WHS v2 and PP2 announced...

[Taddeusz]

I don't disagree that 64-bit is here to stay and we should move forward in that vein but it's a bit early to be even considering moving SagTV to 64-bit. Plug-in and codec compatibility with IE and such is bad enough. We don't need all that with SageTV.

[kurt711]

wow such a heated discussion. I'm new to Sage and so far loving the stability of the app. i'm running it on WHS PP1 as headless server and HD-200 and laptop as clients. I agree with both sides of the argument and believe in 64-bit apps as I ran vista x64 MCE(painful at times but worked fine) before moving to sage just because I was running a WHS. The issue I would bring up is that when WHS does go all 64-bit and addins go 64-bit, how is that going to affect a 32-bit app running so called virtualized. If I have 2GB memory in the box, 64-bit WHS and 64-bit addins go free for all on that memory, where does sage fit in. Sage does take about 250-300mb average on current WHS. I do hope sage at least optimizes for that. I would like sage to better spend time on incorporating other mediums of video, i.e. hulu, netflix, iplayer, etc. I would also like sage to include some of the popular 3rd party addins in the installer as option of course. It would make it alot easier for out of box experience for new user. just my 2 cents in this tough economy.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by kurt711

The issue I would bring up is that when WHS does go all 64-bit and addins go 64-bit, how is that going to affect a 32-bit app running so called virtualized. If I have 2GB memory in the box, 64-bit WHS and 64-bit addins go free for all on that memory, where does sage fit in. Sage does take about 250-300mb average on current WHS.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. In the current x64 OS implementation it's pretty transparent when you run a 32-bit app. If it runs fine (most do, but there can be issues) the only difference you will notice is that the install directory is different. The app runs the same, and the OS allocates memory to it the same. 32bit apps would participate in the free-for-all just like everyone else, and the OS manages memory like it always does.

If they change how it works, there will still be some kind of an OS based mechanism to handle the contention for the RAM. Sage shouldn't have to worry about it.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by ace007

Because when properly written 64bit can provide much better performance. 32bit is old technology and has many limitations.

Originally Posted by sandor

Why doesn't MS just build an OS that will allow 32/64 bit drivers and apps to *both* work?

Apple did it, and continues the transition to a full 64 bit OS with 10.6 - yet "legacy" drivers and apps still function.

I love it went non-programmers talk about how PCs work.

For those who want Sage to be native x64, it's important to understand that Sage is part of a larger ecosystem. All of the moving parts that get loaded in process have to be compiled for the same platform (x64 processes can't load x86 dlls). Currently most of the external components that we use to make Sage go are x86 (big one here is DirectShow filters), as long as that is true, it would be crazy to recompile for x64 (and Sage would have to support two platforms).

x86 is a mature, and stable platform, with proven capabilities in this area; for those who run x64 OSs the WOW works great, for those who don't native works great; what incentive is there for change?

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I don't disagree that 64-bit is here to stay and we should move forward in that vein but it's a bit early to be even considering moving SagTV to 64-bit. Plug-in and codec compatibility with IE and such is bad enough. We don't need all that with SageTV.

There's no reason we can't have 64-bit AND 32-bit AND whs AND Mac AND linux versions.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

There's no reason we can't have 64-bit AND 32-bit AND whs AND Mac AND linux versions.

There's no point to port Sage to x64, and doing so would require them to rebuild all their components.

Why would they incur that cost when there isn't a tangible benefit?

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

There's no point to port Sage to x64, and doing so would require them to rebuild all their components.

Why would they incur that cost when there isn't a tangible benefit?

Eventually everything will go 64-bit anyway and their competitors have already started. Just like Sage added WHS, Mac and linux versions they could add a 64-bit version for those that run a 64-bit OS and/or have tuners with 64-bit drivers. There is a benefit, they'll support more platforms and it'll encourage others to write more 64-bit drivers and SW.

64-bit isn't going away soon but 32-bit will eventually. Why wait until the last minute to start?

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Eventually everything will go 64-bit anyway and their competitors have already started. Just like Sage added WHS, Mac and linux versions they could add a 64-bit version for those that run a 64-bit OS and/or have tuners with 64-bit drivers. There is a benefit, they'll support more platforms and it'll encourage others to write more 64-bit drivers and SW.

64-bit isn't going away soon but 32-bit will eventually. Why wait until the last minute to start?

Adding those platforms (btw WHS isn't a different platform, it's a different way to package the installer) expanded their market. x86 isn't going anywhere porting Sage to x64 doesn't add any additional value right now, and not in the near term either.

The x86 version of Sage runs fine in the WOW, there is no reason for them to spend limited dev $ porting to x64. More importantly there is no benefit for them to do that, it only brings problems (try finding a x64 version of PDVD).

Speaking as a professional sw developer, I can assure you that as long as x86 & x64 hw exists on the same proc, and the WOW runs natively on it, there isn't much compelling about x64. For some applications x64 makes a lot of sense (db, virtualization, exchange), but for most consumer level applications there is no benefit and effectively narrows your market. Keep in mind that an application compile for x86 can run on x64 and x86 platforms where the reverse is not true.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Adding those platforms (btw WHS isn't a different platform, it's a different way to package the installer) expanded their market. x86 isn't going anywhere porting Sage to x64 doesn't add any additional value right now, and not in the near term either.

While WHS isn't a platform, it is another option and there is a value, they'll be supporting 64-bit.

The x86 version of Sage runs fine in the WOW, there is no reason for them to spend limited dev $ porting to x64. More importantly there is no benefit for them to do that, it only brings problems (try finding a x64 version of PDVD).

There's no doubt that the 32-bit version runs OK in WOW but a 64-bit version will be built eventually anyways and it might be better. There might not be a 64-bit version of PDVD yet (maybe PDVD9?) but there are 64-bit apps and drivers available for some tuners.

Speaking as a professional sw developer, I can assure you that as long as x86 & x64 hw exists on the same proc, and the WOW runs natively on it, there isn't much compelling about x64. For some applications x64 makes a lot of sense (db, virtualization, exchange), but for most consumer level applications there is no benefit and effectively narrows your market. Keep in mind that an application compile for x86 can run on x64 and x86 platforms where the reverse is not true.

Speaking as an IT Manager/Director who has managed SW developers (although I don't program myself anymore) I understand what you're saying but, as I keep pointing out, eventually, 32-bit *will* be going away and I see no reason to wait for that to happen to START on 64-bit development. Sure it might be in beta for a long time, it might not be updated as often as teh current 32-bit versions but if we have 64-bit SageTV, perhaps PDVD would be more inclined to make a 64-bit version too.

Again, why wait until the last minute when others are already moving forward?

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

While WHS isn't a platform, it is another option and there is a value, they'll be supporting 64-bit.

Sage already supports running on a x64 OS through the WOW. Will it eventually get ports, probably but not until there's a compelling value prop.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

There's no doubt that the 32-bit version runs OK in WOW but a 64-bit version will be built eventually anyways and it might be better. There might not be a 64-bit version of PDVD yet (maybe PDVD9?) but there are 64-bit apps and drivers available for some tuners.

x64 drivers are necessary because the OS is x64, the other moving parts don't need to be. Until the ecosystem is ready (i.e. there is a x64 PDVD, x64 TME, etc) it would be foolish to allocate time to porting.

are you saying that x64 is always better? there are cases where x64 is better/faster but there are also cases where it's not. for many consumer level applications running an x86 application in the WOW uses less memory and performs better than running it native.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Speaking as an IT Manager/Director who has managed SW developers (although I don't program myself anymore)

ah a manager; explains so much...

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I understand what you're saying but, as I keep pointing out, eventually, 32-bit *will* be going away and I see no reason to wait for that to happen to START on 64-bit development. Sure it might be in beta for a long time, it might not be updated as often as teh current 32-bit versions but if we have 64-bit SageTV, perhaps PDVD would be more inclined to make a 64-bit version too.

Again, why wait until the last minute when others are already moving forward?

I don't disagree that at some point it will make sense to port, just not until the ecosystem is ready. there are many things that Sage can spend dev $ on, I would prefer that they spend them on expanding capability instead of supporting a platform that they already support to add a bullet point to a ppt deck.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Sage already supports running on a x64 OS through the WOW. Will it eventually get ports, probably but not until there's a compelling value prop.

On 64-bit, not as 64-bit.
Again, why wait to start? I think offering more options is a compelling value.

x64 drivers are necessary because the OS is x64, the other moving parts don't need to be. Until the ecosystem is ready (i.e. there is a x64 PDVD, x64 TME, etc) it would be foolish to allocate time to porting.

Yet it's not *just* drivers. VMC-64, 7MC-64 and Pinnacle's (at the very least) SW have 64-bit versions. It's already started, why be last?

are you saying that x64 is always better? there are cases where x64 is better/faster but there are also cases where it's not. for many consumer level applications running an x86 application in the WOW uses less memory and performs better than running it native.

Not at all, but are you denying that it sometimes IS better? How can we know until it's tried? I have 32-bit SW that is much less stable on x64 and some that don't run at all.

ah a manager; explains so much...

I was thinking the same thing when you said you were a developer.

I don't disagree that at some point it will make sense to port, just not until the ecosystem is ready. there are many things that Sage can spend dev $ on, I would prefer that they spend them on expanding capability instead of supporting a platform that they already support to add a bullet point to a ppt deck.

My point is that it's better to start sooner than let the competition pass you by. Which is better, a 1 year head start or no head start?

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

On 64-bit, not as 64-bit.
Again, why wait to start? I think offering more options is a compelling value.

Resources are limited. Options by themselves != value. W/o compelling additional value, there's no ROI.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Yet it's not *just* drivers. VMC-64, 7MC-64 and Pinnacle's (at the very least) SW have 64-bit versions. It's already started, why be last?

I'm not sure you want to hold up x64 MC as an e.g. of why Sage should run native x64...

Do you use Pinnacle's Video Decoders? Sage also leverages a lot of free/oss components, I'm not aware of any x64 ports of AC3Filter...

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Not at all, but are you denying that it sometimes IS better? How can we know until it's tried? I have 32-bit SW that is much less stable on x64 and some that don't run at all.

Somethings are better, mainly apps that require > 2gb of ram per process. The key is to build what makes sense, not what you can build. If Sage spends all that time building something that adds no value (which IMO is exactly what native x64 is at this point) how is that an efficient allocation of resources? I would rather have more features?

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I have 32-bit SW that is much less stable on x64 and some that don't run at all.

Some x86 applications don't play nice in the WOW, if Sage was one of them this would be a much different discussion.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I was thinking the same thing when you said you were a developer.

If you have a question about wiring, do you ask an electrician or the dispatcher?

Originally Posted by S_M_E

My point is that it's better to start sooner than let the competition pass you by. Which is better, a 1 year head start or no head start?

Until there is no WOW it's not a race.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Resources are limited. Options by themselves != value. W/o compelling additional value, there's no ROI.

I'm not suggesting that they drop all other development for 64-bit support but more options is a benefit, not all "value" can be defined by ROI. I'm sure they didn't know, definitively, how "valuable" the Mac version would be until they built it.

I'm not sure you want to hold up x64 MC as an e.g. of why Sage should run native x64...

Do you use Pinnacle's Video Decoders? Sage also leverages a lot of free/oss components, I'm not aware of any x64 ports of AC3Filter...

I'm not saying VMC or 7MC is better than Sage, I'm just saying the 64-bit support is starting and Sage can join the race or be left behind. It's their choice not mine.

I did try the pinnacle decoder when I tried the Pinnacle PVR SW, VMC-64 and when I tried to install it (the 32-bit version for WHS of course) on WHS. The point is, again, others have already started. Sage may not care if they're not first but I doubt they want to be last. If Pinnacle already has a decoder and VMC/7MC are already 64-bit, surely others will follow. There may very well be others already but those are just the ones that I know of for sure.

Somethings are better, mainly apps that require > 2gb of ram per process. The key is to build what makes sense, not what you can build. If Sage spends all that time building something that adds no value (which IMO is exactly what native x64 is at this point) how is that an efficient allocation of resources? I would rather have more features?

"Mainly" but, even then, not only those.

Some x86 applications don't play nice in the WOW, if Sage was one of them this would be a much different discussion.

It would certainly be *more* pressing if that were the case but I'm not suggesting that Sage (nor the clients) don't run in WOW nor am I suggesting that 64-bit should be the top priority, I'm suggesting that waiting an arbitrary amount of time to even start isn't necessarily a good idea.

If you have a question about wiring, do you ask an electrician or the dispatcher?

Depends on the question. "When can he be here" is one I might ask the dispatcher.

Until there is no WOW it's not a race.

Not true, others already have native 64-bit SW, the race has started. Now it's just a matter of who's running in what event, imo.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I'm not suggesting that they drop all other development for 64-bit support but more options is a benefit, not all "value" can be defined by ROI. I'm sure they didn't know, definitively, how "valuable" the Mac version would be until they built it.

Any dev time spent on x64 wouldn't be spent on useful things. Adding Mac support added a new market, x64 serves a market that is already served (i.e. no new customers).

Originally Posted by S_M_E

If Pinnacle already has a decoder and VMC/7MC are already 64-bit, surely others will follow. There may very well be others already but those are just the ones that I know of for sure.

When the ecosystem is ready, it might make sense. But it's not yet, and there's no clear guidance on when/if it will be.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Depends on the question. "When can he be here" is one I might ask the dispatcher.

That wouldn't be a question about wiring. That would just be a question.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Not true, others already have native 64-bit SW, the race has started. Now it's just a matter of who's running in what event, imo.

Remind me again what the real benefit to native x64 are (besides "options" I mean).

[Taddeusz]

I don't understand why you're so hot to get a 64-bit SageTV. Certainly, it will probably eventually happen. Right now though it would only serve a very small segment of a very small segment of the market. And the benefits to specifically SageTV are more negative than positive. The reason Media Center can be 64-bit is because Microsoft has their own codecs. Not that I'd ever personally install it but try lookup up K-lite for 64-bit. It contains a handful of codecs compared to it's 32-bit counterpart. SageTV has a bad enough time with codecs to begin with and you want to add 64-bit into the mix? Certainly it will get better but no time very soon. Frey's efforts are much better spent working on the current 32-bit codeset rather than adding a 64-bit version which would only bring more problems due to immature code and lack of 64-bit codec support. And let me reiterate again. For SageTV 64-bit would bring no substantial difference over the current 32-bit version running on a 64-bit OS. In other words, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And won't be for quite some time.

[heffe2001]

Originally Posted by kurt711

wow such a heated discussion. I'm new to Sage and so far loving the stability of the app. i'm running it on WHS PP1 as headless server and HD-200 and laptop as clients. I agree with both sides of the argument and believe in 64-bit apps as I ran vista x64 MCE(painful at times but worked fine) before moving to sage just because I was running a WHS. The issue I would bring up is that when WHS does go all 64-bit and addins go 64-bit, how is that going to affect a 32-bit app running so called virtualized. If I have 2GB memory in the box, 64-bit WHS and 64-bit addins go free for all on that memory, where does sage fit in. Sage does take about 250-300mb average on current WHS. I do hope sage at least optimizes for that. I would like sage to better spend time on incorporating other mediums of video, i.e. hulu, netflix, iplayer, etc. I would also like sage to include some of the popular 3rd party addins in the installer as option of course. It would make it alot easier for out of box experience for new user. just my 2 cents in this tough economy.

I agree partly with both sides, I'd like to see a x64 version of Sage, but I wouldn't think it would be absolutely necessary until the standard desktop machine ships primarily with a x64 OS. I also would rather see Sage devote time in the direction they currently are (Hulu, possibly other online video sources, etc) than start work on the x64 version now (as pointed out the vast majority of users here use x32 os', so only a very small group would get the benefit of a x64 Sage. I'd also like to point out (and the reason I quoted above and highlighted what I did), that with certain add-ons, Sage's memory footprint tends to go well above the 250-300mb range. On my WHS server, with SageMC, jaminben's TV & Movie stvi's, full fanart support turned on (and set to cache), and with my 2000+ movie library, Sage's memory usage climbs to well over 1gb, especially when doing an import from my DVD Profiler database. With the current x32 version of Sage, it brings my system to it's knees in short order if I'm not careful and don't remember to restart the Sage service after an import. On my old server (Vista x32 w/2g memory), when Sage would get much above 550mb of ram usage, the entire system became unresponsive, and recordings would be missed reguarly (I ended up having the system restart Sage during times we weren't using it, and mitigated the problem somewhat). My new build, a WHS server running with 4g memory, and Phenom 2 920 2.8ghz Quad, runs Sage worlds better than my old system, but I'm at my limit as far as memory as to what I can put in the box and be addressable (not Sage's fault, WHS being x32 to blame there), but if Sage were a x64 app, and WHS was a x64 OS, I'd certainly have the maximum amount of ram in the box (or at the very least, 8gb), so Sage could cache all my artwork and everything. Would Sage necessarily have to be a 64-bit app to benefit from that? No, but it'd be nice to be future-proofed with the Sage software able to access more than 4gb of memory if needed (my collection is going to do nothing but get larger, as will the artwork for the collection. I'm fully expecting to have to replace the smaller than 1tb drives in my Unraid server by next year if I continue adding at the pace I currently am). I even went so far as to replace my existing tuners with HVR-2250's, so I could push past the 4g barrier when I was able to (more of a warm-fuzzy feeling than any real future proofing there though).

I guess I'm basically saying if Sage were to put out a x64 version today, I'd probably adjust my OS choice to a x64 version and use the x64 Sage so I wouldn't have to worry so much about Sage's memory usage (yeah, 1g usage is pretty far from 4g, but it'll eventually get there).

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Any dev time spent on x64 wouldn't be spent on useful things. Adding Mac support added a new market, x64 serves a market that is already served (i.e. no new customers).

You already admitted that they're going to build a 64-bit version eventually, 10 hours now or 10 hours later is still 10 hours. (numbers just used as an example.) Furthermore, you don't know that people wouldn't be a new customer if they could get a 64-bit version.

When the ecosystem is ready, it might make sense. But it's not yet, and there's no clear guidance on when/if it will be.

I disagree. I think the time to start is now, it won't be ready overnight but they could start, even if it was just a few hours per week or month.

That wouldn't be a question about wiring. That would just be a question.

"Value" and ROI isn't a programming question either so why would I ask a programmer? I'm not asking if it's possible to port to 64-bit, I know that answer.

Remind me again what the real benefit to native x64 are (besides "options" I mean).

http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64b.../benefits.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

As I said on page #2, I don't expect 64-bit Sage to record an hour of TV in 30 minutes but more options should attract more customers and it will give Sage a head start on what most of us admit WILL happen eventually anyway. We won't know if it'll perform better until it's built and tested. Like I said, there are already 64-bit drivers/decoders and apps. Sage could have limited 64-bit support already too.

Again, I see no reason to wait on Cyberlink-64 to *start* on (not move to, not devote every minute to, not abandoning 32-bit, Mac nor linux versions because of) Sage-64.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I don't understand why you're so hot to get a 64-bit SageTV. Certainly, it will probably eventually happen. Right now though it would only serve a very small segment of a very small segment of the market.

How many times do I need to explain that I'm not saying that it's a high priority NOW? I'm just suggesting that they could start on it and since we agree that it's going to happen it's not a bad idea to get a head start, even if it's limited and even if it's a low priority. While it might be a small market segment, I'd imagine that Mac and linux sales are quite a bit lower than windows versions too. I'm also sure that a native 64-bit version would attract others. How many can only be imagined.

Originally Posted by heffe2001

I agree partly with both sides, I'd like to see a x64 version of Sage, but I wouldn't think it would be absolutely necessary until the standard desktop machine ships primarily with a x64 OS.

I guess I'm basically saying if Sage were to put out a x64 version today, I'd probably adjust my OS choice to a x64 version and use the x64 Sage so I wouldn't have to worry so much about Sage's memory usage (yeah, 1g usage is pretty far from 4g, but it'll eventually get there).

There are already many who have moved to 64-bit Vista, it's becoming more and more common.

If you'd switch to a 64-bit OS if there were a 64-bit Sage don't you think it's safe to assume that an OPTIONAL 64-bit Sage would be a value to the company? I'd switch to a 64-bit client if one was available. When WHS v2 ships as 64-bit, I'd switch to 64-bit for the server too. I know we're not the only people interested in a 64-bit option. Even those that say Sage should wait would try it or use it if it was available, imo.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

You already admitted that they're going to build a 64-bit version eventually, 10 hours now or 10 hours later is still 10 hours. (numbers just used as an example.) Furthermore, you don't know that people wouldn't be a new customer if they could get a 64-bit version.

Yes, 64-bit is the future in the same way that 128-bit and 256-bit are the future. 64-bit has been implemented, and at some point it will make sense.

It's not true that 10 hours now = the same cost as 10 hours at some time in the future. Generally productivity goes up over time (i.e the toolsets for porting x86 to x64 will be better in 2-4 years from now (when it might actually make sense to do it)) so what takes 10 hours now, may only take 5 later on. Of course this argument breaks down at a point (just like deferring PC hw purchases, as it will always be cheaper tomorrow); what's important is selecting the right time when the market conditions exist to make it an efficient investment.

I don't know if there are people who will only buy x64 sw, but I can say definitely that if those people exist they won't be doing much on their PC.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

"Value" and ROI isn't a programming question either so why would I ask a programmer? I'm not asking if it's possible to port to 64-bit, I know that answer.

Being able to program is a required skill for a software developer. To be any good however; value assessment, approach, and planning (all which impact ROI) are just as important.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64b.../benefits.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

When I said "real", I should have clarified that marketing materials were excluded (btw, Intel want's you to upgrade your CPU 'cause it speeds up the internet).

While it could be argued that Sage could benefit from running (as an x86 app) on x64 (it can get it's own 2GB memory allocation w/o competing w/ other apps); even that is a bit of a stretch if you don't have a crazy-large media library. If you read the section in the wikipedia (is wikipedia an authoritative source, couldn't I go put an entry in there about how it doesn't make sense to port x86 -> x64 for most consumer apps?) link on x86 v. x64 it actually doesn't say anything that demonstrates a real benefit for Sage.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Again, I see no reason to wait on Cyberlink-64 to *start* on (not move to, not devote every minute to, not abandoning 32-bit, Mac nor linux versions because of) Sage-64.

W/o Cyberlink (or TME) Sage can record all the TV it want's, but it's not terrible useful; at least to me...

Originally Posted by S_M_E

If you'd switch to a 64-bit OS if there were a 64-bit Sage don't you think it's safe to assume that an OPTIONAL 64-bit Sage would be a value to the company?

Actually no; if there were a x64 SageClient option I wouldn't use it. There is a fixed cost to supporting any platform, w/ x64 they incur that cost w/ no increase in the reach of their market.

I have a headless x64 server at home, but all the PCs are x86.

[heffe2001]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

There are already many who have moved to 64-bit Vista, it's becoming more and more common.

If you'd switch to a 64-bit OS if there were a 64-bit Sage don't you think it's safe to assume that an OPTIONAL 64-bit Sage would be a value to the company? I'd switch to a 64-bit client if one was available. When WHS v2 ships as 64-bit, I'd switch to 64-bit for the server too. I know we're not the only people interested in a 64-bit option. Even those that say Sage should wait would try it or use it if it was available, imo.

I'm running x64 Vista on my main game machine at home, and I love it. x64 Windows 7 runs even better on that machine, but I'm not going to switch over to it full-time until RC1 (the only exception I have to that is, the Nvidia beta drivers for Win7 leave a lot to be desired, hopefully that will chance soon though).

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Yes, 64-bit is the future in the same way that 128-bit and 256-bit are the future. 64-bit has been implemented, and at some point it will make sense.

We just disagree as to when it makes sense to start.

It's not true that 10 hours now = the same cost as 10 hours at some time in the future. Generally productivity goes up over time (i.e the toolsets for porting x86 to x64 will be better in 2-4 years from now (when it might actually make sense to do it)) so what takes 10 hours now, may only take 5 later on. Of course this argument breaks down at a point (just like deferring PC hw purchases, as it will always be cheaper tomorrow); what's important is selecting the right time when the market conditions exist to make it an efficient investment.

What I'm saying is that (using a totally made up number) if it takes 100 hours of programming to port Sage to 64-bit, then if they spend 2 hours a week, starting now, it'll be done in 1 year. If they wait a year, it wont even be started. Get it?

I don't know if there are people who will only buy x64 sw, but I can say definitely that if those people exist they won't be doing much on their PC.

I'm not saying that; I'm saying that given the choice, most people with a 64-bit OS would prefer to buy a 64-bit app over a 32-bit version.

Being able to program is a required skill for a software developer. To be any good however; value assessment, approach, and planning (all which impact ROI) are just as important.

Then you know that ROI can't always be calculated definitively. If an app will save a company X amount of time per year, THAT can be calculated, but the Value of a 64-bit version of Sage can only be estimated. How many BTV users would switch to Sage if Sage-64 were available? We can't know that.

When I said "real", I should have clarified that marketing materials were excluded (btw, Intel want's you to upgrade your CPU 'cause it speeds up the internet).

Like I said, we'll never know the "real" benefits until there's a 64-bit version to test and market.

While it could be argued that Sage could benefit from running (as an x86 app) on x64 (it can get it's own 2GB memory allocation w/o competing w/ other apps); even that is a bit of a stretch if you don't have a crazy-large media library.

From wiki:

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 can see potential benefits to Sage there...

W/o Cyberlink (or TME) Sage can record all the TV it want's, but it's not terrible useful; at least to me...

Yes, you're thinking of you and I'm thinking about those who it could be useful to. I, for example, have a Pinnacle digital tuner that I could use with Sage-64. I also have Vista-64 workstation that I could use a 64-bit client on. When the first 32-bit Sage came out it didn't support as many tuners and options as it does now, 64-bit will be the same; limited initial support with more added as more becomes available.

Actually no; if there were a x64 SageClient option I wouldn't use it. There is a fixed cost to supporting any platform, w/ x64 they incur that cost w/ no increase in the reach of their market.

I have a headless x64 server at home, but all the PCs are x86.

Again, I disagree, I think they expand their market by offering a 64-bit version. Maybe *you* don't try it but many of us would and it would attract others too.

I should have said "Many of those that think Sage should wait would try/use it if it were available." Certainly not everyone would, right away.