a

  • Thread starter Deleted member 104402
  • Start date

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
I think most people will tell you to use 32bit browsers because of the lack of 64 bit compatible plugins.

I don't use a 64bit operating system so I'm just guessing what others think. But I do know that 64 bit browsers do lack popular plugins such as Flash and Shockwave.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,765
I've been running a 64 bit distro of one flavor or another of Linux since the beginning of the year. However, I always use the 32 bit version of Firefox since there are no 64 bit Flash plugins at all and I need flash for at least a couple of things. It's really annoying and I wish Adobe would get off its ass and get a 64 bit version out. Considering there is a mainstream 64 bit Windows OS out now, I see no reason why Adobe should be sitting around with its thumb up its ass on this.

 
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
607
Actually I want to see if firefox can break the 2gig mem usage mark.

I once made Firefox use 2.5 GB of RAM, unfortunately, I didn't take a screenie, though I still have one of then it sucked down 1.6 GB because of its raw image caching function.

I would still recommend 32-bit versions of browsers because as other people have said, you will not have plugins from Adobe for flash and shockwave, and other plugins if you care.

Of course, Adobe has said 'we're working on it' for a couple years now...
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
I run Firefox x64 2.0.0.6 on Vista x64 without any issues. Of course there's no Flash support but for the vast majority of my web browsing it's fine.

I can offer no strong argument for using a 64-bit browser really.
 
Top