Both of ya'll have found yourselves in situations that have been growing worse in the past two years. We've honestly taken 2-3 steps forward and about 6-7 steps, when it comes to digital video, since late 2005/2006.
Vista is a problem.
The 64-bit OS is a problem (Vista or what-have-you)
PCI-e is a problem.
Another big one is how AMD bought (and probably meddled in the affairs of) ATI Technologies.
This big stupid push to "HD" and "DTV" has also ruined a number of things. (I don't feel the need to elaborate on this now, not pertinent. --- It just affects everything.)
My bread-and-butter comes in the form of video work, especially that of conversion, restoration and archival needs. I do not use my PCI-e and/or 64-bit systems to capture video. Those boxes are solely for editing, photo, other tasks. The capture cards in service are, of course, ATI AIW Radeon AGP cards, from the 9x00 series (9200,9600).
I acquired a "new" (used, but new to me) computer, an AMD64 system, and it has an AGP slot, Windows XP Pro SP3, and a 750GB secondary drive. It has one task: capture video. It sits on the floor, next to my desk. I use
this KVM from Airlink, so the same monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers are used. The desk is relatively unchanged. The "change button" on the KVM is physical, I hate those keyboard-command KVMs.
To "get around" the PCI-e problem, I usually suggest a second system. Barring that, the next good idea is to use a Hauppauge PVR-250 or PVR-350 card (likely to be found used only), for MPEG capture in a PCI slot. If that too is a problem, then a Hauppauge USB2 PVR is a good choice, although I've not personally tested any of these to date (my intel is from trusted associated). I was eyeballing the HD+QAM PVR version from Hauppauge at OfficeMax just two days ago, but at $99, it was outside my budget for a while.
But I don't know how well these options work on Vista, or Vista-64. I'd assume the new QAM+HD device is fine there, but I'm not sure what software it comes with, if it's like the older Hauppauge PVR options.
The Hauppauge doesn' do much for signal cleaning, and it's fairly soft compared to other capture devices, but for a computer option, it works and it works well.
The Phillips DVDR-3576 (I have the 3575, basically the same model) is an excellent machine for recording off of television (either HD/QAM or traditional standard analog), but it's as awful as a Panasonic for VHS. It does no cleaning of the signal, and therefore can come out looking worse than the tape did. If you want to go the DVD recorder route, I still suggest finding either a Toshiba XS-series machine, or the JVC DR-M10/100/30/300/MV1/MV5 model series machines. They're all used, but it's the best machine made for VHS transfers. They're often sold as refurbs online, or used in places like
eBay or craigslist.
If you're satisfied with the level of quality coming from the JVC VCR, then the DVD recorder (or capture card) may be fine. But given how you're not satisfied by the Canopus ADVC-100/110 devices, I doubt you'd be pleased here either.
So while we now have better software, faster computers to process video, we've been shafted on the hardware side all of a suden. We can do great things with video once its digitized, but options to get it there have been near-obliterated.
So given this, I suggest going with what you already know for capture (the "old" computers), and then use a new one for all the speed and muscle for editing, encoding, etc. Transferring between systems is as easy as external hard drives or home networks powered by gigabit ethernet cards/router.
Of course, you can ALWAYS consider PCI solutions from Matrox. The RT.X100 cards (and newer) would work well, albeit expensive ($500-1,500). I'd love this myself, but again, out of my budget for the foreseeable future. I have a hard time justifying the costs, too, given the return compared to what I know already works and is in place.
Let me know what your thoughts are.