Print 45 comment(s) - last by Kefner.. on Feb 9 at 1:34 AM

The transition to a 64-bit world continues

With 64-bit adoption rising for both Windows Vista and Windows 7 installations, Sun Microsystems' latest update of Java 6 features enhanced 64-bit support.

Java 6 Update 12 will finally have a 64-bit plug-in, a feature that was first requested in January of 2003, as well as a 64-bit version of Webstart. Java Webstart enables the deployment of standalone Java software applications over a network or the internet.

The Java plug-in allows web browsers to run Java applications; a 64-bit plug-in is required for 64-bit browsers. It is included as part of the Java Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (Java SE).

If 32-bit and 64-bit browsers are to be used interchangeably, then both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the JRE must be installed as well.

Although the Java Runtime Environment had x64 versions for Linux, Solaris, and Windows, there were no 64-bit versions of the Java plug-in, Java Web Start or Java Control Panel. 32-bit versions of the JRE could be installed on 64-bit systems in order to obtain this functionality, but can only be used with 32-bit browsers.

The foundation for the 64-bit plug-in comes from the completely redesigned plug-in of Java 6 Update 10. The Java Virtual Machine running applets is isolated from the web browser at the operating system level. If an error occurs while running the applet, the new Java plug-in detects and handles the error. The web browser is unaffected, even if an uncooperative applet refuses to shut down.

Update 12 also features official Windows 2008 support, as well as improved application startup and runtime performance for both Java Webstart and JavaFX. There are no major security updates, but Update 12 contains 140 bugfixes.

Java 7, meanwhile, is tentatively scheduled for an early 2010 release.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Pirks on 2/3/2009 7:34:40 PM , Rating: 5

By walk2k on 2/3/2009 7:53:05 PM , Rating: 3
Actually I like browsing in 64-bit without Flash, sites load so much faster without all the ads. If I need to use Flash I just load a 32-bit browser.

By Pirks on 2/3/2009 8:00:57 PM , Rating: 5
You are okay with pressing "No, I don't want to download and install Flash plugin" button in IE x64 every 5 seconds? You are The Patientce Itself, my friend. Hats off!

By Ihmemies on 2/3/2009 8:18:00 PM , Rating: 3
You could also use 64-bit Firefox. Hopefully it doesn't nag the user all the time like IE does?

By puffpio on 2/3/2009 8:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
I use a 64 bit build of FF, but I don't believe it was compiled using PGO like steps...still better than nothing

By Pirks on 2/3/2009 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 5
Some shady unsupported x64 build done by some obscure guy? I wouldn't trust it. Where's the _official_ Firefox x64, huh?

By eegake on 2/3/2009 10:11:49 PM , Rating: 5
A 64 bit version of Firefox built under Gentoo linux, an all-source distribution, is the fastest web browser I have ever used. There's nothing obscure about that.

Were it not for the Java/Flash issues I would have been using 64 bit Firefox for a year or two at least. As things stand, Firefox and Open Office are the only 32 bit applications I still use.

By Pirks on 2/4/2009 1:17:49 AM , Rating: 1
Fastest browser? Nothing is faster than Chrome.

By puffpio on 2/4/2009 2:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
you sure about that? have you run a 64 bit version of Firefox? I'm running one using Firefox 3.1 beta3pre and it's a tossup between this and chrome. the latest javascript engine in FF 3.1 (tracemonkey) can go toe to toe against chrome's v8 engine and even exceed it in some test cases

By lycium on 2/4/2009 2:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
everyone who uses chrome a lot knows it still has some issues with gif animations, pages displaying strangely... firefox often seems "faster" because it'll display a page without full information in some situations. (however there is no comparison between jscript performance)

on the other hand, as a programmer i wonder how long it would take to read all the relevant chrome/webkit and firefox source to get a really worthwhile opinion :P

By PhoenixKnight on 2/4/2009 9:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
There is an alpha release of Adobe Flash Player 10 for linux available at

I'm using that with 64-bit Firefox 3 in Gentoo and it works pretty well for me.

By walk2k on 2/3/2009 9:43:12 PM , Rating: 1
No it doesn't nag me at all. I think you can tell it "no and don't ask me again".

By Pirks on 2/3/2009 11:40:33 PM , Rating: 5
You can't

By TomZ on 2/4/2009 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
You can't, but I can. I'm using IE8 (Win7), and I fired up the 64-bit version, and it only prompted me once to install Flash. In the pop-up dialog, I selected to not prompt me again, and that works.

By Pirks on 2/4/2009 8:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you, beta user. I'll wait for release, 'cause I'm using Opera most of the time anyway :P

By amandahugnkiss on 2/4/2009 3:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, on the 32 bit version I allowed it to install and just leave it disabled until there's something I want to see. For Win7 and Vista I hope to see greater use of Silverlight and less use of Flash.

By cheetah2k on 2/3/2009 8:30:57 PM , Rating: 1
Someone give this guy a 6! :-D

By grenableu on 2/3/2009 8:47:27 PM , Rating: 5
It's Pirks. Anything over a -1 is good news for him :))

By quiksilvr on 2/3/2009 9:05:52 PM , Rating: 5
Wow it IS Pirks, totally unexpected. But I agree; Adobe's laziness knows no bounds. What's even worse is their PDF reader. 200 MB for Adobe Reader 9?...WHY?! Foxit Reader is 10 MB and works seamlessly with Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari and IE as a plug in (not to mention infinitely faster than Adobe). You'd figure the guys that actually developed PDF would be able to give a better reader. Hell, even Office 2007 is space efficient, both with the installation and the files (Word, Excel and Powerpoint only take 250 MB of space, and that's WITH all of their templates and help menus and whatnot).

By GeorgeH on 2/3/2009 10:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Want to know the sweet part? Fully half of that ~200MB is nothing but setup files that don't get cleaned up, and about half of the remaining ~100MB is nothing but plugins you'll never use.

By TomZ on 2/4/2009 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if it is 10MB or 200MB? 200MB costs a couple of cents at today's HDD prices.

Not defending Adobe...I dislike them as much as anybody else...but HDD space doesn't seem like a reasonable attack vector.

By quiksilvr on 2/5/2009 10:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
More space = More RAM used = Less efficiency. Adobe Reader 8 took 120 MB and they magically 200 MB

By oab on 2/4/2009 1:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks has posted a total of 1987 comments at DailyTech, the average comment rating was 0.93.

You aren't far off.

By tastyratz on 2/3/2009 9:27:36 PM , Rating: 4
the 64 bit fiasco has become an embarrassment for adobe to trail so far behind in. This is beyond just inconvenient, its incompetent and reflects poorly on them. The 64 bit market is hardly flopping - its growing fast. They try to push to develop flash for blurays but don't have time to focus on 64 bit support??

By PhoenixKnight on 2/4/2009 9:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
What makes is saddest of all is that Adobe has a few programs (Photoshop, After Effects) that can very easily require far more than the 2-3GB of RAM that 32-bit programs are capable of using. Photoshop CS3 and CS4 get around the RAM limit by allocating memory past 3GB to be used as a scratch disk. Wouldn't the time spent on making a half-assed work-around have been better spent on making actual 64-bit versions of the programs? It's not like people haven't been demanding a 64-bit Photoshop for years now.

By Myrandex on 2/4/2009 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Photoshop CS4 supports x64, however only GPU acceleration if Vista x64. I've used it...nice stuff there. The interface is fairly different though, very MACish.


By VaultDweller on 2/4/2009 9:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Normally I'd rate you down for being a moron that forgot to turn off caps lock (or that's what it looks like)... but in this case, what the hell Adobe? Get on the ball already.

It's about time...
By lotharamious on 2/3/2009 7:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why did it take so long? Linux x86-64 users know how frustrating it was to use Firefox without this. Luckily a third-party plugin was created for 64bit support.

RE: It's about time...
By walk2k on 2/3/2009 7:43:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wow Java. That thing that a few speed test sites and my old cell phone used to use? Gosh.

RE: It's about time...
By zsejk on 2/4/2009 4:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just curious.... now that (if I read the implied 'Java is old nobody uses Java anymore!' sentiment of your post correctly) Java is old and obsolete... what *does* everyone use?



RE: It's about time...
By Master Kenobi on 2/4/2009 9:06:42 AM , Rating: 1
Java I find is on the decline in many areas. Java seems to survive in the Oracle, and cross platform world, but thats about it. As far as User Interfaces go, I see most using .NET and as someone who has programmed in both, I can see why. .NET is considerably more flexible and robust than Java.

It seems Java is dying a slow death. If Microsoft could figure out how to port a .Net Framework installer to Linux and Unix it would seal the coffin on Java.

RE: It's about time...
By TomZ on 2/4/2009 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - I like Java and used it for several years. For the desktop, it is nice that you can develop cross-platform GUIs. But it takes a lot of work to get GUIs to work well and look nice.

But if you are creating GUIs for Windows, .NET is much quicker and easier - there is no comparison really.

But I think Java is still being used a lot on the server side.

RE: It's about time...
By Verran on 2/4/2009 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're viewing this from a rather shallow perspective. Having coded in both, I can safely say that .NET is my language of choice for silly little utility projects I have of my own. .NET is lightyears ahead of Java in UI stuff. Even for small scale professional operations, I think .NET is the clear winner.

However, .NET scales very poorly in enterprise settings. Java scales significantly better. People who need large scale expandability and want to deploy to a non-Windows environment still often choose Java. I would hardly say that Java is dying.

RE: It's about time...
By TomZ on 2/4/2009 12:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just does Java scale better? Usually these larger architectures use client/server, SOAP, XML, etc., and I think support in .NET is at least as good as Java, right? Or are you thinking of something else.

I do see your point about Java being able to run on different platforms - "write once, debug everywhere" as they say. :o)

RE: It's about time...
By Verran on 2/4/2009 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
My terminology may be confusing. By "scaling" I'm talking about growing from smaller personal use to giant enterprise level support.

My understanding both from usage and from training classes I've taken is that Java is much harder to write up front, and that's one of the main reasons it loses in the personal use and small business category for me. But the benefit of following the more complicated coding standards of Java is that as your software grows in number of users, very little changes are needed. When you make the leap from a single server to a substantial cluster and start adding redundancy and all of that, your Java code moves over pretty much in tact. My experience has been that .NET applications don't do this nearly as smoothly and even when re-written for larger scale just aren't as efficient.

When projects grow in complexity I think Java really shines and I think that's why they'll stay alive.

Java Applets Still In use?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 2/4/2009 4:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone still use Java Applets these days? I do I lot of websurfing and can't remember the last time I came accross a Java Applet on a website. Surely Flash/Air and Silverlight are all the rage these days and we need 64bit versions of those.

By Master Kenobi on 2/4/2009 9:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
Java is too heavy, and is considerably more difficult to use than a Jscript/Flash/Silverlight combination to get the same thing done.

RE: Java Applets Still In use?
By TomZ on 2/4/2009 9:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - who uses Java apps in browsers any more? That's so '90s!

RE: Java Applets Still In use?
By glitchc on 2/4/2009 11:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
MATLAB uses Java applets for many of its toolboxes. The 64-bit version of MATLAB does not support quite a few toolboxes (Image and Data Acquisition being the one I desire), and I suspect that is probably due to the lack of a 64-bit Java runtime.

It is quite annoying to build a machine for image processing with oodles of RAM and processing to find that the Acquisition toolbox is not supported in 64-bit MATLAB.

RE: Java Applets Still In use?
By noirsoft on 2/4/2009 11:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
*adds another item to the long, long list of "reasons why Matlab is a plague on humanity"*

RE: Java Applets Still In use?
By TomZ on 2/4/2009 12:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, exactly, and I assume MATLAB is still using some ancient version of the JRE? If that's the case, then they'll probably add support for 64-bit JRE sometime in 2015.

Simple really
By Choppedliver on 2/3/2009 11:04:24 PM , Rating: 5
Some of the Adobe 64 bit team is hard at work on Duke Nukem Forever.

RE: Simple really
By Myrandex on 2/4/2009 1:38:13 PM , Rating: 2

I'd give this a 6 if I could.


RE: Simple really
By Pirks on 2/4/2009 8:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'd give this a 7

RE: Simple really
By Kefner on 2/9/2009 1:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
HAHA, thats good!

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki