Struggling with your new iPhone on a 64-bit Windows Vista or XP system? Take solace, you're not alone. The error message, "The software required for iPhone is not installed. Run the iTunes installer to remove iTunes, then install iTunes again." is Apple's magical way of telling you that iTunes is not supported on 64-bit flavors of Microsoft's operating systems. Yeah, we agree, they should have listed the incompatibility on the iPhone specs page under Windows System Requirements. Unfortunately for those of you new to Apple software, it's buried in support article 301301 which states, "iTunes is currently not supported in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or any 64-bit edition of Windows Vista." Now you know.
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
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Xavier Gill @ Jun 30th 2007 12:30PM
Burn down the disco,
Hang the little DJ,
Because the music that they constantly play,
Says nothing to me about me life.
Spork @ Jul 1st 2007 2:59PM
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.
Fatima @ Jun 30th 2007 12:31PM
I'm sure an update is coming soon.
Jamgood2 @ Jun 30th 2007 12:32PM
hahahahaha
Xavier Gill @ Jun 30th 2007 12:34PM
Vista users already know that iTunes doesnt really work for us. But the update will come one day...right?
Jason @ Jun 30th 2007 6:21PM
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.
Jeff P. @ Jul 1st 2007 12:45AM
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.
Aaron @ Jul 1st 2007 3:49AM
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.)
RickyC @ Jul 1st 2007 10:37AM
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.
clayton.coffman @ Jun 30th 2007 12:40PM
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.
Matt @ Jun 30th 2007 12:42PM
It does run under Vista...it does not run under 64bit Vista. There is still a 32bit which most people actually buy.
clayton.coffman @ Jun 30th 2007 12:52PM
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.
JeffM @ Jun 30th 2007 2:12PM
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.
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.
clickmyface @ Jun 30th 2007 6:21PM
@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.
Jason @ Jun 30th 2007 6:23PM
"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.
tipo @ Jun 30th 2007 9:29PM
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.
clayton.coffman @ Jul 1st 2007 12:54AM
>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!
RickyC @ Jul 1st 2007 10:37AM
>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.
Michael @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:45PM
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 !!
MacGuru @ Aug 28th 2007 3:13PM
I bet iTunes will run better on Vista than the piece of crap software like Windows Media Player Microsoft makes for the Mac.
sambhav @ Jan 9th 2008 2:45AM
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...
Hmmmm @ Jun 30th 2007 12:45PM
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.
kev @ Jun 30th 2007 3:11PM
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.
Spork @ Jul 1st 2007 2:48PM
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?
monkeyboy.dsg @ Jul 9th 2007 10:34PM
@ 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.
Digicidal @ Aug 27th 2007 4:46PM
"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
MacGuru @ Aug 28th 2007 3:28PM
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?
Rob @ Jan 12th 2008 12:34AM
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.
jilie @ Jun 30th 2007 12:51PM
hahah Apple didn't had time/skills to write iTuna propetly?
Steven @ Jun 30th 2007 5:55PM
I guess not, when I opened up the lid it didn't smell too good.
Andrew @ Jun 30th 2007 12:58PM
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.
kev @ Jun 30th 2007 3:23PM
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.
Mike Botros @ Jun 30th 2007 4:26PM
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"
MacGuru @ Aug 28th 2007 3:33PM
You guys bashing Apple about an update? How many updates were there THIS week for Vista? Lost count?
Rishard @ Jun 30th 2007 12:58PM
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.
JeffM @ Jun 30th 2007 1:59PM
Wow... you changed your OS for the iPhone? That's ridiculous.
Chrisboff @ Jun 30th 2007 2:05PM
I would have just ran a 32 bit version of vista in a virtual machine.
JefTek @ Jun 30th 2007 1:24PM
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)
kev @ Jan 16th 2008 7:33PM
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?
JefTek @ Jun 30th 2007 3:49PM
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?
shawnz @ Jun 30th 2007 6:25PM
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.
J. Evans Turner @ Jul 9th 2007 3:25PM
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.
JefTek @ Jul 9th 2007 4:51PM
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
wilbur @ Sep 30th 2007 4:23PM
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........
John @ Jun 30th 2007 1:33PM
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.
mtarlton @ Jul 2nd 2007 8:36AM
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.
jay @ Jun 30th 2007 6:17PM
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.
Nomi @ Jun 30th 2007 2:19PM
pwned!
John @ Jun 30th 2007 5:14PM
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.