New: OneLoupe (May 1, 2025), Platform 30.0.2 (Mar 27, 2025)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.2 billion downloads
Ad Free! Please donate today
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
Please help support us by making a donation so we can keep bringing you awesome free software. We accept credit card, wire transfer, PayPal, cryptocurrency, and more.
If you recently donated, thank you!
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
>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
Revisiting this topic.
One valid reason would be other portable that does not come in 32bit versions and require the presence of a 64bit libvlc.dll on the system for preview purposes (SubTitle Edit comes to mind, also portable). Space considerations with current sizes of portable storage shouldn't really be an issue anymore...
And even that could be mitigated by offering separate 32/64 bit packages instead of combining them... besides, the day and age of 32bit systems is rapidly becoming prehistoric so even that is not that big an issue anymore,
> VLC is already very large for a media player at 113MB compared to MPC-HC
Does it matter how much space the app takes up? Nvidia's video driver now weighs more than 1.5 gigabytes - what does this affect? Is this what will persuade the buyer to buy a video card from another manufacturer? Neverwinter is 23GB too much to play or not? The year is 2020: 20 GB hard drives, 1 TB flash drives, almost half of users with 16 GB of RAM ... - who cares that the application weighs 200 MB and not 100 MB?!
MPC-HC is dead, hasn't been updated since 2017. Unlike VLC. Which is not only a media player - please read carefully about the possibilities of its add-ons. Some of them work only with the 64-bit version of the application. 32-bit versions work much slower than 64-bit ones when processing heavy media content. In November, only 0.35% of Windows users were using 32-bit versions of this OS.
You link to article "64-bit Software: Where It Fits Into Portable Apps". It was written in 2010! You would also refer to the application requirements for 80386 processors.
You mention "load time". 10 seconds for a 100 MB app or 20 seconds for 200 MB - is that important?
Sorry, but such an opinion of the staff of this resource has greatly changed my attitude towards the site. Unfortunately, I have to admit that you have ceased to correspond to the changing reality.
I don't think you realized you responded to an 8 year old comment. For reference:
MPC-HC is still actively developer. There's a fork from the original team we distribute which was last updated in August 2020. We also distribute the Black Edition which was last updated in October 2020.
32-bit software is still a requirement because Microsoft's newest version of Windows for ARM used on the new ultra-portables like the Microsoft Surface Pro X, Acer Swift 7, Lenovo Yoga 5G, etc can not run traditional 64-bit Windows apps compiled for Intel. It can only run 32-bit Intel Windows apps.
Size is still a consideration as we still have a very large userbase in areas with more limited internet and more limited financial considerations for technology than many of us have. Remember, that we should not project our privilege when it comes to means, connectivity, etc onto others.
As for 32-bit vs 64-bit in terms of VLC, while VLC is more than a media player, a very small percentage of users use it as such. Even those that use add-ons, all of the popular add-ons I checked out either had 32-bit and 64-bit required files included or were lua files (which are universal).
Is there a specific add-on you'd like to use that requires 64-bit and is popular that might influence a change in packaging?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!