WHS v2 and PP2 announced...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Actually there are some 32bit apps that don't run well in 64bit but they are rare (based on the huge number of 32 bit apps) and "more RAM" is *not* the only reason for 64bit. There are other reasons. Speed, stability and scalability, etc are also good reasons.

But none of those apply to Sage.

I can easily image that Sage could benefit from 64bit while transcoding and commercial skipping multiple streams. Until they build/test one we'll never know for sure.

And SageTV doesn't write any of those apps. Comskip and "SageTVPlayer" are developed by 3rd parties, and could (and probably will) be optomized for 64 bit without Sage lifting a finger.

For the record I'm not (nor anyone else I'd guess) is arguing that Sage should "live in the past", there's just no compelling reason for Sage to devote resources to making Sage a "64 bit app". So long as Sage runs stable on a 64bit OS, that's all that matters since 64bit optimized code isn't going to gain us anything. It's not like the scheduler or UI are going to run any better or anything.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Speed, stability and scalability, etc are also good reasons.

These are completely false. Just because a program or OS is 64-bit doesn't make it faster or more stable. In fact, in many cases 64-bit apps can actually take a performance hit just because they are 64-bit. Ever notice 64-bit excecutables are larger and take up more RAM? The only reason it's more scalable is because the RAM limit is MUCH higher.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

These are completely false.

Try again:
http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64b.../benefits.mspx

Scalability
Security
Reliability
No Price Premium for x64 Performance
Compatibility
Access More Physical Memory
Relieve Virtual Address Limitations
Improved Performance
Data Execution Prevention
PatchGuard

[gplasky]

So those of you running a 64bit OS-how many of you even bother running the 64 bit version of IE? It's on your OS. Or the 64 bit version of Windows Media Player? It's on there. Microsoft doesn't even bother providing a shortcut to it's 64 bit WMP. I'm all for progress and definitely think programming should move towards 64 bit and they will. But there is no driving reason that needs to be a priority.

Gerry

[Taddeusz]

I don't run either one. Too much of a hassle. Again, very few 64-bit codecs make WMP 64-bit worthless. Same with 64-bit IE. Very few 64-bit plugins make it practically worthless. Besdies, I run Firefox as my browser.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Try again:
http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64b.../benefits.mspx

I'm not disputing security so much because hackers aren't really targeting it yet. But you're going to believe Microsoft propaganda over the realities of computing?

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

But you're going to believe Microsoft propaganda over the realities of computing?

I just don't believe your definition of reality, I know better. When you're reduced to bad mouthing MS because you're wrong, that says more about you than them.

[sleonard]

Scalability - refers to the ability to address memory above 4 GB. Already aknowledged.

Security - refers to Data Execution Prevention and PatchGuard not x64.

Reliability - refers to the fact that x64 is "based on the same code base as Windows Server 32-bit editions".

No Price Premium for x64 Performance - Irrelevant to the current discussion.

Compatibility - refers to the fact that x64 can run x32 apps natively without emulation. Irrelevant to the current discussion.

Access More Physical Memory - see scalability

Relieve Virtual Address Limitations - see scalability

Improved Performance - A small set of "computationally intensive applications can see" improved performance. Notice they use the weasel word "can" not will.Otherwise apps "perform similarly on Windows Server 32-bit editions and Windows Server x64 editions".

Data Execution Prevention - already discussed above in security. Independant of 32 vs 64 bit.

PatchGuard - already discussed above in security. Independant of 32 vs 64 bit.

x64 is great for the host OS on the VMWare ESXi server cluster I manage at work because it lets me have a buttload of RAM needed to run the many virtual machines I need to. BTW, those virtual servers are all running the x32 version of Server 2003 R2 not the x64 version.

In short - x64 is coming soon but for applications that require less than 4GB (2^32) of RAM there is limited if any benefit unlike the move from x16 to x32 which was HUGE.

Scott

P.S. - I could probably be accurately described as a Microsoft fanboy. I love Windows and always have. You can't accuse me of bad-mouthing MS just because I am capable of seeing thru their more than occasional hype. (in this case the hype is not just MS but Apple, Intel, and practically the entire industry.)

[S_M_E]

Seriously, keep trying but I'm not buying it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

A change from a 32-bit to a 64-bit architecture is a fundamental alteration, as most operating systems must be extensively modified to take advantage of the new architecture. Other software must also be ported to use the new capabilities; older software is usually supported through either a hardware compatibility mode (in which the new processors support the older 32-bit version of the instruction set as well as the 64-bit version), through software emulation, or by the actual implementation of a 32-bit processor core within the 64-bit processor (as with the Itanium processors from Intel, which include an x86 processor core to run 32-bit x86 applications). The operating systems for those 64-bit architectures generally support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

64-bit processors calculate particular tasks (such as factorials of large figures) twice as fast as working in 32-bit environments (given example is derived from comparison between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Calculator; noticeable for factorial of say 100,000). This gives a general feeling of theoretical possibilities of 64-bit optimized applications.

Calculator even...

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. This is not entirely true:

* Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GB of RAM. This restriction is not present in 64-bit operating systems.

(This also applies to computers running Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 as it only shows the installed RAM not the usable.)

* Memory-mapped files are becoming more difficult to implement in 32-bit architectures, especially due to the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
* Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.

I see a lot of common misconceptions on the net but little reality. Funny how many people think they know better than "practically the entire industry."

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I see a lot of common misconceptions on the net but little reality. Funny how many people think they know better than "practically the entire industry."

Again, some computationally intensive applications can be accelerated by going to 64-bit. Transcoding may or may not fall into this category depending on the kind of math being done. I doubt your every day Word, IE, WMP, etc can really take advantage of any of this. The only place 64-bit is going to be useful is for specialized scientific, math, CAD/CAM, etc. Applications that have already been converted to 64-bit. Nothing else really matters at 64-bit because there is no particular reason they need the added resources it gives.

For SageTV specifically mostly all you'd be doing is forcing people to dig around for 64-bit codecs which are currently limited. SageTV runs fine within the current 32-bit address and register space.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Again, some computationally intensive applications can be accelerated by going to 64-bit. Transcoding may or may not fall into this category depending on the kind of math being done. I doubt your every day Word, IE, WMP, etc can really take advantage of any of this.

I believe that most apps will benefit to some degree (some more than others) by going to 64-bit, including Sage. Will it record an hour of TV in 1/2 an hour? Of course not but I do believe that it will benefit. Files, especially video, are only getting larger and 64-bit handles large files better. That is a fact.

The only place 64-bit is going to be useful is for specialized scientific, math, CAD/CAM, etc. Applications that have already been converted to 64-bit. Nothing else really matters at 64-bit because there is no particular reason they need the added resources it gives.

I absolutely disagree. There's no doubt that those kind of applications will benefit *more* than others but but to say that those are the "only" places to benefit and that "nothing else matters" is either being obtuse or exaggerating far too much.

For SageTV specifically mostly all you'd be doing is forcing people to dig around for 64-bit codecs which are currently limited. SageTV runs fine within the current 32-bit address and register space.

How many times do we have to say that *nobody* is saying we have to have 64-bit Sage tomorrow? Eventually drivers, apps and codecs (etc) WILL catch up, just like 32-bit apps caught up. I'll ask again, 14 years after win95 came out, how many apps are being written for win3.1? Virtually none and you know it. Eventually 32-bit will go the way of 16 bit and you know that too. It might be 15 years (or less) or more)) but 64-bit is where we're going and people are just going to have to get used to that. I still believe that Sage will be better as a native 64-bit app (for 64-bit OSes) and, again, we won't know until we do have one and I do believe that eventually we will have one and I doubt we'll be waiting 15 years for it either.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Taddeusz]

To each their own. 64-bit is still a far way off for most whether or not it brings tangible benefits.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

To each their own. 64-bit is still a far way off for most whether or not it brings tangible benefits.

I hate to break it to you but Vista WMC x64 is already 64-bit and some tuners already have 64-bit drivers and codecs. Sage may not mind the competition being first but I doubt they'll want to be last.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I believe that most apps will benefit to some degree (some more than others) by going to 64-bit, including Sage. Will it record an hour of TV in 1/2 an hour? Of course not but I do believe that it will benefit.

OK, I'm curious, how do you expect Sage to benefit from 64-bit native code?

Files, especially video, are only getting larger and 64-bit handles large files better. That is a fact.

Sage is handling my >>4GB files fine today, on 32bit Windows. Why do I want Sage to be native 64bit? What's in it for me?

How many times do we have to say that *nobody* is saying we have to have 64-bit Sage tomorrow?

Eventually drivers, apps and codecs (etc) WILL catch up, just like 32-bit apps caught up. I'll ask again, 14 years after win95 came out, how many apps are being written for win3.1? Virtually none and you know it. Eventually 32-bit will go the way of 16 bit and you know that too. It might be 15 years (or less) or more)) but 64-bit is where we're going and people are just going to have to get used to that.

Nobody's saying Sage shouldn't go 64 bit at some point, or that it won't. Most of us are just question why anyone would care when they do.

I still believe that Sage will be better as a native 64-bit app (for 64-bit OSes) and, again, we won't know until we do have one and I do believe that eventually we will have one and I doubt we'll be waiting 15 years for it either.

Why? What would make you think that, what do you expect to be "better"? Everything I've read is that 64 bit is only a significant benefit to "intensive" apps (memory, CPU, etc), and Sage does not fall into that category.

[sainswor99]

Perhaps a 64-bit Sage could handle dancing unicorns on every menus....

too esoteric? or too soon?

[S_M_E]

Too troll-esque.

Good bye...

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Too troll-esque.

Wow. No humour whatsoever.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Good bye...

See ya.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Files, especially video, are only getting larger and 64-bit handles large files better. That is a fact.

Please define "handles large files better". I'd like to know more about this fact.

[tmiranda]

Hey Ghostlobster, where are you? This thread is starting to get just about as good as "the Sage UI interface sucks" thread. Come on over, I'm saving a set for you .....

[justme]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Hey Ghostlobster, where are you? This thread is starting to get just about as good as "the Sage UI interface sucks" thread. Come on over, I'm saving a set for you .....

I can't speak for GL, but I'm here. Is there any thread where S_M_E posts that doesn't take on a tone like this.

On Topic: I'm fine with 32 bit Sage for the forseeable future, but do find WHS interesting and look forward to any future development of WHS. So thank you, S_M_E, for the heads up on WHS V2. Still until at least there is a 64bit Haali splitter, I'm staying with 32bit for media playback. Heck, as has already been pointed out MS doesn't even use their 64bit verisons of WMP and IE on their 64bit OS's by default. Believe me I writing this on a Vista64bit laptop. I can't effectively use WMP 64(after switching to it) due to lack of all needed 64bit codecs. I don't doubt they'll be there soon. All in all I, agree with stanger89's statements. Besides he has a pretty good track record with previous predictions, relating to emerging/advancing technologies.

In otherwords IMHO, 64bit will come and it will replace 32bit . But it will take time and come on it's own time frame. If it's truelly an advantage in a given area it will come there faster(ie video encoding). The future will reveal all.