Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought with Windows 7, Microsoft managed to get out a proper 64 bit OS, years after. Looks like it's still a failure.
Firefox for Linux always was, and still will be, 64 bit. Actually, it's also working on ARM, PowerPC, Itanium...
I thought with Windows 7, Microsoft managed to get out a proper 64 bit OS, years after. Looks like it's still a failure.
I think it has nothing to do with the OS, their problem is plugin developers don't want to produce 64 bit ports of their.. well plugins,I bet what they are saying is they are having a hard time making 32 bit plugins run reliably on the 64bit client which they admitted to be having a hard time implementing.
Why does a web browser need to be 64bit apart f4om epeen?
There is no standard data model.
I'm one of the leads for the 64-bit Chrome on Windows work, and it is very much underway. I can't commit to a timeline, but we are attacking this pretty aggressively right now because it's a nice win on both the security and performance fronts. I'm a bit shocked to see Firefox moving in the opposite direction.
--Snip--
Well, OS X is easier because much of the work has already been done for Linux 64, as both are posix-ish lp64 architectures. Whereas Windows is llp64 plus its own APIs and ABIs, which means much more unique porting issues.
Beyond that, there's all the infrastructure you need to stand up for development, continuous integration, QA, metrics, and shipping to hundreds of millions of users. The logistics of that part are almost the same as supporting an entirely new OS, and in the case of Windows it's one with an insanely large and diverse population. So yeah, that parts actually a lot worse just because of the sheer numbers.
I'm not going to pretend to know as much as you about this because I don't, but according to the Wikipedia article on it, there are 2 more layers of "more 64 bit" than LP64.64-Bit Firefox works fine on a real 64-bit operating system.
The problem is that Windows uses a non-standard data model (LLP64) which breaks things and causes compatibility/porting issues. That's why you need forks of Firefox like Waterfox. I've been using 64-bit Firefox on GNU/Linux for almost ten years (since before it was called Firefox) and it has always been stable.
I'm not going to pretend to know as much as you about this because I don't, but according to the Wikipedia article on it, there are 2 more layers of "more 64 bit" than LP64.
Link
So if you're trying to argue that Unix Os's are "true" 64 bit, I'm not so sure about that.
I use Palemoon 64-bit, it works fine. No issues. Works better than Palemoon 32-bit.
The goal of 64-bit is to have 64-bit addressing and data types. If you want a 64-bit integer, you use int64_t, uint64_t or whatever guaranteed 64-bit integer data type is supported in your language implementation, if any. If you don't, you use something else.Well the goal is to have at least one commonly used data type to be 64-bit. LP64 works better because there is a natural progression from 16-bit (short) to 32-bit (int) to 64-bit (long). Long long is an obscure type that hitherto was hardly ever used (and had only existed since C99 anyways).
Yes there is. LP64.
Operating systems that use LP64 :
GNU/Linux
Mac OS X
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
DragonflyBSD
Solaris
HP/UX
AIX
z/OS
Operating systems that use LLP64 :
Windows
LP64 was in use long before there even was x86-64 or IA64 and thus 64-bit Windows. In typical Microsoft fashion, they came in long after LP64 was established as a defacto standard and went in a completely opposite and incompatible route. The end result is that 64-bit Windows isn't really 64-bit at all; it is essentially a 32-bit data model with 64-bit addresses.
The proof is in the pudding. We have a stable 64-bit Chrome. You do not. We have a stable official 64-bit Firefox. You do not. We had a 64-bit Flash plug-in years before Windows did. Don't believe me? Read for yourself : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817838
This article is BS. They do not stop 64-bit development. They merely considering to stop nightly builds.
so saying that FF and Chrome do not, seems to say more about chrome and FF developers, then anything else.
If the proof is in the pudding, why has Windows had a stable IE x64 for years now? Also waterfox and palemoon seem to manage. I've seen the most trivial of applications, and the most complex, have x64 on Windows, so saying that FF and Chrome do not, seems to say more about chrome and FF developers, then anything else.
'then' should be 'than'.
Also here's a link about why MS chose LLP64: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/31/363790.aspx
And x64 data is allowed contrary to what your post claims, damicatz. That claim makes no sense.
Have they fixed 64-bit Internet Explorer so that you don't get a giant performance drop compared to 32-bit? Regardless, Internet Explorer doesn't have to worry about cross-platform compatibility. Firefox and Chrome do.
What is this x64 data you speak of?
Only an idiot would use a struct like that to handle a file format in which the length of the fields has to remain fixed. There is a reason that we have things like int32_t.
The way I read that post is that they are basically catering to incompetent programmers even if it means making life harder for competent programmers. This is the whole "let's use the least significant bit of the pointer to store data even though it breaks address spaces >2gb" fiasco all over again.
So that rather than crashing when it runs out of address space it can send your system into swap deathWhy does a web browser need to be 64bit apart f4om epeen?
...
Only an idiot would use a struct like that ...incompetent programmers ...
Several people read your post. Your abusiveness is what they'll remember.
Which is exactly the kind of behavior Mozilla is engaging in, and the kind of behavior you seem to consider acceptable for them. After all, it's not Mozilla's bad design that's the problem. It's Microsoft's, right?Only an idiot would use a struct like that to handle a file format in which the length of the fields has to remain fixed. There is a reason that we have things like int32_t.
Well the goal is to have at least one commonly used data type to be 64-bit. LP64 works better because there is a natural progression from 16-bit (short) to 32-bit (int) to 64-bit (long). Long long is an obscure type that hitherto was hardly ever used (and had only existed since C99 anyways).
This is not what the C language spec says, and bad programmers - like the ones at Mozilla - assume that is the case and write code assuming it.
shorts are at least 16 bits
ints are at least 16 bits
longs are at least 32 bits
Reliance on compilers over the years has conditioned many coders to think that there is a power-of-two progression between data types, which is NOT guaranteed to be the case.
I can almost guarantee that Firefox is using native types and assuming their sizes instead of typedef'ing things that will be persisted. Like you said, idiots and incompetent programmers.
Which is exactly the kind of behavior Mozilla is engaging in, and the kind of behavior you seem to consider acceptable for them. After all, it's not Mozilla's bad design that's the problem. It's Microsoft's, right?
Yes, IE10 x64 is as fast as the 32-bit version, IE9 x64 performance slow down was due to the fact that they didn't make a x64 JavaScript JIT compiler, not because of issues with x64 data formats.
What I'm reading is that there are millions of apps that do so though, and Windows benefits from compatibility. It's seems both cases have upsides and downsides, but I can understand MS decision. What I can't understand, is how IE has a x64 version and FF and chrome do not, and this is because Windows has a problem in x64. Reminds me of the fact that FF said they were going to use sandboxing on Windows, but never got around to it, 6 years now after IE implemented it. Meanwhile people tell me OSS is greased lightening when it comes to implementing security features, and MS is a slug in a coma here, etc. Now if IE didn't have x64 and sandboxing, I might agree that Windows has a problem, but at this point I can't see this as anything but a FF and chrome failing (and actually, apparently, Chrome has moved to make a x64 build, and I suspect it will be done for years before FF makes a similar move, again leading me to question the explanation you and FF are giving for any of this.)
My point is that 64 bit Mozilla applications are available for other platforms like Linux, and all that was much before Microsoft even managed to release a proper 64 bit OS.LOL what does Microsoft's Windows 7 and x64 have to do with Mozilla sucking at developing software for a hardware platform?
Firefox for Linux always was, and still will be, 64 bit. Actually, it's also working on ARM, PowerPC, Itanium...
I thought with Windows 7, Microsoft managed to get out a proper 64 bit OS, years after. Looks like it's still a failure.
My point is that 64 bit Mozilla applications are available for other platforms like Linux, and all that was much before Microsoft even managed to release a proper 64 bit OS.
The Waterfox developers don't seem to be having any problems.
http://www.waterfoxproject.org/
Uh, what? Official support for 64bit versions of Firefox on Linux and OSX started at Firefox 4.0, which was released in 2011.
I remember using Firefox 3.0, or even older, on amd64.
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/v...3.ebuild?hideattic=0&revision=1.2&view=markup
Firefox 3.5 is still in current Debian. http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/iceweasel
And it was shit. No one used it, for good reason.Windows XP Processional x64 Edition was their first consumer OS to support the AMD64 / x86_64 instruction set, and was released in 2005.
The first usable 64 bit OS by Microsoft is Windows 7. And still, most software is distributed in 32 bit only.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
I remember using Firefox 3.0, or even older, on amd64.
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/v...3.ebuild?hideattic=0&revision=1.2&view=markup
Firefox 3.5 is still in current Debian. http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/iceweasel
I said official support, as in, official support from Mozilla. They didn't make 64bit Linux or OSX builds official until 4.0.
I can sort of understand the commends about Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. it was based on a Server 2003 core rather than a Windows XP core, so there were some issues with driver and software compatibility... but nothing that prevented 64bit Firefox from being built for it (and 64bit builds of Firefox do run on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition)And it was shit. No one used it, for good reason.
The first usable 64 bit OS by Microsoft is Windows 7. And still, most software is distributed in 32 bit only.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
But I don't see how Windows Vista is any less viable as a 64bit-OS than Windows 7. After all, Windows Vista paved the way for mass adoption of 64bit support in hardware drivers by requiring that all certified drivers have BOTH a 32-bit and 64-bit version (and making this a simpler prospect by building Vista 32bit and Vista 64bit from the same codebase).
Windows 7 simply carries on doing what Vista did as far as 64bit software and driver support goes, no better, no worse.