x64 not working as well, I really find it a Good Thing that much automatic compatibility for applications that essentially don't behave are removed. You can get things working yourself, and you know exactly what you changed, rather than depend on Microsoft's shims. I never had much of a problem with drivers as soon as a month after Vista was officially released. I was able to find x64 drivers for: my motherboard, my Radeon X800 video card, my creative audigy sound card, my webcam, my usb wi-fi adapter, and even my bluetooth dongle. I'm not even including HIDs like my mouse and joystick (both USB devices).

My gods, if companies like Belkin and "AirLink101" can produce 64-bit drivers, why can't Apple? If even DaemonTools can make a signed 64-bit driver (which is necessary to do its disc emulation), why can't Apple? Hell, even the one-man developer of SpeedFan had to make a 64-bit driver for his program. You can read his efforts at getting it signed on his blog for pete's sake.

It's just ludicrous.

 

[ripkord]

Try running games on 64-bit OSes.

Sure some will, but a lot won't.

What's the troubleshooting step to fix that?

Run it on a 32-bit os

I game on my 64bit Vista rig all the time, sure theres issues, but what new OS doesnt have issues?

RE: The iPhone, thankfully I have a G4 powerbook. If I didnt I would be quite annoyed with Apple, you expect better from a company like that. Its not like 64bit windows is anything new. Having said that M$ are as bad, theres no drivers for my fingerprint scanner MADE by microsoft, that REALLY takes the biscuit.

 

[Jocko]

LOL. Rig. Classic. 99% of you are running 64-bit Vista only so you feel like you're all l33t and stuff. If that's more important to you, then hey cool. But there are drawbacks to that choice. The other people who actually want to use their consumer systems to do consumer things can keep using 32-bit Windows.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

That is a really amazing amount of memory. If you actually have an application that requires that much memory, you can probably afford to dedicate a machine to that, and build a smaller machine for your games and music.

Personally, I can't imagine any program actually needing that much memory, except for a multiuser database server or something along that line, that should be running on some kind of paired redundant server setup. But then, I've only been a programmer for a little more than 30 years.

I am just going to call you nieve if you believe wanting more than 4 gigs of ram is stupid. On 32bit as it stand we can not use all 4 gigs of ram. can not handle it.
Look at the world we live in. Less than 5 years ago we though 1 gig of ram was a lot. 3.5 years ago it was consider the sweet spot. Now 1 gig of ram is kind of the min you want in a computer. It not going to be long before 2 gigs become the min and 4 gigs is what you want. The time between doubling jumps has not been changing. Every few years we double our ram. So wanint 4+gigs now is just a little a head or the time but not by much.

Like I said early this is mud in apple face. Apple CLAIMS to be cutting edge yet they have had nearly 3 years to put out 64 bit drivers and have failed to do so. It rather said that a company claiming to be cutting edge failed to keep up and not make a 64 bit driver in 3 years.

 

[Persifleur]

Like I said early this is mud in apple face. Apple CLAIMS to be cutting edge yet they have had nearly 3 years to put out 64 bit drivers and have failed to do so. It rather said that a company claiming to be cutting edge failed to keep up and not make a 64 bit driver in 3 years.

Yeah I agree, it's really sad they can't make a 64-bit driver. I mean, they were able to make an operating system that can run both 32-bit applications and drivers side-by-side with 64-bit applications and drivers, but they can't make a single 64-bit driver for a consumer device to support an operating system which will rarely be used by the average consumer.

And yes, that paragraph above is dripping with sarcasm. 64-bit drivers are completely unnecessary at this point in time, but Microsoft just couldn't be bothered to implement support for 32-bit drivers. When there's sufficient demand, there will be a 64-bit driver for Vista. One can hardly blame Apple for putting its OS first; Microsoft hardly falls over itself to support the Mac.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yeah I agree, it's really sad they can't make a 64-bit driver. I mean, they were able to make an operating system that can run both 32-bit applications and drivers side-by-side with 64-bit applications and drivers, but they can't make a single 64-bit driver for a consumer device to support an operating system which will rarely be used by the average consumer.

And yes, that paragraph above is dripping with sarcasm. 64-bit drivers are completely unnecessary at this point in time, but Microsoft just couldn't be bothered to implement support for 32-bit drivers. When there's sufficient demand, there will be a 64-bit driver for Vista. One can hardly blame Apple for putting its OS first; Microsoft hardly falls over itself to support the Mac.

let me repeat myself again they have had over 3 years of time to get everything ready for 64 bit and yet 3 years later they have not made any progress.

But I might want to point out by you logic why should Microsoft make Office for mac or any one make software for apple. It is such a small market share that it does not matter.

This is apple fault plan and simple and sit only on apple shoulders. As for the 32 bit aps running in a 64 bit environment it can only be done by putting them in a simulated environment . it is not possible to run it natively. So Apple set up lets programs get off being lazy compared ot microsoft forcing them to move to the new age.

 

[Sobe]

I game on my 64bit Vista rig all the time, sure theres issues, but what new OS doesnt have issues?

RE: The iPhone, thankfully I have a G4 powerbook. If I didnt I would be quite annoyed with Apple, you expect better from a company like that. Its not like 64bit windows is anything new. Having said that M$ are as bad, theres no drivers for my fingerprint scanner MADE by microsoft, that REALLY takes the biscuit.

I work with games for money while I'm working on my masters and if I had a dollar for every game that had an issue with a 64-bit OS....I wouldn't need to be working on my masters.

Sure a new 32-bit OS can have issues too. Just like we had with XP and Vista. But those are of a different nature entirely. They're usually to do with drivers or permissions, not the nature of the OS itself.

Of course some publishers won't even support 64-bit OSes, period.

 

[Persifleur]

let me repeat myself again they have had over 3 years of time to get everything ready for 64 bit and yet 3 years later they have not made any progress.

You can keep repeating the "3 years" argument all you like, but it's based on nothing but wild speculation. You have no idea how transferable an XP64 driver is to Vista 64: you assume it's easy because it suits your argument. Vista's been out for one year, so I'll grant you they've had at least one year to develop a 64-bit driver. But just because it's available doesn't automatically mean they need to support it. Vista 64 is not a mainstream consumer OS. It's a solution to a (currently) specialist need. Many, many devices still don't support it (even some Microsoft hardware!).

But I might want to point out by you logic why should Microsoft make Office for mac or any one make software for apple. It is such a small market share that it does not matter.

Microsoft makes Office for the Mac because it's profitable, small market share or not. They've slowly been discontinuing everything else.

I have no doubt that in time there will be a 64-bit driver. But given that they were under pressure to deliver both the iPhone and Leopard within a short timeframe, they chose to support the most common configurations for the iPhone and concentrate on Leopard. This was absolutely the right decision to make. Your inability to read the system requirements about your OS of choice not being supported is not really Apple's problem. It'd be like me complaining I can't get ActiveSync for my PDA on the Mac.

This is apple fault plan and simple and sit only on apple shoulders. As for the 32 bit aps running in a 64 bit environment it can only be done by putting them in a simulated environment . it is not possible to run it natively. So Apple set up lets programs get off being lazy compared ot microsoft forcing them to move to the new age.

Hmm you mean to say 32-bit apps don't run in Vista 64? I think you better recheck that one. Vista most certainly supports 32-bit applications, it's the drivers that are the problem.

But while it is true Vista needs an emulation layer to run non-64-bit apps, Leopard needs no such thing. This emulation layer is precisely why 32-bit drivers don't work in Vista, but do in Leopard. 32-bit apps and drivers run natively in Leopard just as they did in Panther and Tiger: both of which had a 64-bit memory manager and could recognise and use more than 4G RAM (though each individual 32-bit application could only be allocated a maximum of 4G). I know this because I have a Power Mac with 5.5G RAM and Tiger could see and use all of it.

 

[skubish]

Please, I actually USE Vista 64 bit do you? Leo LaPorte? ROFL.

Yes a did but I went back to 32bit because of to many incompatibilities.
If 64bit was really the godsend why do they make a 32bit version? Some people just like to brag about running 64bit Vista
whoopie!

 

[Nicolasdec]

64-bit sucks, i had it on my vista machine and nothing worked. not even Microsoft hardware. So im back to 32-bit.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Hmm you mean to say 32-bit apps don't run in Vista 64? I think you better recheck that one. Vista most certainly supports 32-bit applications, it's the drivers that are the problem.

But while it is true Vista needs an emulation layer to run non-64-bit apps, Leopard needs no such thing. This emulation layer is precisely why 32-bit drivers don't work in Vista, but do in Leopard. 32-bit apps and drivers run natively in Leopard just as they did in Panther and Tiger: both of which had a 64-bit memory manager and could recognise and use more than 4G RAM (though each individual 32-bit application could only be allocated a maximum of 4G). I know this because I have a Power Mac with 5.5G RAM and Tiger could see and use all of it.

Yeah you are dreaming about the leopard not needing to emulation layer to run non-64 bit apps. It is not possible to run a 32 bit app in a 64 bit OS with out emulation. You need to get that though you head.

I still think it is sad that apple now has had what a few months to get it out to get 64 bit support out.

 

[nikhsub1]

Yes a did but I went back to 32bit because of to many incompatibilities.

Can you be specific as to what those incompatibilities are? I have not found one program that won't run under 64 bit so far that is not DRIVER related.

 

[matticus008]

Apple's obvious ploy here is to fool people into thinking it's Windows' fault and hoping people will buy a Mac out of ignorance.

Nobody accidentally runs an x64 edition of Windows. Those individuals are also aware of a pretty healthy list of incompatible 32-bit software and devices when choosing to do so. Claiming that it's a "ploy" to get people to buy a Mac out of "ignorance" is foolish at best.

I think it is rather poor that a company like apple that claims to be cutting edge has not put out 64bit drivers for the iPhone.

How about Windows Media for Macs? Internet Explorer? Outlook (don't even start on the festering pile that is Entourage)? OneNote? The list goes on.

Microsoft has abandoned plenty of Mac products that did once exist (or were promised and then never appeared). The x64 install base is smaller than the Linux install base for consumer systems. Sucks to be the little guy when the popular products aren't available, doesn't it? A taste of Microsoft's own medicine.

But I might want to point out by you logic why should Microsoft make Office for mac or any one make software for apple. It is such a small market share that it does not matter.

It's not, though. There's high demand and Microsoft's Mac business unit is always in the green. The same cannot be said for x64 customers. Nobody cares about them in the consumer space, for good reason.

If you're sophisticated enough to know why you want to use a 64-bit edition, you're smart enough to check hardware and software compatibility before purchasing. It's not Microsoft's fault; it's not Apple's fault. It's your own.