You are here

VLC 64-bit

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lensman
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: 2006-05-02 16:32
VLC 64-bit

Hi,

Videolan released the win64 version of VLC
(http://download.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/2.0.1/win64/).

Can I replace the contents of \PortableApps\VLCPortable\App with the content of the 7-Zip archive?
Or when will an PA version of VLC 64-bit available?

Greetings
Thomas

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 28 min ago
AdminDeveloperModerator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Most Likely

You can most likely.

We don't do any 64-bit only apps since then it would just not work when you bring it to certain PCs. We do dual mode 32 & 64-bit apps in very specific circumstances (read more here: 64-bit Software: Where It Fits Into Portable Apps). VLC would likely not be a good fit for this as the app would double in size for no real benefit.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

JarC
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 2007-08-27 12:37
I read what it said in your

I read what it said in your posted link, and I'm wondering. The reason I came here looking for a 64bit version was that I noticed my FireFox Portable package almost doubled in size from 90MB to 190MB because it now also includes the 64bit version together with the 32bit version.

The launcher apparently is smart enough to know which one to start.

Considering this. the argument you posted and the explicit mention of Firefox in the linked topic are totally contradicting with the current state of affairs where a relative small package as VLC still only includes a 32bit version and now a space monger like Firefox comes with both versions.

I appreciate and realize this might be a one off occurrence for Firefox , however I would like to request that then VLC also be made available either as a separate download for the 64bit version or a mixed version with a smart enough launcher to start whichever is applicable. The current Firefox package demonstrates this to be a viable alternative.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 28 min ago
AdminDeveloperModerator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
No Reason

Please offer valid specific reasons for making VLC dual mode. VLC is already very large for a media player at 113MB compared to MPC-HC, for example, at 38MB.

Firefox does offer a couple specific benefits to specific users in 64-bit mode. Specifically, some large web apps will run better and need access to a much larger memory footprint. This is becoming more of an issue for very large node.js-style apps as well as asm.js-style games. Dual mode Firefox Portable is also still only about the same size as Chrome et al as it is small for a browser in comparison to others. This is one of the reasons that Chrome isn't dual mode. Chrome, like VLC, is huge and doubling Chrome puts it into LibreOffice territory.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

NathanJ79
NathanJ79's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 2007-07-31 15:07
What's the cost?

I'm wondering what the cost is, Mr Haller, adopting user JarC's side in this issue. (Also, it's been a while. Hope you and yours find yourselves well this new year.)

Is there a cost for PA.c hosting these files on SourceForge, that the cost of having a larger VLC, or Chrome, package would be higher? If so then that's completely understandable.

If it's disk space of the user, 64GB and 128GB flash drives are pretty affordable now. Not to mention the "basic" WD MyPassport, at around $60, is 1TB now. It was 500GB when I got mine and that's more than enough. With a ton of video, I have 131GB free. 32GB is a hidden Xbox360 folder with Rockband songs, I could let go of that at any time, I just have no reason to free it up.

I find it confusing that with most CPUs being 64-bit now that there's a question as to whether or not to support 64-bit in this dual mode. What if, instead you offered 64-bit apps with a 32-bit download feature? For those with 32-bit systems, the PA wrapper would then just download the 32-bit mode? I bet if you split 32-bit and 64-bit downloads, the traffic would favor 64-bit a lot more. Unless you're looking at the metrics and seeing a bunch of XP users on 32-bit CPUs. That I'm not sure of. For my own particular use, it's all 64-bit.

Anyway, your house, your rules, sir. Just weighing in.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 28 min ago
AdminDeveloperModerator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Costs

The details were laid out in the 64-bit Software: Where It Fits Into Portable Apps post. If you're specifically looking for the costs, I'll lay them out here:

1. It takes more time to download both versions and package it, which is a cost of my time
2. It takes additional effort to support dual mode apps as the number of working parts can break, which is a cost of my and other forum users' time
3. It takes additional time to download the app, which is a cost of users' time
4. It takes additional bandwidth to download the app, which is particularly important for users in the developing world and users who pay by the MB
5. It takes additional time to install/update the app, particularly over slower USB, which is a cost of users' time
6. It takes additional space on the install medium. This is particularly concerning to users who install to their cloud drives and sync between PCs, the vast majority of which are only using the free tier of their cloud provider, and for users with smaller USB drives who can't afford to upgrade (just because we have $15 to spend on a new drive from Amazon doesn't mean everyone around the world does)

All of those costs come in to play whenever we're talking about dual-mode apps. And the vast majority of apps do not have benefits associated with their 64-bit version, so there is no reason to incur all the above costs.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

ottosykora
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 2007-10-11 17:48
depends on who

>If it's disk space of the user, 64GB and 128GB flash drives are pretty affordable now. <

does not mean that this is valid for everybody worldwide. Just that some users can store what ever volume does not mean that majority can do this as well. Just for a reason 'to have it' regardless of any advantage at all. I have some systems with 64 and some with 32 bit. More 32 bit systems still. As I do not see any difference other then the 64 bit versions will not run on 32bit system I prefer to have all in 32bit version. Already with the Firefox, I have to delete the 64bit version on every update. I do the downloads frequently on a 64bit system, so if the download would follow the host system, then I would have all 64bit versions on my usb stick. Thhis would not work on majority of computers I have access to.
Just because some users can afford to have big storage, fast internet, and all 64bit systems does not mean the rest of the world has such conditions. Think of other people too, not just yourself.

Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland

Log in or register to post comments