It's easy to be judgmental when you don't answer to share holders and users. Let me know when you're CEO of a fortune 500 company and are willing to take a dump on half your users..
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
Mozilla Stops Firefox 64-bit Development
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
It's easy to be judgmental when you don't answer to share holders and users. Let me know when you're CEO of a fortune 500 company and are willing to take a dump on half your users..
There ought to be a law, like Godwin's law, when someone uses the old shareholder argument as a way to deflect the issue away form something.
Microsoft wouldn't be taking a "dump" on their users by using LP64 since their users are not programmers. As far as the proprietary software programmers go, they would have no choice; what are they going to do, stop writing software for Windows? Since every other operating system relevant today is LP64, I hardly think they would find an easier time porting their sloppily written code on GNU/Linux or Mac OS X.
The reason why there isn't a stable 64-bit Firefox for Windows is because they do not have the time or resources to adopt and then maintain the usage of a bunch of non-standard MSVC-specific compiler features and data types when the 32-bit version works fine. If the people making Waterfox wish to do that, more power to them.
I remember using 64bit Firefox on Ubuntu Feisty back in 2007, when I bought my x2 3600. That was an official version of Firefox straight from Mozilla. Main problem with it was, as is today, (some) plugins.
To think, in that 5 year span, I've only purchased 4 64bit CPUs: x2 3600, x2 5000, Athlon II 620 and Phenom II 555 (someone help a brotha out with a PhII x6
).If there was no other x64 software, or only x64 software that needed the memory, I might consider this argument. As it is, I see tons of x64 software for Windows that has absolutely no use being x64 (they do not access near 4GBs of RAM in any use case, nor do they access hostile data and therefore need higher entropy ASLR.) No matter what you say, until that changes, I'm going to go ahead with the simple explanation that FF development or whatever is not up to snuff (like they were not up to snuff to sandbox FF, years after they promised, and years after IE and Chrome were doing it.) I think it's obvious that FF just not forward thinking, well not enough to actually do the work that I see tons of lesser and more complex software doing.
x64 offers more advantages than just memory :
1.Twice as many general purpose registers.
2.Twice as many SSE registers.
3.Greater address space. This allows for memory-mapped IO of larger files.
4.Greater page sizes (only on some 64-bit processors though; mainly the Xeons and Opterons).
5.More efficient position-independent code (Instruction pointer relative data access)
ASLR isn't x64-specific; Microsoft simply chose not to do it for 32-bit programs for compatibility reasons.
I'm aware of those, but a lot of programs I see probably don't need them half as much as FF does, and they vary in complexity from trivially simple to more complex than FF. I didn't say ASLR is x64 specific, I was referring to the fact that you get more entropy in x64 and also defeat the ability to heap spray until you break in, and 32-bit programs do have ASLR, not sure why you'd think otherwise, it's just not nearly as useful in 32-bit.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
That doesn't really makes sense to me. It's akin to arguing that most software has no need to be more secure nor more efficient.
Sorry, I meant in a relative way, I think FF has much more of a need than 90% of the x64 software I see. I didn't mean it added nothing of value, and I actually wish all software was x64, so don't get me wrong. I like FF (and IE, and chrome), so I want it to be better, LLP64 is a done decision that's not going to be undone, right or wrong, whatever your perspective, tech or user/dev experience. If small time projects like WaterFox and PaleMoon can do it, with the FF codebase itself, I just can't give credence to the idea FF somehow can't manage.