What Issues are there in Running GBPVR in Vista-64 and Windows7-64?

[LewE]

I don't think it matters whether you use 32 or 64 bit Windows as far as GB-PVR goes as it is only a 32bit program and so can't use the extra ram 64bit has to offer, only 64bit apps can use the extra ram.
In order to run 32bit apps in 64bit OS Windows uses an app called WOW64 which is basically a 32bit emulation mode for 32bit apps run in. Microsoft did the same thing for Xp for 16bit DOS apps called WOW32 (windows on windows) Microsoft made sure this emulation worked very well and it does, to there credit.

As far as the RAM, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that although the individual applications can't use extra RAM, the OS will allow a second application that is running simultaneously to use different physical RAM than the first application. See my response below to your comment about GBPVR being a 32-bit app.

The only issue as others have said is the drivers and codecs any software that has to communicate direct with the OS must be 64bit.

whurlston has told me "The only thing you need to do when running GBPVR with a 64 bit OS is to remember to install the 32 bit version of any decoders you want to use. Other than that, no issues."

More important is how multithreaded GB-PVR, is to be able to take advantage of the modern multi core CPU's and only sub can answer that question.

So 32bit or 64bit makes no difference, but my advise would to put 4GB of ram in the PC if you do go 64bit.

I understand that GBPVR is a 32 bit app. The reason I have to go to 64-bit Windows is because I want a multi-core processor. I want this not because I expect to have applications that can multi-thread but I want to multi-task different applications so more than one can run at a time. The original example I gave is to have Comskip running after a program is recorded (or a more extreme case, XMLTV be running - since it gobbles up 100% of the CPU processing when it runs) and I can be simultaneously running another application like a compiler and not be significantly slowed down because of Comskip.

Overall, trying to sort out the issues involved in 64-bit vs 32-bit operaqting system reminds me of Y2K. To determine all the impacts of the year rolling over to 2000, countless hours had to be spent to find everywhere it would be an issue. In practice, once you got to 2000, all you have to do is see what happens and address each issue as it comes up.

[whurlston]

...The reason I have to go to 64-bit Windows is because I want a multi-core processor...

You don't need 64 bit to run a multi-core processor.

[LewE]

You don't need 64 bit to run a multi-core processor.

It seems that the system builders (Dell, etc) only offer 64-bit Windows if you have a multi-core processor in the configuration.

Logically, if I plan to run multiple tasks simultaneously in a multi-core system, the 3GB limit on RAM memory in 32-bit Windows would seem like it cancels out the benefits of multi-core.

[fbachofner]

Hi LewE:

It seems that the system builders (Dell, etc) only offer 64-bit Windows if you have a multi-core processor in the configuration.

As I mentioned before, it is really Ram => 4GB that logically triggers the selection of a 64 bit OS.

As to what Dell and other vendors' policies are, one can only guess. Microsoft is trying to urge everyone to adopt 64bit Windows, so Dell and their other major partners will probably start pushing Win7 x64 regardless of memory configuration.

Logically, if I plan to run multiple tasks simultaneously in a multi-core system, the 3GB limit on RAM memory in 32-bit Windows would seem like it cancels out the benefits of multi-core.

WinXP is relatively efficient. So are many apps. On one of my machines (2GB on a Core2Duo with 32 bit XP), I habitually run 50+ background processes and (easily) 10 or more apps with just about no swapfile usage.

Obviously if you are running poorly coded, memory hogging applications you will have different results.

[fbachofner]

Hi Sub:

To be honest, I dont see any need for a x64 version of GB-PVR at this stage. It'd just make more hassle for me packaging and releasing two versions, and having to support them.

I fully agree with trying to keep your life simple. Alas, I rarely succeed at it! ;-)

The only real advantage is the ability to access more than 4GB of memory, but GBPVR doesnt need to do that. It'd make no difference to GB-PVRs multithreadedness.

Will GBPVR be able to take advantage of multiprocessor machines with > 2 or 4 processors?

Once an app is multithreaded, does it need to be further optimized for a particular number of processors or does the OS and hardware take care of the assignment of threads?

Also, is there currently a reliable way to assign "processor affinity" to GBPVR if such optimizations are still needed?

[sub]

Will GBPVR be able to take advantage of multiprocessor machines with > 2 or 4 processors?

Yes. GB-PVR uses a lot of threads to do its thing. You'll find GB-PVR generates a nice even CPU load across those 2 or 4 processors.

Once an app is multithreaded, does it need to be further optimized for a particular number of processors or does the OS and hardware take care of the assignment of threads?

Generally no. Further optimization is not normally required. If apps make good use of multiple threads, the OS is responsible for scheduling execution of those threads across the multiple cores/cpus available, and typically does a good job at it.

Also, is there currently a reliable way to assign "processor affinity" to GBPVR if such optimizations are still needed?

The <ForceSingleProcessorAffinity> setting used to be used to force the application to use only a single processor or core. This used to be required because directshow on some motherboards would result in stuttering playback with multiple cores, but Microsoft have long since fixed those problems, so the <ForceSingleProcessorAffinity> setting is not longer used.

[fbachofner]

Hi LewE:

As I mentioned above the last computer I built from components was a 10 MHz 286 machine running DOS. At the time I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area. You couldn't want a better place to live if you wanted to build your own PC. There was a huge cost benefit of building your own back then. Since then, I think the better value has tipped toward PCs from the big builders (Dell, Gateway, etc) especially with their sales. As an academic exercise, I do plan to see what it would cost me to build my own from the ground up.

Well, just make sure you do an apples-to-apples comparison. One of my big issues (negative) with Dell, HP and the like, is that they are invariably a generation or two behind state-of-the-art.

Indeed, other than specifying some improved video cards, you are pretty much beholden to their engineering team's choices. Can Dell build you a system with the motherboard of your choice? Not for me they can't.

Also, it is VERY difficult to get them to install options on which sticklers for detail would insist. I, for example, will not consider a machine with fewer than 4 hard disks (1 for OS, 1 for Swap, 1 for applications and at LEAST 1 for data, preferably 2 or more for data so mirroring can occur for redundancy).

I do this for performance and convenience (don't have to move data around on OS reinstall, for example) reasons. Disk controllers are MUCH faster than the disks themselves, so partitioning workloads like this also limits slowdowns related to disk performance.

While the major vendors may be able to install up to 4 drives, good luck getting them to install the OS and putting the USER folder or the system cache anywhere else than C:\

This means that you end up installing the OS again anyway. That's probably 40% of the effort in putting together a new machine . . .

Right now, the thing that factors most into not building my own is that buying a package from a company like Dell, etc will insure that the initial hardware all works with the OS, i.e. no 64-bit driver problems or if there are that there will be fixes developed pretty quickly.

Is Dell going to install a Hauppauge (or similar) capture card for you? More importantly, would they test it with GBPVR on your location specific input sources? That's probably another 40% of your total system building effort.

Between these 2 issues, you still likely need to personally expend 80% of the effort no matter where you get your "system."

Given this, I don't mind spending an "extra" hour or two to make sure the hardware components are picked and installed exactly like I want.

I was thinking of buying a Vista machine once they start being sold with free upgrades to Win7 but my current thinking is to wait a couple more months until the Fall when machines with Win7 installed will be available. It will be the Holiday buying season and I expect to see a bunch of competitive sales for these systems.

Here's one area where timing has already gone your way. Now that MS has announced a ship date for Windows7 many system vendors are already announcing such free upgrade programs. Then again, I expect NewEgg and other parts vendors to announce the same any day now.

Have fun!

[LewE]

As I mentioned before, it is really Ram => 4GB that logically triggers the selection of a 64 bit OS.

As to what Dell and other vendors' policies are, one can only guess. Microsoft is trying to urge everyone to adopt 64bit Windows, so Dell and their other major partners will probably start pushing Win7 x64 regardless of memory configuration.

Microsoft's desire to move everyone to 64 bit may be what is driving the builders. They probably get an attractive price on 64 bit to include it in as many of their systems as possible.

WinXP is relatively efficient. So are many apps. On one of my machines (2GB on a Core2Duo with 32 bit XP), I habitually run 50+ background processes and (easily) 10 or more apps with just about no swapfile usage.

Obviously if you are running poorly coded, memory hogging applications you will have different results.

One program I run is Adobe's Premier Elements. Video editing programs want as much RAM as possible.

[LewE]

To be honest, I dont see any need for a x64 version of GB-PVR at this stage. It'd just make more hassle for me packaging and releasing two versions, and having to support them. The only real advantage is the ability to access more than 4GB of memory, but GBPVR doesnt need to do that. It'd make no difference to GB-PVRs multithreadedness.

Its pretty easy to build the main app for x64, but the various .ax files would be a lot of work. More work than I'd want to do.

Add my vote for keeping it simple to maintain GBPVR. Unless and until there is a compelling reason to go 64 bit, you should keep it a 32 bit app.

I wouldn't want to see the time it take to put out updates be made longer because of the double testing (32-bit and 64-bit environments).

[LewE]

You've given me some things to consider that I hadn't before. Thanks.

Well, just make sure you do an apples-to-apples comparison. One of my big issues (negative) with Dell, HP and the like, is that they are invariably a generation or two behind state-of-the-art.

To get a reasonable bang for my buck, I don't want to be at the bleeding edge. I am happy to get a system with slightly less performance that is significantly less expensive than it would be to get the fastest machine possible with currently available hardware.

Indeed, other than specifying some improved video cards, you are pretty much beholden to their engineering team's choices. Can Dell build you a system with the motherboard of your choice? Not for me they can't.

Video cards don't really bother me. I don't go for top performance video cards. I don't use the machine for games or other apps that are demanding on video cards.

As far as the mother board, the thing I will be looking at is the number of PCI and PCI Express slots will be available. The capture cards I have now take up 3 PCI slots and most systems I have looked at only have two PCI slots. I may have to buy a replacement capture card to replace two of my current ones.

Also, it is VERY difficult to get them to install options on which sticklers for detail would insist. I, for example, will not consider a machine with fewer than 4 hard disks (1 for OS, 1 for Swap, 1 for applications and at LEAST 1 for data, preferably 2 or more for data so mirroring can occur for redundancy).

I do this for performance and convenience (don't have to move data around on OS reinstall, for example) reasons. Disk controllers are MUCH faster than the disks themselves, so partitioning workloads like this also limits slowdowns related to disk performance.

While the major vendors may be able to install up to 4 drives, good luck getting them to install the OS and putting the USER folder or the system cache anywhere else than C:\

This means that you end up installing the OS again anyway. That's probably 40% of the effort in putting together a new machine . . .

My current computer was purchased with a single internal hard drive. I added two USB drives (a 250GB drive for my data and a 500GB drive for GBPVR recordings). I started putting my data on a separate drive a long time ago for two reasons. It makes it easier to back up and there was a time at work when I would be the guinea pig for new notebook models and this was one thing that made moving to a different computer much easier.

I hadn't thought of a separate drive for the swap file but I like that. Do you know if a USB flash drive can be used for the swap file for Windows?

My current plans were to buy a machine with two drives. Approximately 300-400GB for the C: Drive and a second drive of 1TB for GBPVR recordings. The c: drive would preferably be partitioned with 100GB in the second partition. This would be so I could set up dual boot with a different OS, possibly Linux or to try out future versions of Windows. I know, Dell or Gateway or HP are not going to partition the c: drive for me like that and I will have to do it after i get the computer.

I would continue to use my current USB Drives for Data. They have been fast enough to support the applications I use.

Is Dell going to install a Hauppauge (or similar) capture card for you? More importantly, would they test it with GBPVR on your location specific input sources? That's probably another 40% of your total system building effort.

I already have my own capture cards so I would be installing them myself anyways. Installing the cards is trivial. Testing them with GBPVR is something I would have anyways.

Between these 2 issues, you still likely need to personally expend 80% of the effort no matter where you get your "system."

Given this, I don't mind spending an "extra" hour or two to make sure the hardware components are picked and installed exactly like I want.

Maybe things are different now - I would certainly hope so - but back when I built my 286 machine I ended up spending most of the time fiddling with BIOS settings to make the mother board compatible/efficient with the other hardware. This is definitely something I don't want to endure again.

Here's one area where timing has already gone your way. Now that MS has announced a ship date for Windows7 many system vendors are already announcing such free upgrade programs. Then again, I expect NewEgg and other parts vendors to announce the same any day now.

Have fun!

I was going to go this route, i.e. the Vista with free upgrade to Win7 but I figure that waiting a few more months (until October or so) I can get a mchine which will be less likely to have incompatibilities between the hardware and the OS. On top of that, it will be the holiday season and I expect there to be a bunch of sales promotions.

You've given me a bunch to think about though.