Windows 64 bit Installer news

[jusjoken]

NOTE The BETA has ended and you should now use the release version of SageTV 64 bit edition for Windows****

Release version available here....

Thanks to WNJJ for all the work on getting the 64 bit changes completed to make this option available to SageTV users.

The 64bit version has been reported as fairly stable and should be ready for production use soon (I am sure a few are already there). There are only minor fixes in this release.
This version of the installer has some larger changes so please report any issues during testing so we can call this a production release.

There are a few functionality changes included in this release - see list below

Please use this forum to discuss issues with both the installer as well as the 64 bit and 32 bit versions of the SageTV software.

SageTV Version is 9.2.0
Installer Version is 1.104

x64 Downloads

• SageTV Server 64bit edition installer
• SageTV Client 64bit edition installer
• SageTV Placeshifter 64bit edition installer

x86 Downloads
Note: the x86 version contains code that is now being compiled with each release that was previously included from the original Open Source release. Testing of the x86 version would be appreciated.

• SageTV Server 32bit edition installer
• SageTV Client 32bit edition installer
• SageTV Placeshifter 32bit edition installer

Notes:

• If you have previously installed a prior BETA version you may need to perform an uninstall of the prior version before installing a newer BETA
• Please BACKUP your existing SageTV folder PRIOR to installing and testing this software
• 64 bit install is a NEW product and will NOT perform an upgrade of x86 versions
• Default install folder will be "Program Files" rather than "Program Files(x86)
• Installation into the same folder as an x86 (32bit) version needs testing. It should work but please do NOT do so into your production Sage folder.
  
• New: Installer will now default the install folder to the previous install location for upgrades - the 64 and 32 bit installs are handled separately for this
• You should be able to have BOTH the 32 bit and 64 bit version installed on the same computer under different folders. They cannot/should not be run at the same time for numerous reasons
• There will be a new SageTV64 Service entry that should operated independently of the 32 bit one
• If you copy your Wiz.bin and properties to your new installation, keep in mind that the .properties will need to be edited manually for the different paths
• Java is NOT embedded in the installer any longer. If Java (x64) 1.7 or higher is not found on the system then the installer will download Java 1.8 from BinTray and install it. If you want a different x64 Java version then please install it prior to running the installer.
• AC3Filter is NO LONGER part of the installer - removed 12/01/2018 installer version 1.102
  
• New: LAV Filters is now offered as part of the 32 bit and 64 bit installers.
  
• New: The installer has options for setting "EnableSageTVStreamDemux" and AlwaysSwapForAC3Filter
• Registry entries for the 64 bit install follow the windows standard so will be in a new location than the 32 bit ones (no longer under WOW6432node)
  
• New: The installer has an option to install USB_UIRT support in the 64 bit version
• HDHR fresh installs will not find the 64 bit install. As a work around you need to install the 32 bit version somewhere else, configure HDHR first time, and then you could uninstall the 32 bit version....hopefully we find a better solution.

9.2.0 Change Log:

• Reworked for Windows 64-bit version
• Added ExeMultiTunerPlugin project
• Added USB-UIRT transmit project
• Added HCWIRBlaster project
• Changed defaults: video/audio decoder to 'Default', video/dvd_video renderer to 'EVR'
• Updates to whitelist LAV Filters
• Updated STV to remove prompt on new install for the weather underground plugin
• Fix: Sage-x64 hang due to CableCARD tuners (Windows)
• Fix: Add support for HVR-4400 and other 885 variants (Windows)
  

Note: all 6 of the installers were submitted to Microsoft and have had the false positive virus message removed for them. You may need to update your virus definitions if you receive a false positive. Here is Microsofts response...

We have removed the detection. Please follow the steps below to clear cached detection and obtain the latest malware definitions.

1. Open command prompt as administrator and change directory to c:\Program Files\Windows Defender 
2. Run “MpCmdRun.exe -removedefinitions -dynamicsignatures”

Alternatively, the latest definition is available for download here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/definitions

k

[jusjoken]

I am considering removing at least some of the redistibutables that previously were embedded inside the installer executable...namely java. I plan to ensure at least java 7 is installed but if 7 or newer is not found then java 8 will download from bintray and install. The redist of java 8 is 200MB (7 was 30) so excluding it and downloading on demand shrinks the installer.

Thoughts?

Should i do this for Directx9, VC10 or VC14, AC3 filters ?

k

[wnjj]

Originally Posted by jusjoken

I am considering removing at least some of the redistibutables that previously were embedded inside the installer executable...namely java. I plan to ensure at least java 7 is installed but if 7 or newer is not found the java 8 will download from bintray and install. The redist of java 8 is 200MB (7 was 30) so excluding it and downloading on demand shrinks the installer.

Thoughts?

Should i do this for Directx9, VC10 or VC14, AC3 filters ?

k

I'd say non-embedded is fine since it makes the installer lightweight. To complement that, I'd suggest a README file that contains the exact download paths to either the 3rd party download sites or bintray for anything not embedded. That way someone could grab everything needed up front for an install which could be done even while offline.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by wnjj

I'd say non-embedded is fine since it makes the installer lightweight. To complement that, I'd suggest a README file that contains the exact download paths to either the 3rd party download sites or bintray for anything not embedded. That way someone could grab everything needed up front for an install which could be done even while offline.

I would say it’s OK as long as it automatically downloads the dependencies on-demand as needed. Most Windows users are not accustomed to needing to check a readme file and manually download and install other dependencies.

Having a light weight installer is nice (faster to download and takes less storage space), but most people aren’t downloading it very often. Also for people who are most likely going to be recording TB’s of stuff, a few hundred MB is almost nothing (though it could add up if you save copies of every version).

[jusjoken]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I would say it’s OK as long as it automatically downloads the dependencies on-demand as needed. Most Windows users are not accustomed to needing to check a readme file and manually download and install other dependencies.

Having a light weight installer is nice (faster to download and takes less storage space), but most people aren’t downloading it very often. Also for people who are most likely going to be recording TB’s of stuff, a few hundred MB is almost nothing (though it could add up if you save copies of every version).

Absolutely the download is automatic as long as there is an internet connection. Manual download of dependencies would only be needed for an offline install which is an unlikely case IMHO. And of course in an upgrade where the dependencies are already installed then no download is needed.

k

[Carlton Bale]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I would say it’s OK as long as it automatically downloads the dependencies on-demand as needed... For people who are most likely going to be recording TB’s of stuff, a few hundred MB is almost nothing.

Unless you're paying for server bandwidth, I don't the size of the installer is a significant concern. I'd rather have an installer that I know is going to work every time. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to install because a different server is down or the path has changed. Also, having as few clicks as possible to install is desirable.

[wnjj]

Originally Posted by Carlton Bale

Unless you're paying for server bandwidth, I don't the size of the installer is a significant concern. I'd rather have an installer that I know is going to work every time. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to install because a different server is down or the path has changed. Also, having as few clicks as possible to install is desirable.

The dependencies are on the same server as the installer however I suppose the server could go down after you have already grabbed the installer but before you ran it.

In any case it’s the same number of clicks. It’s just a matter of whether the installer continues to download components when it’s run or if they’re bundled up front.

[wnjj]

Keep in mind that every Sage update will require running one of these installers, however nearly none of them will ever change any of these large dependencies except maybe Java someday. Having a fast upgrade option is really nice once you already have an install.

[JustFred]

I'm going to cast a vote for the larger, complete, fully-bundled installer. 200MB really isn't THAT big, these days. I can't count the number of times I've run into problems with installers that download bits and pieces... it's the ultimate frustration with either a slow or unreliable network connection. The recent problems with BinTray downloads are enough of an example.

Fewer "moving pieces" will make a better installation experience.

[jusjoken]

Personally as the guy who builds and uploads these i hate the current large size as it currently takes many hours to push the 3 installers to bintray and each will now be 3 times larger.

Perhaps i will make a large one every once in a while with the rest being small so someone could do an older full install and then the latest small one.

feedback welcome (but i may not follow it )

k

[wnjj]

Maybe make the 9.x.0 revisions include everything so it’s easier to know? 64-bit Windows deserves a 9.2.0 doesn’t it?

Including many MB of java in all of these installers makes no sense to me. Almost everyone has java already and if not it should be easy to get. Maybe add code to the installer to second source any downloads from the original provider host if bintray is down?

[JustFred]

If Java is omitted from the bundle (which may already be installed anyway), please consider including Directx9, VC10 or VC14 & AC3 filters, since these are less likely to already be present for new Sage users.

[thomaszoo]

For me personally it doesn't make a bit of difference. I greatly appreciate the work and support done by so many on this forum. Knowing that a 64-bit version is in the pipeline seems more like a (pipe) dream.

[jusjoken]

Originally Posted by wnjj

64-bit Windows deserves a 9.2.0 doesn’t it?

Absolutely

[wnjj]

Since the 3 installers all share the dependencies of Java, VC runtimes, DX9, etc, how about building lightweight installers but offer a "support package" with all of the other stuff as an independent installer?

Keep in mind the main Sage installers are still one-click installers in that they will pull the needed dependencies down at runtime (from the same bintray source). This means 99% of the users (even new ones) will never know the difference but those who want dependable or offline install capability can just download 2 installer files.

This works well with the idea that the dependencies will likely never change but the stuff in the main Sage installer does. It also minimizes the build time & effort for our esteemed Windows installer guy as well as upgrade time for all users.

[jusjoken]

It's here finally - for testing only!

Check out the first post for details

[SHS]

I just want CRY MY LITTLE HEART OUT god dame you MS and Virus Threat

[jusjoken]

i get the same on my windows 10 surface. however, i ran the url through virustotal and it reports it clean.

not sure how to avoid this.

k

[SHS]

Good news I able to reuse all my SageTV
First you want to do uninstall the all old Java and SageTV
After do that move from C:\Program Files (x86)\ the folder SageTV to new place
Now install the lates Java and this ver of SageTV
Next you copy the all the files from the old 32bit SageTV folder over to new 64bit SageTV folder in C:\Program Files\SageTV\
Next time some editing
Find Sage.properties or the SageClient.properties
Open with Notepad click on Edit menu then Replace
Find what: Program Files (x86)
Replace with: Program Files
Then Save it
Note you may get a google plugin error don't worry about just remove the message and restart SageTV
Good Luck

[SHS]

Originally Posted by jusjoken

i get the same on my windows 10 surface. however, i ran the url through virustotal and it reports it clean.

not sure how to avoid this.

k

Disable the dame thing for now then re-enable after you got it installed