I'd like to run Vista 64 bit if XBMC will run on it?
I've found 64 bit Vista to be very fast and stable.
I've found 64 bit Vista to be very fast and stable.
2008-02-27, 14:03
I tried it on Windows Server 2008 x64 with DirectX installed and it worked. So I assume it will work on x64 Vista.
2008-03-01, 08:50
Well a 64bit binary of XBMC for Windows faces same issues as the linux ones. Hopefuly most of that will overlap thou so once Linux is building a 64bit bin 
then the Windows can closely after.
Pretty much any x86, 64bit operating system will still run 32bit applications.
Vista won't run 16bit programs (like old dos stuff).
then the Windows can closely after.Pretty much any x86, 64bit operating system will still run 32bit applications.
Vista won't run 16bit programs (like old dos stuff).
** Team XBMC Tester** XBMC 4 ever
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.
2008-03-01, 22:54
I hope there is a x64 version we can use. I don't get why the PC/workstation world has not converted to x64... it is SO MUCH faster it is crazy. Most of the major vendors for peripherals have 64 bit drivers now. The server world converted long ago.
2008-03-01, 23:29
64bit will also cure cancer, make you a millionare and make sure that slices of bread fall with the toppings down, all this while pleasuring you sexually.
64 bit was NEVER about speed. 64 bit was NEVER about stability. it is about a single thing: a larger adressing space (which is 48 bit on x86-64 mind you). if anything it will make code on todays "hybrid" platforms run slightly SLOWER, not faster (due to larger data transfers).
the reason you're seeing speed increases is that you are comparing a BROKEN os (vista 32) with a SLIGHTLY less broken os (vista 64).
but, it's nice to see that the marketing department doesn't do everything wrong - their catchlines seems to entertain the dull
64 bit was NEVER about speed. 64 bit was NEVER about stability. it is about a single thing: a larger adressing space (which is 48 bit on x86-64 mind you). if anything it will make code on todays "hybrid" platforms run slightly SLOWER, not faster (due to larger data transfers).
the reason you're seeing speed increases is that you are comparing a BROKEN os (vista 32) with a SLIGHTLY less broken os (vista 64).
but, it's nice to see that the marketing department doesn't do everything wrong - their catchlines seems to entertain the dull
2008-03-01, 23:46
spiff
I respect your knowledge and opinion but I will disagree with you. Above I was not specifically comparing Vista32->64, I'm using the experience I have with both server and workstation platforms - I'm a full-time consultant for fortune 100 companies.
Yes, 64 bit was not originally "about" speed but there are real world speed improvements when both the OS & the app are designed/optimized for 64 bit.
When comparing Vista64 to XP32 there is noticeable speed increase using Vista64. This is personal experience using 2 machines side-by-side, 100% equal hardware - same exact Intel C2D E6750, 4GB RAM, etc. Comparing OS functions, response, etc only. No app perf was done but 64 bit apps do show perf improvements on many OSes.
I don't use Vista daily, mainly XP. But I was going to use Vista x64 with XBMC if I could compile XBMC to x64. This would allow me to use the PVR functions from Vista MCE and my favorite Media Center... XBMC!
I respect your knowledge and opinion but I will disagree with you. Above I was not specifically comparing Vista32->64, I'm using the experience I have with both server and workstation platforms - I'm a full-time consultant for fortune 100 companies.
Yes, 64 bit was not originally "about" speed but there are real world speed improvements when both the OS & the app are designed/optimized for 64 bit.
When comparing Vista64 to XP32 there is noticeable speed increase using Vista64. This is personal experience using 2 machines side-by-side, 100% equal hardware - same exact Intel C2D E6750, 4GB RAM, etc. Comparing OS functions, response, etc only. No app perf was done but 64 bit apps do show perf improvements on many OSes.
I don't use Vista daily, mainly XP. But I was going to use Vista x64 with XBMC if I could compile XBMC to x64. This would allow me to use the PVR functions from Vista MCE and my favorite Media Center... XBMC!
2008-03-01, 23:51
btw... if you want to learn more about the speed improvements for x64 here's a nice read: http://download.microsoft.com/download/B...for_Me.doc
2008-03-02, 00:04
let me just pass you the url to my reponse.
in .tex ofc
in .tex ofc
2008-03-02, 00:16
so, pasting a bloody .DOC file (i have no problems with ppl writing in word - its their own choice and their terror but use a publisher format when you publish damn it) which says EXACTLY what i said (larger adressing space) plus something everybody knows (x86-64 is a better instruction set than x86 - but that got fuck anything to do with the 64bit nature of things)
helps your case in what way exactly?
helps your case in what way exactly?
2008-03-02, 01:14
My point was that a native x64 OS + x64 app will run faster than an x32 OS + x32 app... thus, it would be nice to have XBMC at x64.
I truly don't understand why 64 bit apps are not the norm in today's world... x32 should only be for legacy apps... CPUs have been able to support x64 for a few years now and I don't think any are sold that do not (or very very few)... app developers (commercial & non) should be leading the way to x64 as the "norm", not just saying "we've always just done 32bit" -- or maybe we should tell Intel & AMD to stop building better hardware... the original ISA Bus was just fine!
I truly don't understand why 64 bit apps are not the norm in today's world... x32 should only be for legacy apps... CPUs have been able to support x64 for a few years now and I don't think any are sold that do not (or very very few)... app developers (commercial & non) should be leading the way to x64 as the "norm", not just saying "we've always just done 32bit" -- or maybe we should tell Intel & AMD to stop building better hardware... the original ISA Bus was just fine!
2008-03-02, 02:14
because
1) normal apps dont need >4gb ram
2) normal apps hardly benefit much from the additional simd capabilities nor higher number of registers due to memory bw being the main limiter these days.
the switch from 16bit to 32bit was needed. the switch from 32bit to 64bit is not needed at all, it can be rationalized by games and a some CAD like applications. and is driven by memory requirements, not fundamental architecture changes. no. the real reason there's a push for 64bit in the consumer market is that manifacturers wants to sell more hw. this is just consumers saying eff that, who cares. the point here is, sure, develop new hw. but develop new hw which brings us some real, everyday observeable benefit. the change to 64bit has yet to deliver that.
don't get me wrong, i know all the benefits of 64bit computing (heck i run large scale simulations on a almost daily basis so i know all about single applications churning on gigabytes on memory. but that does not mean there's a need in the consumer market, and the reason we're not running everything in 64bit is caused by just that - there's no need.
1) normal apps dont need >4gb ram
2) normal apps hardly benefit much from the additional simd capabilities nor higher number of registers due to memory bw being the main limiter these days.
the switch from 16bit to 32bit was needed. the switch from 32bit to 64bit is not needed at all, it can be rationalized by games and a some CAD like applications. and is driven by memory requirements, not fundamental architecture changes. no. the real reason there's a push for 64bit in the consumer market is that manifacturers wants to sell more hw. this is just consumers saying eff that, who cares. the point here is, sure, develop new hw. but develop new hw which brings us some real, everyday observeable benefit. the change to 64bit has yet to deliver that.
don't get me wrong, i know all the benefits of 64bit computing (heck i run large scale simulations on a almost daily basis so i know all about single applications churning on gigabytes on memory. but that does not mean there's a need in the consumer market, and the reason we're not running everything in 64bit is caused by just that - there's no need.
2008-03-02, 13:17
The thing that do help is the tighter driver modell in vista 64 forcing driver developers to put some effort into writing their drivers. It mostly effects stability but it also has a sideeffect in performance
2008-03-10, 00:34
Tight now I'm o 2 64 bit systems and 1 32bit
the first one are a 2008 server and a vista ultimate (not yet sp1).
both of them run smooth and very well, stable and no issues.
The major advantage, as pointed out, is that on 64bit systems you must (if you do not diable it) use signed drivers.
That means that the overall quality of the driver is higher, positive side, but some small hw devices or old ones will not have the driver, due to the costs associated to the signature. And this is the negative side.
Said that I had to give up my hauppauge for this reason...
but I'm anyway very very very happy of both server and vista.
In addition to that if you want to use 4GB of ram (as I do) the 64bit is mandatory.
As a general perception when I moved from the 32 to 64 on exactly the same hw I had the feeling it was slightly more responsive. I do not have any data to support this, just an inpression.
It even must be said that as of today very few programs are compiled for x64 and very very few are DESIGNED for x64.
Thus the real advantages (if any, but I think they could exist) still have to be explited.
Mf
the first one are a 2008 server and a vista ultimate (not yet sp1).
both of them run smooth and very well, stable and no issues.
The major advantage, as pointed out, is that on 64bit systems you must (if you do not diable it) use signed drivers.
That means that the overall quality of the driver is higher, positive side, but some small hw devices or old ones will not have the driver, due to the costs associated to the signature. And this is the negative side.
Said that I had to give up my hauppauge for this reason...
but I'm anyway very very very happy of both server and vista.In addition to that if you want to use 4GB of ram (as I do) the 64bit is mandatory.
As a general perception when I moved from the 32 to 64 on exactly the same hw I had the feeling it was slightly more responsive. I do not have any data to support this, just an inpression.
It even must be said that as of today very few programs are compiled for x64 and very very few are DESIGNED for x64.
Thus the real advantages (if any, but I think they could exist) still have to be explited.
Mf
