• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Firefox is Going 64 Bit for Windows Users

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It is now a question of when this is going to happen rather than if. Firefox is going 64 bit, but the big questions remain: how well will it work? What will be the tradeoffs? What versions of Windows 64 bit will work with Firefox?...... and many other questions that will have to be answered to make it a success. Now is your chance to add your two cents worth of wisdom to the project.

So far I've heard "improved performance" and "better security" in the pro column and "download confusion", "plug-in availability", and "memory footprint" in the con column.
Click to expand...
 
what the use if adobe flash doesn't do 64bit to my knowledge yet
, considering 90 percent of the web runs on it
 
the_real_7 said:
what the use if adobe flash doesn't do 64bit to my knowledge yet
, considering 90 percent of the web runs on it
Click to expand...

Flash 11 Beta. Look it up.

Also the fact that they're claiming improved performance is a shocker. That's been the main reason I haven't been employing 64bit Windows builds. The last time I looked them up they didn't have any of the JIT improvements shown in Jagermonkey.

I guess the only thing I'm worried about is the add-on compatibility. Memory footprint is of no issue to me, and "download confusion" definitely has no bearing on me at all.
 
Solidstate89 said:
Flash 11 Beta. Look it up.

Also the fact that they're claiming improved performance is a shocker. That's been the main reason I haven't been employing 64bit Windows builds. The last time I looked them up they didn't have any of the JIT improvements shown in Jagermonkey.

I guess the only thing I'm worried about is the add-on compatibility. Memory footprint is of no issue to me, and "download confusion" definitely has no bearing on me at all.
Click to expand...

thanks for the update on that adobe ... Also the fact that they're claiming improved performance is a shocker , I agree on this one but who knows . . . . add-on compatibility im sure will be hindered a bit at beginning , like all 64 bit programing every company waits till the last minute to start devoting time to the programing
 
the_real_7 said:
thanks for the update on that adobe ... Also the fact that they're claiming improved performance is a shocker , I agree on this one but who knows . . . . add-on compatibility im sure will be hindered a bit at beginning , like all 64 bit programing every company waits till the last minute to start devoting time to the programing
Click to expand...

Going through that link it seems like it would be technically feasible to have the 32bit add-ons running in their own process that communications with the main 64bit Firefox process.

This is made even easier because of Electrolysis which should hopefully be implemented either by the end of the year or sometime next year. Since all of the processes will be split up into their own isolated threads, I don't see any reason why a 32bit add-on process along with a native 64bit add-on process wouldn't be possible to do.
 
To quote something else that took WAY too long: Hell, it's about time.
 
What is the benefit, exactly? I certainly would not want my browser to use more than 4 gigs of RAM...
 
Anyone remember then the Athlon 64 first came out? Everyone was excited about 64-bit, and the amazing stuff it'll do for computing? Then came the wait for a 64-bit Windows XP. Now, we can finally enjoy 64-bit FireFox.

Now not compatible with any plugins or applications. Now we just gotta wait for them to update their stuff. This could take a while.
 
JimmiG said:
What is the benefit, exactly? I certainly would not want my browser to use more than 4 gigs of RAM...
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to 64-bit than just allowing more system memory. There is a 64-bit version of WinRAR for example, and it compresses files significantly faster than the 32-bit version. It may not seem like there's much room for improvement in browser speed, but any little bit helps. There's a reason people are switching to Chrome. :)

There's also the added security which someone mentioned (no browser is ever going to be completely secure though obviously)
 
You guys don't think 64-bit apps are faster than 32-bit? Try being a developer. Try IE. Try Photoshop. Try Office.
 
014 said:
You guys don't think 64-bit apps are faster than 32-bit? Try being a developer. Try IE. Try Photoshop. Try Office.
Click to expand...

Now unless something changed, 64bit IE is actually slower than 32bit because it doesn't include the latest Chakra engine.

And the same was true of Firefox. Not because it's 64bit, but because 32bit was the norm and less time was spent optimizing 64bit JIT compilers and such.
 
014 said:
You guys don't think 64-bit apps are faster than 32-bit? Try being a developer. Try IE. Try Photoshop. Try Office.
Click to expand...

Who's "you guys", the person who asked what benefits there are to running 64-bit browser software? Try hanging out on the forums a little bit longer before getting brave and making assumptions - you'll find that there are real developers here (big ones, at that), as well as countless others who have most likely been using 64-bit operating systems and software long before you have. ;)

The only 64-bit software from your list I can agree with you on being faster than its 32-bit counterpart so far is 64-bit Photoshop CS5. Each operation, on average, is a couple seconds or so faster, and access to 8Gb of RAM helps a lot, too.
 
03grandam said:
WaterFox works great right now :).
Click to expand...

I'm using WaterFox right now.

It can be fast, but the UI doesn't feel as snappy as Chrome's. I haven't been using it for long, so I keep expecting to run into problems. So far it has been good, but a native 64-bit stable release of Firefox is welcome news :)

For Reference: Waterfox is a 64-bit modified build of Firefox 5.0 - OCN has a thread: http://www.overclock.net/other-software/975626-waterfox-firefox-64-bit-firefox-5-a.html , and it is mentioned in this firefox optimization guide: http://www.overclock.net/other-soft...ing-faster-mozilla-firefox-optimizations.html - the same guy has a decent add-on guide. The 64-bit Flash and Java plugin links are on the official site.
 
kllrnohj said:
I think it has largely been waiting for other things (like Adobe), as Firefox has had a 64bit linux version for years now.
Click to expand...

You gotta have a 64 bit browser before people will make 64 bit plugins for it.

I'd wager if all major browsers had 64 bit versions awhile back we'd already have almost all the 64 bit plugins we need by now. Adobe and others arent gonna make a plugin for a browser that doesn't exist.
 
I tried waterfox with the flash 11 and java x64 plugins and its working beautifully! It even works with all the plugins I was using with Firefox 5. Sold so far!
 
I've been using a beta version of Firefox 64-bit for years (well technically it's minefield but you get the idea.) I can't believe they're officially releasing it to the public, yeah!

Faster speed, more memory limits, improved security. There are so many benefits to running 64-bit apps on a 64-bit system.
 
Screw this. Most of my plugins are not being developed any longer and going 64 bit will certainly be the final nail in their coffins.
 
Wot? Firefox reached it's ram limit now it wants to eat up more going 64bit.
epic_ram_fail.jpg
 
Oh gee whiz luikang, My install of FF 4.01 uses more ram than that, It'll get up to near 1.5GB and then crash, right now It's at 1,023,088 and growing, dang memory leak, a whole new version on a different PC and the leak is still there, Yeah I tried telling the devs and they said they had no proof of any leak, that even if the install is fresh and the extensions are different they expect one to use FF in stock form only, so I give up, their hopeless.
 
JokerCPoC said:
Oh gee whiz luikang, My install of FF 4.01 uses more ram than that, It'll get up to near 1.5GB and then crash, right now It's at 1,023,088 and growing, dang memory leak, a whole new version on a different PC and the leak is still there, Yeah I tried telling the devs and they said they had no proof of any leak, that even if the install is fresh and the extensions are different they expect one to use FF in stock form only, so I give up, their hopeless.
Click to expand...

Now the memory usage is down to 900,064 and back to 1,027,094 an then dropping again... this is seen in Windows Task Manager in Windows 7 Pro x64. I also get multiple containers which tend to drag on system performance, so I close all but the biggest.
 
If 414Mb of RAM is "too much" on someone's system, they'd better get rid of whatever fossil of a machine they're using and get with the times :p
 
Ultima99 said:
You gotta have a 64 bit browser before people will make 64 bit plugins for it.

I'd wager if all major browsers had 64 bit versions awhile back we'd already have almost all the 64 bit plugins we need by now. Adobe and others arent gonna make a plugin for a browser that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm running 64 bit firefox for some time and my addons work just fine without getting special versions. Flash works (as well as it normally does on linux).
 
Horray. Now firefox.exe can bloat up bigger than 1.7GB when it memory leaks! (or hell, when it runs as normal, even!)
 
to me i never had any problem running the current version of firefox on my windows 7 64bit.
 
Silverlight is of course only supported on 32bit browsers as an old tired workaround, This means MS doesn't have to do squat on developing a 64bit silverlight, Of course they have IE64 v9, but sad to say Silverlight on there? Perish the thought, Silverlight should get with the times. Flash and Java have, Flash was updated on July 13th for Waterfox or any type of 64bit web browser. I'm using Waterfox 5.0 right now, The sooner 32bit browsers are put to the sword, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top