Firefox 64-bit for Windows Available

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Mozilla has finally released a 64-bit version of Firefox. Those of you interested in giving it a try should note that plugins that worked in the 32-bit versions of Firefox might not work in the 64-bit version.

Today we are releasing Firefox 64-bit for Windows to offer gains in performance for users with 64-bit systems. We’re pleased to offer it to users of Windows 7 and above looking for added performance for applications and games.
 
Interesting, I seem to recall an interview with one of the devs not long ago where he claimed that there was no real point to having a 64-bit version, and that the 32-bit version was all that was needed. I'm curious about what changed between then and now. What exactly are the benefits to the 64-bit version? Or is this just something they made for no technical reason, but simply to meet expectations?
 
I've been using the 64bit Firefox clone Pale Moon for quite a while. It works better than Firefox for everything except youtube.
 
GotNoRice said:
Interesting, I seem to recall an interview with one of the devs not long ago where he claimed that there was no real point to having a 64-bit version, and that the 32-bit version was all that was needed.
Click to expand...

There really is very little point in most applications being 64bit. People think 64bit is better because it's more than 32bit, but the only significant difference is that 64bit applications can address more memory. For most applications that makes no difference since most applications don't need to access more than 2GB of memory.

Far from benefiting, the 64bit versions of most applications will be inferior in that they'll use more memory (since the pointers will be twice the size), use more had disk space and the redistributable will be bigger.

I only use the 64bit versions of applications if they require a lot of memory. For everything else I use the 32bit version for the performance benefits.
 
There is also the Cyberfox variant, with 32 and 64 bit builds for specifically for Intel and AMD cpus.

I haven't had any issues with plugins working in 64 bit with Cyberfox and it's been available in 64 bit for a while now. I wonder what's different in the official 64 bit build that would prompt them to specifically mention it as an issue in the release notes?
 
I have been using Starfox 64 for a couple months now. Its pretty fast, but definitely looks dated.

Gotcha!
 
yea, it was only after my post that I realized Firefox 64 was not the title of the game :eek:
 
I thought this was officially released back in October? I've been running it on all my PCs for over a month now.

Oh, and I agree that Firefox 64-bit is no-longer needed. They've finally fixed the biggest memory leaks and the poor memory management that used to bring 32-bit Firefox to it's knees after you ran 30+ tabs (used to kill things like Flash videos after you exceeded the memory limit).

But I'll use it anyway!
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
There really is very little point in most applications being 64bit. People think 64bit is better because it's more than 32bit, but the only significant difference is that 64bit applications can address more memory. For most applications that makes no difference since most applications don't need to access more than 2GB of memory.

Far from benefiting, the 64bit versions of most applications will be inferior in that they'll use more memory (since the pointers will be twice the size), use more had disk space and the redistributable will be bigger.

I only use the 64bit versions of applications if they require a lot of memory. For everything else I use the 32bit version for the performance benefits.
Click to expand...

i was hoping the 64 bit version would allow me to not have to restart firefox all the time. it leaks memory like shit. i keep all my applications open and put my pc on standby when not in use. within a day, firefox hits 2gb of ram used easily and decides to crap out. i don't even have a lot of addons installed. 3 i think.
 
the_servicer said:
Does it work with NoScript?
Click to expand...

YES. I just updated mine and it's working. I'm going to do some benchmarks and compare it to Chrome since I stopped using Firefox a year ago and see the performance I get.
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
There really is very little point in most applications being 64bit. People think 64bit is better because it's more than 32bit, but the only significant difference is that 64bit applications can address more memory. For most applications that makes no difference since most applications don't need to access more than 2GB of memory.

Far from benefiting, the 64bit versions of most applications will be inferior in that they'll use more memory (since the pointers will be twice the size), use more had disk space and the redistributable will be bigger.

I only use the 64bit versions of applications if they require a lot of memory. For everything else I use the 32bit version for the performance benefits.
Click to expand...

Browsers are my biggest memory hogs outside photo tools and 32-bit Firefox totally craps out at >2 GB usage.
 
Here's a quick result between Chrome (Left) and Firefox 64 (Right) using basemark:

cAM1NXx
 
Mr Milquetoast said:
There really is very little point in most applications being 64bit. People think 64bit is better because it's more than 32bit, but the only significant difference is that 64bit applications can address more memory. For most applications that makes no difference since most applications don't need to access more than 2GB of memory.

Far from benefiting, the 64bit versions of most applications will be inferior in that they'll use more memory (since the pointers will be twice the size), use more had disk space and the redistributable will be bigger.

I only use the 64bit versions of applications if they require a lot of memory. For everything else I use the 32bit version for the performance benefits.
Click to expand...

Firefox is actually the only major browser that does benefit from being a 64-bit application.

Chrome, IE, Opera, and Safari all use a separate-process-per-tab model whereas Firefox only has a single process to contain all open tabs. If you have, say, 30 open tabs then it's not uncommon to see Chrome consume 3GB+ of memory.

To put it in context, Chrome is currently using 1.7gb of memory with ~30 open tabs on my system. IE11 is using 1.8gb with 15 tabs open. Firefox is using 1.4gb of memory with somewhere north of 60 tabs open and including all those IE tabs that I just pasted into it in order to drive the point.
 
temujin987 said:
i was hoping the 64 bit version would allow me to not have to restart firefox all the time. it leaks memory like shit. i keep all my applications open and put my pc on standby when not in use. within a day, firefox hits 2gb of ram used easily and decides to crap out. i don't even have a lot of addons installed. 3 i think.
Click to expand...

I have the same issue. I have to restart Firefox a few times per day which is annoying.
 
Zepher said:
I have the same issue. I have to restart Firefox a few times per day which is annoying.
Click to expand...

If you also have Chrome installed then you can see all your currently running browsers' memory consumption by typing chrome://memory-redirect/ in the address bar.

If your Firefox process is close to the 2GB limit then the 64-bit version is likely to fix that problem.
 
I'm still wishing they'd do something about HTML5 video and 1080p playback for both Netflix and Amazon.
 
i still find FF 43.0 - 32bit faster/smoother, i'll stick with FF 43 - 64bit for a week to test it out though, but so far the smoothness isn't there :/
 
Stiler said:
I'm still wishing they'd do something about HTML5 video and 1080p playback for both Netflix and Amazon.
Click to expand...

I'd like this too. Unfortunately, it isn't really a Firefox issue in and of itself; it is more than technically capable of running HTML5 video (as it does on Youtube and elsewhere). For some god-awful reasons Netflix and Amazon have chosen not to enable 1080p HTML5. The problem is squarely on their implementations, so all we can do is demand support. Likewise, certain mobile devices. If I have an Android device and the bandwidth, I should be able to stream in the highest quality available. It shouldn't be limited to particular models nigh arbitrarily.

But to comment on the 64 bit Firefox, good on them! I know Waterfox/PaleMoon and the like have compiled for 64 bit, but it is important for the development (including of those sorts of forks) that Firefox itself be the best as possible. It should be mentioned that on non-Windows OSes (I know Linux for certain) Firefox has long been 64-bit if you had a 64 bit distribution and hardware support, so its nice to see Win finally catch up. I really hope Mozilla continues to make beneficial changes to Firefox, expanding both its features and privacy/security.
 
defaultluser said:
I thought this was officially released back in October? I've been running it on all my PCs for over a month now.

Oh, and I agree that Firefox 64-bit is no-longer needed. They've finally fixed the biggest memory leaks and the poor memory management that used to bring 32-bit Firefox to it's knees after you ran 30+ tabs (used to kill things like Flash videos after you exceeded the memory limit).

But I'll use it anyway!
Click to expand...

Same here. I've been using it ever since then.
 
Might not crash as much since I noticed it crashed all the time when it hit the 3 GB limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top