WHS v2 and PP2 announced...

[stanger89]

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.

More compelling than Hulu, Netflix, Blu-ray structure recognition, or any of the other multitude of things that (unlike running on a 64bit OS) can't be done now with SageTV and that people are clamoring for?

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?

Why be one of the first? Especially when lacking 64 bit "nativeness" isn't holding anyone up from using Sage?

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.

Is Sage one of those apps?

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?

Asside from you, I don't think anyone really cares if SageTV is native 64bit or just runs stable and performs well on a 64bit OS.

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.)

Again, which is better to "put off", something like 64bit support or something like Hulu? If they waste development effort on something of dubious benefit like native 64bit execution, there's the possibility they'd never get to implimenting more desireable features because of lost revenue from customers lost to products who pass Sage by by implimenting more "important" features.

Furthermore, you don't know that people wouldn't be a new customer if they could get a 64-bit version.

Point me to one comment where the lack of 64bit native Sage prevented someone from using it. We already know things like Hulu and Netflix would bring lots of customers.

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.

I'm with the others, why do you care so much? Does Sage not run well for you on a 64bit OS?

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

Why will Sage be "better" if it's native 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.

The only people who will care if it's 64bit native are 64bit fanboys. If it doesn't work any better/differen than 32bit through WOW, then what's the point?

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.

Arguing when they should start, when you have absolutely no idea IF they have or not, it utterly pointless. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.

Regardless though, devoting time to 64 bit porting now takes time away from development that will have a direct, noticable impact on their customers today.

How many times do I need to explain that I'm not saying that it's a high priority NOW?

That's exactly what everyone you're arguing with has been saying, so why do you keep disagreeing to everyone's posts?

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.

If we agree there's no compelling reason to release a 64bit native version soon, they who cares if they start work soon or not?

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.

You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Sage runs just fine on 64bit Windows. And that means it works fine with 64bit drivers (as x64 requires signed 64 bit drivers AFIAK).

I'm also sure that a native 64-bit version would attract others.

Like who? 64bit fanboys who won't run any software unless it's "64bit native".

How many can only be imagined.

I can't imagine it being enough to generate revenue much more than the cost of development.

Another big point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that supporting

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

And many of them are already running Sage with great results.

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?

Not if it's only benefit is the 64bit sticker.

I'd switch to a 64-bit client if one was available.

But that wouldn't generate any revenue for them since you've already got a license.

When WHS v2 ships as 64-bit, I'd switch to 64-bit for the server too.

Again, no revenue since you already have a license. And on WHS a 64bit version is of even less use because there is absolutely nothing that won't work (since there are no decoders).

But would you buy a different software package because Sage doesn't have a "64bit" sticker on it? Or would you use the "32bit" version?

I know we're not the only people interested in a 64-bit option.

But to who is a 64bit version going to be a deciding factor in thier purchase of a SageTV license?

Even those that say Sage should wait would try it or use it if it was available, imo.

Asking if people would use a 64 bit version is an entirely different question than asking if a 64bit version would drive sales.

[Slipshod]

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.

Are you familiar with the term "opportunity cost?" 10 hours today does not have the same value as 10 hours next year.

As for the last statement, I can't tell what the heck you were trying to say.

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.

Here, this may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

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.

If it's not a high priority now why would you distract your development effort with it? Monitor the market segment and plan to develop when the feature can bring a tangible ROI.

The market segment of "people who will only buy SageTV if it is native 64bit for windows" is not "might be a small market", it's "so small as to be non-existant." You're talking about people who completely refuse to run Sage as 32bit application even if it works great and does what they want on a 32bit or 64bit Windows OS. You don't even fall into that category.

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.

That is exactly the wrong question to ask if you're trying to determine whether or not it's worth spending business resources on a 64bit version of Sage. It's not about how many customers would use the 64bit version instead of the 32bit version, it's about how many customers will buy a different product if there was not a 64bit version available. Never forget that they have something that works now (Which the Linux and Mac people did not have).

Everyone running Sage on Windows right now is by definition not in that group. Frankly, I don't think there is anybody in that group at all at this point, and we still won't see anybody in that group for at least a year or two.

P.S. You still haven't explained the "fact" of how Windows x64 provides better file handling for SageTV.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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

I think that's apparent

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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 understand what you're saying. I disagree with your priorities. Sage already works on x64, why spend any time on it until there's a problem or a benefit (the real measurable kind).

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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.

Then I misunderstood. If having a native app get's you 1/2 the value, or narrows your choice (i.e. you can only use one MPEG decoder, and there isn't a h.264 one), then that preference is illogical.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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.

Definitive no, but the numbers do have to be run (at least for a defensible strategy). If you can't make them work, at least as an estimate, where's the justification? Using the earlier 100 hours number, let's say it costs $50 per hour of dev time that's $5000. Now figure out how many BTV users will only switch to Sage because it's x64 (isn't BTV a x86 application?). If there's profit there, then do it; but I suspect that their isn't (mostly because that's a very strange preference to have).

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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

That kind of "build it, they will come" strategy doesn't usually work well in the long run, at least for small companies. Without a solid plan, there's no sense in doing something that nets you what you already have.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Yes, you're thinking of you and I'm thinking about those who it could be useful to.

Not true. I'm not saying you (or others) wouldn't derive some sort of value from a native x64 client. I am saying that given limited dev $, their time is better spent adding value to the entire community not just the limited number of users who would bask in the native x64 glow.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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.

Are there not x86 drivers for those tuners? Does Sage not work with the x64 driver version? What are you missing by running Sage in the WOW? I don't see where you're going here...

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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.

I wouldn't try it because there aren't good options for decoders right now. When there are, I would. I doubt we will see a native x64 Sage before there's a native PDVD.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

I can't tell what the heck you were trying to say.

Clearly...

If it's not a high priority now why would you distract your development effort with it?

Because it can be started and not be a high priority.

You're talking about people who completely refuse to run Sage as 32bit application even if it works great and does what they want on a 32bit or 64bit Windows OS.

No, that's *NOT* what I'm talking about. I even said: "given the choice, most people with a 64-bit OS would prefer to buy a 64-bit app over a 32-bit version."
You should quit making stuff up...

We're done...

Originally Posted by babgvant

I think that's apparent

Unfortunately we'll never agree and, fortunately, only Sage can make that decision. I'm not demanding a 64-bit version, I'm only suggesting that starting now, in a limited fashion, makes more sense than waiting X years.

I understand what you're saying. I disagree with your priorities. Sage already works on x64, why spend any time on it until there's a problem or a benefit (the real measurable kind).

When they build a beta then it can be measured but until then it's only speculation that there would be no benefit and I've already explained how there would be some benefit of having more options if nothing else. I've seen nothing that I believe to suggest waiting X years would be better than starting now.

Then I misunderstood. If having a native app get's you 1/2 the value, or narrows your choice (i.e. you can only use one MPEG decoder, and there isn't a h.264 one), then that preference is illogical.

Again, there may be one decoder now but there will be more and they don't have to wait for more to "start" If it's in beta for a year or longer, that's up to Sage but I see a benefit to beginning the process.

Definitive no, but the numbers do have to be run (at least for a defensible strategy). If you can't make them work, at least as an estimate, where's the justification? Using the earlier 100 hours number, let's say it costs $50 per hour of dev time that's $5000. Now figure out how many BTV users will only switch to Sage because it's x64 (isn't BTV a x86 application?). If there's profit there, then do it; but I suspect that their isn't (mostly because that's a very strange preference to have).

Estimate and guesses don't count. I could say 10000 BTV users would switch but we can't know that and while I used BTV as an example, that wouldn't be the only people to buy Sage-64. In one or two years when x64 is more common there will be people deciding which product to buy for the first time and a 64-bit option could be the deciding factor.

Let's try these two scenarios:
1) Sage waits and BTV starts with 64-bit development.
2) BTV waits and Sage starts.

If two years from now one company has a working 64-bit version and the other doesn't; in scenario #1 Sage is playing catch up and BTV is taking customers that Sage could have had. I'd prefer #2.

That kind of "build it, they will come" strategy doesn't usually work well in the long run, at least for small companies. Without a solid plan, there's no sense in doing something that nets you what you already have.

MS started as a small company, they built it and people came. I still say that a 64-bit version nets you more than you had because it will attract people that want a 64-bit app on their 64-bit OS.

Not true. I'm not saying you (or others) wouldn't derive some sort of value from a native x64 client. I am saying that given limited dev $, their time is better spent adding value to the entire community not just the limited number of users who would bask in the native x64 glow.

I'm saying that they could easily start the project with a low priority instead of waiting X years and be ahead of the game without devoting a lot of time on it.

Are there not x86 drivers for those tuners? Does Sage not work with the x64 driver version? What are you missing by running Sage in the WOW? I don't see where you're going here...

There are but as I keep saying it's going to go 64-bit eventually anyway, they could get started. Putting off until tomorrow what could be started today is just avoiding the inevitable.

I wouldn't try it because there aren't good options for decoders right now. When there are, I would. I doubt we will see a native x64 Sage before there's a native PDVD.

I have no idea what either Cyberlink's nor Sage's schedule is but since there is at least one (and maybe more) decoder, Sage could (if they so choose) get a head start. Sage knows their own code, nobody else.

I'd say that the Sage-64 won't be out of beta before PDVD-64 is released is probably accurate but I have no idea if PDVD is working on an x64 decoder now or not.

I'm not making demands on Sage, if they decide it's best to wait then they'll wait. This thread was just to inform Sage users that WHS v2 and PP2 was announced and that they would be different. I've already contacted Sage directly regarding 64-bit support so, now, what they do with it is up to them.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

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?

But you can't just do that. It's just like you can't accomplish 100 hours of work by sticking 100 people on it for an hour. Porting Sage to 64 bit is likely something where they'd have to pick a moment in time, a snapshot of Sage at some instant (maybe SageTV 6.5 for all we know), and make a wholesale effort to port it over.

You can't just do it piecemeal over the course of a year because the code will be changing as you go. It will cost a lot more to do it gradually because you'll incur not only the cost of the port, but also the upkeep of keeping the new 64bit (but unusable because it's not complete) code up to date with the the 32bit code.

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.

But how many would flat out not buy the software because it's only available 32bit (assuming it functions correctly)?

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.

So 32bit BTV users will refuse to run Sage because it's 32 bit

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

Do you even have a guess as to what those benefits might be? Or are you just expecting the 64 bit version to magically be better, because it's "64bit".

There could be real benefits to Sage being ported to .Net, but we'll never know what they might be until they try and market it. So should they try that too?

From wiki:

I can see potential benefits to Sage there...

Name some specific ones and why you think they'd benefit Sage.

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.

Does that tuner not work with Sage 32?

I also have Vista-64 workstation that I could use a 64-bit client on.

Does Sage 64 not run on that workstation?

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.

So what?

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.

Again, if the 32bit version is fully functional and runs fine on a 64bit OS, who is going to refuse to buy it just because it's "not 64bit"?

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.

But that's of no value to SageTV to develop. 64bit is only a value to SageTV LLC if it produces sales that would otherwise be lost becasue of the lack of a 64bit native code.

I get the impression you think Sage doesn't work on a 64bit OS.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

No, that's *NOT* what I'm talking about. I even said: "given the choice, most people with a 64-bit OS would prefer to buy a 64-bit app over a 32-bit version."

But Sage doesn't sell versions like that, they sell license for OSs. Or are you suggesting they should make the 32bit and 64bit licenses different and non-transferable.

Most here are making the (IMO logical) assumption that there would not be separate 32bit and 64 bit licenses, there will just be "Windows" licenses (just like the same license works on WHS/XP/Vista/Server regardless of if their 32 or 64 bit versions). Thus the only revenue generated by a 64bit port will be that from people who would not have purchased it if it weren't 64 bit native.

You should quit making stuff up...

I'm not, if you think Sage 64 will generate sales, the only place those sales could come from are people who wouldn't purchase the 32bit version.

Unfortunately we'll never agree and, fortunately, only Sage can make that decision. I'm not demanding a 64-bit version, I'm only suggesting that starting now, in a limited fashion, makes more sense than waiting X years.

But it doesn't work like that. Prolonged development costs a lot more than just doing it at once.

When they build a beta then it can be measured but until then it's only speculation that there would be no benefit and I've already explained how there would be some benefit of having more options if nothing else. I've seen nothing that I believe to suggest waiting X years would be better than starting now.

But a beta won't tell them anything unless they charge people specifically to use the 64bit beta. Which is incredibly unlikely as they'll almost certainly have "common" 32/64bit licensing.

Again, there may be one decoder now but there will be more and they don't have to wait for more to "start" If it's in beta for a year or longer, that's up to Sage but I see a benefit to beginning the process.

You have to have the port "complete" to release a beta, so there goes your idea of "they can do it 2 hours a week for a year" idea to perform the port.

Estimate and guesses don't count. I could say 10000 BTV users would switch but we can't know that and while I used BTV as an example, that wouldn't be the only people to buy Sage-64. In one or two years when x64 is more common there will be people deciding which product to buy for the first time and a 64-bit option could be the deciding factor.

Estimates most certainly do count. If you're not estimating the potential return on various options, you're not going to be in business very long.

Let's try these two scenarios:
1) Sage waits and BTV starts with 64-bit development.
2) BTV waits and Sage starts.

If two years from now one company has a working 64-bit version and the other doesn't; in scenario #1 Sage is playing catch up and BTV is taking customers that Sage could have had. I'd prefer #2.

Ok, but how many people would really pick one over the other based on the 64 bit sticker. Would you? Or would you pick based on tuner support, decoder support, file formats, extenders, media integration, etc. Would you pick on "bits" or "user features".

MS started as a small company, they built it and people came. I still say that a 64-bit version nets you more than you had because it will attract people that want a 64-bit app on their 64-bit OS.

Again, the only people it will really attract are the people who would refuse to run it just because it's not 64bit.

I'm saying that they could easily start the project with a low priority instead of waiting X years and be ahead of the game without devoting a lot of time on it.

It could easilly cost 2 to 3 times the hours to spread the porting effort over a year or two vs doing it all at once.

There are but as I keep saying it's going to go 64-bit eventually anyway, they could get started. Putting off until tomorrow what could be started today is just avoiding the inevitable.

No it's called prioritizing. They have plenty of features to add that will have a significant impact on their revenue now. Until the return on a 64bit port starts outweighing the return of adding new features, there's no point starting.

I'm not making demands on Sage, if they decide it's best to wait then they'll wait. This thread was just to inform Sage users that WHS v2 and PP2 was announced and that they would be different.

Different than what? Sage will run just fine (as is) on WHS V2, 64 bit or not.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Because it can be started and not be a high priority.

That may work when you're Google, but it doesn't work when you're a small company with a niche product in a small market, and it _really_ doesn't work when your customer base is tightening it's belt because of a deep recession. 64bit vs 32bit architecture is not the sizzle that sells the steak, that's geek-talk. Hulu, Netflix, and broadcast network online streaming has sizzle. A nice looking, easy to use interface is sizzle.

No, that's *NOT* what I'm talking about. I even said: "given the choice, most people with a 64-bit OS would prefer to buy a 64-bit app over a 32-bit version."
You should quit making stuff up...

You really don't understand the point we're making? Can you outline a reasonably plausible scenario where SageTV makes more profit today than it otherwise would because it has both an x64 and x86 version for windows.

I only see two general cases, and neither of them look rosey:
1. The x64 version has a higher profit margin.
2. Customers won't buy the product if you don't have an x64 version.

For #1, the only way for it to have a higher profit margin would be for the x64 version to be significantly more expensive than the x86 version since it has to pay for all of it's developement costs. If you don't do this then you are just cannibalizing existing sales and you have no financial benefit from the project. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" so to speak. If you can't do this, then this isn't a plausible scenario.

For #2 there has a be a clear, compelling reason that drives it. "Because it might be better" is not good enough. You have to

You keep saying we won't know if it's better until we try it, and that's a load of bunk. We know what advantages x64 brings, and we can map them to what SageTV would use them for:

• SageTV doesn't need anywhere close to 2GB of RAM to run, so 64-bit address space isn't needed yet.
• Your x64 file system benefit "fact" doesn't matter because memory-mapped files don't provide a benefit for media that's going to be played back sequentially the vast majority of the time.
• You can still have your HW data execution bit protection if you run a 64bit OS with 32bit SageTV app.
• Ditto for the VMI enhancements
• The only real thing "64bit" might help with performance is during transcoding since almost everything else computationally intensive is done by either the capture device (HD-PVR, R5000, HDHR) or the playback device (HD-100, HD-200, GPU)

So, lets look at transcoding. It's used by the old MVPs, Placeshifter, and the built-in transcoder. How much of a difference would it make? 3-5x times might be interesting, if Placeshifter is a hot selling product. So lets consult google and see if anybody has written anything about performance differences with video on x64:

http://hans.fugal.net/blog/2008/04/2...it-transcoding
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win.../versions.aspx

Hmmm. ~10% with mencoder and ffmpeg. That kind of sucks, most people wouldn't even notice. Encoding is half of the transcoding process, and Microsoft doesn't even mention a performance difference with their Media Encoder. You'd think they'd brag about that if it did. In fact, the last two points seem to be steering people away from using the x64 version. Odd.

And looks like there's a lot of noise about GPU accelerated transcoding. Both ATI and nVidia have libraries that do this. If transcoding sells that much product it might be worth looking at a CUDA implementation, looks like there's some real speedup there, not just 10%.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

You really don't understand the point we're making?

You really don't understand. Yes, I believe they'll make more with a 64-bit option too. If you can't see how, I can't help you.

We're done...really.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

You really don't understand. Yes, I believe they'll make more with a 64-bit option too. If you can't see how, I can't help you.

We're done...really.

I wonder.... If S_M_E keeps blocking people he disagrees with, is he gonna end up alone in this forum?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Slipshod

I only see two general cases, and neither of them look rosey:
1. The x64 version has a higher profit margin.

For #1, the only way for it to have a higher profit margin would be for the x64 version to be significantly more expensive than the x86 version since it has to pay for all of it's developement costs. If you don't do this then you are just cannibalizing existing sales and you have no financial benefit from the project. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" so to speak. If you can't do this, then this isn't a plausible scenario.

This also assumes you license 64bit and 32bit versions separately, and that the licenses are non transferable. ie that current 32bit users would have to pay something to switch to 64bit. I think there's almost no chance of this happening, it would be moronic, it would harm sales as people would be unsure which to buy and worry about buying the "wrong" one (just look at the complaints about non-transferable linux/Windows licenses).

That means all a 64 bit version does is provide another option, and the only way that option will drive sales is for it to bring in people who wouldn't have purchased Sage if it were "only 32bit", or your option 2.

And as you note, that group is infinitesimally small without there being some compeling performance/feature improvement in the 64bit version. And since Sage isn't performance bound with 32bit code and it would be very illogical to limit new features to the smaller 64bit market, there really can't be any compelling difference in a 64bit version, so we're just left with the 64bit sticker being the only real difference.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

I wonder.... If S_M_E keeps blocking people he disagrees with, is he gonna end up alone in this forum?

He already is. His arguments are circular and he doesn't seem to understand the business perspective. Whether it be his argument about keeping the old SageTV UI or porting SageTV to 64-bit. Neither of which are, IMHO, good for SageTV in the long run. 64-bit can wait till there is a higher penetration of 64-bit systems and more 64-bit codecs. Microsoft's recent quoting of a 25% market penetration of Vista x64 is probably very generous. I bet it's really closer to 10-15% if that. I like Vista x64. It feels like a more complete product than the 32-bit version ever did.

But just because I have a 64-bit OS doesn't mean the apps need to be. Drivers must be 64-bit and 32-bit programs communicate just fine through WOW64 with those devices. Codecs on the other hand can be either way and are not universal between 32-bit and 64-bit apps. Until there are more 64-bit codecs it's not really feasible for them to port to 64-bit unless it is specifically used as a headless server. But even then all their backend also needs to be 64-bit. A 64-bit program cannot use 32-bit DLL's and visa versa. So not only would they be porting the main program but they would be having to port all the supporting DLL's. This is not a small task that can be spread out. It's an all or nothing thing.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

You really don't understand. Yes, I believe they'll make more with a 64-bit option too. If you can't see how, I can't help you.

Let's break down the case for x64.

Pro:

1) Satisfaction that all 48 registers are being addressed.

2) Finally find a use for that x64 Pinnacle MPEG decoder

Con:

1) Sage runs on x64, porting to native x64 will not expand the number of users who can run Sage. All that development time that could have been spent on features (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) that could have retained or attracted customers wasted.

2) Running Sage as a x64 process (at least as a client) provides fewer options for what decoders (including the most popular, and OSS) can be used (is there a x64 H.264 or HWA VC-1 decoder on the market?). Sage is hard enough to configure, try explaining to Joe the MC user why he can't use the PDVD decoder he paid for with Sage.

3) Mkv, M2TS, and every other file format that Sage's new x64 demuxer doesn't support stop playing in DSHOW (bye bye HWA)

4) Sage uses more memory (how much more is dependent on design) in both client and server versions

5) Support costs go up. Each platform has it's own set of issues.

6) Development costs go up. Every change to the x86 code stream needs to also be made to the x64 code stream.

7) Testing costs go up. Got to test 2x as much as when there was just one code stream (see #5).

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

He already is.

I'd rather be that to put up with comments like that...
Bye...

Originally Posted by babgvant

Let's break down the case for x64.

Nonsense, but nice try...

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Nonsense, but nice try...

Let's see your version then.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Let's see your version then.

Why would I bother after the snarky version you posted? Am I supposed to take "Finally find a use for that x64 Pinnacle MPEG decoder" seriously? I've already given reasons why they should *start* If we disagree on when it should happen, we disagree on when but it IS going to happen eventually. If Sage decides it's better to wait, so be it.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

Am I supposed to take "Finally find a use for that x64 Pinnacle MPEG decoder" seriously?

Of course not. I wanted more than one Pro and couldn't find anything else... Would it have been better (snarkless?) if I put a afterwards?

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I've already given reasons why they should *start* If we disagree on when it should happen, we disagree on when but it IS going to happen eventually. If Sage decides it's better to wait, so be it.

OK, I'll start the list (as I understand your reasons). Fill in the rest.

1) Not being the only PVR vendor w/ only a x86 offering for Windows when BTV makes the shift
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

[S_M_E]

Seriously, we're just going around in circles. We both agree that it's going to happen, we just disagree as to when they should start. I think they should start sooner rather than later, you think they should wait X number of years. Either way it gets done and I've already explained why they should several times.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

We both agree that it's going to happen, we just disagree as to when they should start. I think they should start sooner rather than later, you think they should wait X number of years.

Agreed, they should definitely put it on the list of things to get to when there isn't anything more important/pressing.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I've already explained why they should several times.

In that case, I stand by Pros 1 & 2

[S_M_E]

See? Round and round. Which is why I won't bother.

[Slipshod]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

You really don't understand. Yes, I believe they'll make more with a 64-bit option too. If you can't see how, I can't help you.

I can't see how because you haven't shown any basis for it other than "if you build it they will come". Try explaining it in detail and backing it up with some data. You might be surprised what could happen.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

We're done...really.

You don't get to dictate terms to me. To quote Jon Stewart: "I'm not your monkey". If you can't handle people critiquing your ideas about Sage you should go write about it on your blog instead. And turn off the comments.

Originally Posted by S_M_E

See? Round and round. Which is why I won't bother.

The only reason we're going round and round is because you don't/won't/can't post a technical or business case to support x64. All you are doing at this point is stonwalling and arrogantly dismissing other points of view out of hand by declaring that the conversation is "done" rather than trying to actually understand what's being said.