Since VLC is not just a player, it is also an encoder or a streaming tool. And it will be called by many third-party programs. So I think it should be necessary to provide 64-bit versions.
New: Kanri (Oct 09, 2024), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
The vast majority of users only use it as a player and streamer. If you'd like to use it from a third party program, you can manually configure the 64-bit version from the publisher as our launcher may be incompatible with the command line it wants to pass anyway.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
64-bit version of VLC does provide benefits to regular users. It might not be noticeble when playing a 700mb video file, but when launching a 7gb video file (e.g. a bluray movie) then you can spot a difference. Not to mention videos (e.g. gameplay) recorded in 4K@60fps with high bitrate which not only weight a lot but also require fast data processing.
Are there some technical issues behind implementing 64-bit version of VLC within PortableApps?
I just compared VLC 32-bit vs VLC 64-bit on my 6 year old i7-7700k with my 6 year old GTX 1060. For both, the CPU hovers around 0.5% or less and the GPU around 9.5% with a 7.3GB Blu-ray rip (H.265 / AAC).
There's no reason to double the install size for no increase in performance.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
You might not notice any difference as long as you don't play a video recorded in high resolution (over 1080p) at 60 frames per second with high bitrate. Also, you would need to check statistics of lost video frames for such a video but it is not possible in Portable VLC due to a BUG which was reported here.
There was no difference. 4k blu-ray rip. The worst case scenario you outlined in your previous post. Same cpu and gpu utilization.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!