Parameter -EnablePVADControl will sometimes not work on a 64-bit machine 3

Bringing back the PVAD debate for one last time.


These are the three methods of bringing back the PVAD as discussed in several blog posts and the Microsoft TechNet site. Microsoft should fix this page though as they spell Compatibility right once and then spell it as Compatability in the Note.

1. Launch the Sequencer from a command prompt and specify: Sequencer.exe -EnablePVADControl

2. Populate a DWORD value called EnablePVADControl in registry here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\AppV\Sequencer\Compatibility. Setting the value to 1 will enable the PVAD field next time you launch the Sequencer and 0 will turn it back off.


3. Use the command line sequencer and specify the -PrimaryVirtualApplicationDirectory argument against New-AppvSequencerPackage.

Result should be that in the Sequencer you can specify the PVAD again. See below:


We just noticed that in AppV 5.0 SP3 the -EnablePVADControl parameter only works on a 32-bit machine. On a 64-bit machine the parameter is not picked up. However the registry setting mentioned earlier is picked up.


If you want the PVAD option back and you are working on a 64-bit machine be sure to use the registry key and not the -EnablePVADControl parameter.


It has been pointed out to me this is not the default behaviour. I have tested this against two 64-bit machines and two 32-bit machines. I will test some more and hope to find the cause why the parameter is sometimes ignored. Conclusion is still valid though as the registry key always works.

3 thoughts on “Parameter -EnablePVADControl will sometimes not work on a 64-bit machine

  1. Reply Vigneshwaran Mar 3,2016 18:06

    Hi Alex,

    Thanks for the information. But I haven’t seen this issue with App-V 5.0 SP3 enabling PVAD using -EnablePVADControl parameter in CMD till now. Any further analysis made from your end?


    • Reply alex Mar 4,2016 10:05

      Only happened at that one customer and only when I tried on a virtual machine where a previous sequence was already created. So part of it was user error. Therefor I never investigated further.

  2. Reply Vigneshwaran Mar 4,2016 11:05

    Fine. The website is clean and informative. Keep posting more 🙂


Leave a Reply to alex Cancel Reply




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.