backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Jul 22 at 11:28 AM


3.0 x86 Official (blue) vs 3.1alpha2 x64 (red) (w/ jemalloc), shorter is better   (Source: Mozilla wiki)

Windows Vista x64 jemalloc enabled or disabled (32-bit in blue, 64-bit in red, shorter is better).  (Source: Mozilla wiki)
Will Mozilla catch up with Internet Explorer?

Mozilla's Firefox browser does not lead Microsoft's Internet Explorer in market share, but it does lead in other ways.  The new 3.5 version of Firefox introduced last week offers support for the latest standards, including HTML 5, XHTML, and SVG graphics -- all of which stock installs of Internet Explorer 8 do not support.

However, Mozilla does trail Internet Explorer 8 in one respect -- Mozilla has not offered an official 64-bit version of its software.  One developer is working to catch Mozilla up, though.  Since 2008 a contributor who goes by the screen name Makoto has ported Firefox 3.0, and now 3.5 to 64-bit editions.  He has announced recently that he plans to contribute the 64-bit versions for 3.6 and up, which may mean that Firefox will at last get an official 64-bit build.

Advantages of the transition to 64-bit include faster speeds on pages using encryption, fast-call type function calls, and more efficient memory mapping of large files.  Initial benchmarks from the 64-bit build show impressive gains in certain applications.

A notable downside of the patch for Firefox 3.5 is that it breaks Mozilla's plug-in system, which relies on a 32-bit architecture.  However, Mozilla has talked recently of adding official 64-bit support in the near future, so this will likely be addressed shortly.

Google's Chrome also is not offered in 64-bit versions.  Apple's Safari 4 browser is offered in a 64-bit version (and is the first Safari browser to add official 64-bit support).  Opera is offered in 64-bit for Linux and OpenBSD operating systems, but is only offered in 32-bit form for Windows.  Within about 4-5 years all of these are expected to jump to 64-bit as the next version of Windows (after Windows 7) is expected to only be offered in 64-bit form, though legacy support for 32-bit software will almost surely be included.

Anyone who wants to take 64-bit Firefox 3.5 out for a spin is suggested to back up their profile, as the build will use the same profile as your current installation.  It should also be noted that the build only works with 64-bit operating systems such as those based on the Windows x64 platform, like the 64-bit build of Windows 7 Release Candidate.



Comments     Threshold


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

Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Guspaz on 7/6/2009 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 5
As any Linux user can tell you, we've been using 64-bit Firefox for quite some time now. It's the default in most 64-bit Linux distros such as Ubuntu. It used to be an inconvenience due to the lack of 64-bit Flash (we had to use a wrapper around the 32-bit version with the 64-bit Firefox).

However, Adobe now has a 64-bit version of Flash 10 for Linux (still in Beta, IIRC), so that problem is solved.

Welcome to last year, people.




By Motoman on 7/6/2009 11:03:37 AM , Rating: 5
OMG! You're totally right! What fools we've been! Everybody - switch to Linux now!


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Chaser on 7/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By psychobriggsy on 7/6/2009 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, setting up network printers is easier in Linux than Windows. Mostly because the printers come with complex shit Windows applications/installers that just get in the way and never work quite correctly.

In my day 10 year olds were happy to use DOS/RISCOS/CP/M at school. Are today's 10 year olds less capable?


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Chaser on 7/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By PhoenixKnight on 7/6/2009 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 4
What's up with all the blatant anti-Linux animosity? Are you a high-ranking Microsoft employee or something?

And what's with the comment about tin foil hats, comparing Linux users to crazy conspiracy theorists? How does that even make the slightest bit of sense at all?


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By drebo on 7/6/2009 3:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's because most people recognize Linux for what it really is: not useful as a desktop operating system. It's great for appliance and server applications. It just doesn't have the application or tool support for desktops, though.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By ipay on 7/6/2009 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
That was true 5 years ago. I have every application I need or want today, with full interoperability with Windows and Mac OS X files and drives. Stop listening to anti-Linux FUD, and try a LiveCD for yourself.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Blight AC on 7/6/2009 4:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Until Linux can learn to finish an install on the next bootup, it still won't be ready for the masses. I played with a recent copy of Linux (well, sometime last year) and it took me an hour to install the Nvidia Graphics drivers, because I have to be in some BS no GUI mode, and figuring out how to get there for me took a bit of searching, and then I had to install some package IIRC, and in order to do so I had to leave the no GUI mode, and install it and get back to the no-GUI mode to try the driver install again. Luckily I had a Windows PC nearby I could keep websites with the relevant information on to work with. For the majority of end users I've worked with, it would be unfeasible. This is why Windows is so popular.

Also, Linux users scoff at Windows Vista's pretty UI and say you can get better stuff on Linux, I couldn't find it. Admittedly, I didn't try very hard though, and that's because I'm happy with Windows anyhow. My games work, my programs work, and to install my Nvidia Drivers I just double-click the installer and click on the prompt to reboot.

While, I agree with the original comment that yes, Jason Mick (author of this blog) seemed completely clueless that Firefox has had a 64-bit version for years now. However, it has limited OS availability (I think only Linux) and I think Mozilla made that decision mainly because the PC users would get their hands on it and flood Mozilla that they can't get YouTube to work, or whatever Flash or other third party plugins that don't support 64-bit to work with it. I think Mozilla made a smart move, by keeping only the 32 bit version available to Windows users until at least Flash was either obsolete or supported 64-bit.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Kalessian on 7/6/2009 5:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
In Ubuntu, all you had to do was:

"Go to System->Administration->Hardware Drivers and check the box to enable the restricted drivers for your NVIDIA card"

If you picked a more difficult distro, then why complain? I use Arch64 because I don't mind learning new things, but if you're new, then use Ubuntu. Even Fedora is more geared toward power users.

Isn't firefox for Windows open source? What was stopping anyone from building their own 64-bit firefox years ago?

Oh, wait: http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download


By MrPoletski on 7/7/2009 9:17:28 AM , Rating: 1
wat? even the windows 64bit version has been out for a while?

This article is even more out of date than the initial respondant thought!


By SavagePotato on 7/9/2009 1:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Nvidia driver package from their site is actually pretty darn good as Linux installers go.

If you are new and you use it on Ubuntu though it will be a mess, been there and done that. The thing to remember with Ubuntu is just stick with the repositories.

Use it on a super vanilla distro like slackware though and the nvidia driver and X control panel is pretty good and easy to use. Yes you do have to shut down X and install it from the command line, and yes it does have to compile it's own kernel module and stuff but it's all automated and easy if you have slackware installed with all the tools. The X control panel even makes setting up multiple displays really easy where it's normally a massive pain in a distro like this.

That's pretty much the kind of distro the nvidia installer is made for...

Once again, stick with the repositories in Ubuntu. If you want to do things for yourself use a distro like slackware.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Motoman on 7/6/2009 12:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
In *our* day, DOS was what we had. Use it, or don't use a computer.

Try teaching a 10-year old now how to set up a batch file with DOS commands. Let's see how long that holds their attention when they have Windows instead.

For the record, I've never had any issues setting up network printers in Windows. I've also never had any success on the occasions where I try to use Linux on an extra box just for giggles, which I do every couple of years. It's not usable by the vast majority of everyone on the planet, period.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Jellodyne on 7/6/2009 3:12:05 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, all we had was 16 bits and WE LOVED IT. We used to hand code our config files, uphill both ways in edlin, see. Then you kids come along with yer fancy 32 bit OS holding your hands, and with your fancy Flash plugins and your fancy Internets.

Get off my lawn!


By Sazar on 7/6/2009 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
I used an abacus.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By 67STANG on 7/6/2009 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Try teaching most 20-somethings in I.T. anything in DOS for that matter.

My company had to use me to migrate from SharePoint 2003 to SharePoint 2007 because it takes extensive DOS commands (stsadm.exe FTW). The two I.T. people in the company barely knew how to open a command prompt. Pathetic.


By stromgald30 on 7/6/2009 6:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! I'm 20-something and I setup up two new SharePoint 2007 Servers just last year with plenty of stsadm.exe usage to migrate large chunks of data. Not all of us are afraid of the command prompt. In fact, I probably use it about twice a week on average for various reasons.

You just have to either find people who were willing to learn (like me) or are hardcore CS majors / computer geeks (like many other 20-somethings I know that regularly use the command prompt).

The problem is that IT has become so commonplace and because many of the tasks are fairly menial that you get a lot of sub-standard workers. I always hate going to my company's IT dept. for help. I think about 95% of them know less than me about computers and networking.


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By ClownPuncher on 7/6/2009 7:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Alot of late 20's-early 30's people grew up in DOS. Now we get our fix with DOS emulators!


By PhoenixKnight on 7/6/2009 11:16:22 PM , Rating: 3
There were some damn good DOS games out there that are still fun to this day. In fact, I was just playing Fantasy General a few hours ago in Dosbox.


By MrPoletski on 7/7/2009 9:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
DOSBOX FTW!!

plus I often end up just using the command prompt so I don't have to deal with so much clicking through areas.

typing winkey+r 'cmd' -> enter then

cd \program files\steam\steamapps\common\left4dead\l4d
type config.cfg

can be a lot quicker than farting around through multiple windows finding where that directory that you need is in a list of 500 four times over. Possibly being forced to change the view type or sort mode and such.

I can also do things like FC a.txt b.txt and do a binary file compare in a few seconds. How do I do that in windows?


RE: Huh? We've had 64-bit Firefox for ages
By Quinton McLeod on 7/6/2009 8:38:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In *our* day, DOS was what we had. Use it, or don't use a computer. Try teaching a 10-year old now how to set up a batch file with DOS commands. Let's see how long that holds their attention when they have Windows instead. For the record, I've never had any issues setting up network printers in Windows. I've also never had any success on the occasions where I try to use Linux on an extra box just for giggles, which I do every couple of years. It's not usable by the vast majority of everyone on the planet, period.


Really? By the majority of the planet? I heard that most of Hollywood uses Linux almost exclusively; especially for CG effects. I know Pixar and Dreamworks use Linux heavily. Renderman (a widely used CG program created by Pixar and used by many Hollywood studios) is widely used on Linux render-farms.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/pixars_rendering_so...

Also, many servers on the Internet run either Linux or Unix by an overwhelming majority.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/04/06/april...

Lastly, Linux is heavily used on Super Computers. As a matter of fact, it's used on the majority of all Super Computers.

http://www.top500.org/lists

So, by majority of the planet, do you really mean the majority of desktop users? I'm thinking that's what you were aiming for.


By Motoman on 7/7/2009 1:36:42 AM , Rating: 1
Go ahead and lump in every single web server, super computer, and CG render farm. Still doesn't make a dent. Here's your sign.


By ClownPuncher on 7/6/2009 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Set up the PS or PCL drivers on the server with Windows, why would you need to use installers or bloatware?


By meepstone on 7/11/2009 7:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be honest, setting up network printers is easier in Linux than Windows.


Because pressing my mouse button like 8 times is really hard in windows?


By VooDooAddict on 7/13/2009 3:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To be honest, setting up network printers is easier in Linux than Windows. Mostly because the printers come with complex shit Windows applications/installers that just get in the way and never work quite correctly.


You can also install network printers in windows without using the sad install apps provided by print manufacturers.


64-bit Flash
By AlexWade on 7/6/2009 10:37:02 AM , Rating: 5
Hello Adobe! Where is my 64-bit Flash!




RE: 64-bit Flash
By Motoman on 7/6/2009 10:39:59 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. 64-bit IE is close to useless because all the bits you want to go with it, like Flash, don't exist yet. It can't be used.

So Mozilla, Opera, Google...no hurry with that 64-bit browser. Seems like there aren't many sites that *don't* have flash content these days...


RE: 64-bit Flash
By kattanna on 7/6/2009 10:51:21 AM , Rating: 3
while i applaud them for moving to 64bit apps, without the plug ins that make the browser what it is, its a moot point.


RE: 64-bit Flash
By osalcido on 7/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: 64-bit Flash
By Motoman on 7/6/2009 11:22:24 AM , Rating: 3
...what? I made no such distinction. 3rd party developers, in this case Adobe, aren't making the plugins period. How did you come up with your statement based on mine?


RE: 64-bit Flash
By 16nm on 7/6/2009 3:47:20 PM , Rating: 3
Wait a second. Would no flash be a good thing or a bad?


RE: 64-bit Flash
By mmntech on 7/6/2009 10:49:26 AM , Rating: 3
Why, Adobe can make Flash run on any system you want! ... provided it's 32-bit Windows. How long has 64-bit IE been out now? Granted most web content won't ever use more than 4gb of RAM in the foreseeable future but with all computers moving towards 64-bit anyway, it just makes sense.


RE: 64-bit Flash
By chick0n on 7/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: 64-bit Flash
By 67STANG on 7/6/2009 3:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
Funny you say that, because I've used CS since it came out and it's much more solid than their previous versions, IMHO. CS4 does take some getting used to, however... but at least they have 64-bit Photoshop, which loves my 8GB of RAM.


RE: 64-bit Flash
By chick0n on 7/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: 64-bit Flash
By axias41 on 7/6/2009 10:54:22 AM , Rating: 3
One of the reasons for not using Flash for just build a web site, you become too Adobe dependent


RE: 64-bit Flash
By defter on 7/6/2009 11:59:27 AM , Rating: 1
Where is my girl ?
By greylica on 7/6/2009 10:14:38 AM , Rating: 5
Where is the photo of the girl starring 64 bit firefox ?




RE: Where is my girl ?
By Goty on 7/6/2009 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
64-bit "bits", anyone?


RE: Where is my girl ?
By xsilver on 7/6/2009 11:29:14 AM , Rating: 2
Its the same pic - just comes a little bit faster...


RE: Where is my girl ?
By Motoman on 7/6/2009 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 4
...and therefore so do you.


64-Bit Mozilla on XP x64 and Vista x64 for years..
By kirbalo on 7/6/2009 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
This is not new news for Windows either...

Been using various beta builds of Mozilla, called "Minefield".

Other than the "FLASH" issue with x64, it's been very reliable.

http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download




By Magnus909 on 7/6/2009 12:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
(No plug in support)+(No Adobe Flash)=Useless!

They must decide to switch permanently, otherwise there will be two paths, where the 64-bit one probably will trail the more popular 32 bit one. And before Flash doesn't work in the windows version of FF64,it is absolutely useless. Maybe in 3-4 years, or how long it takes for the next 64-bit only windows to arrive.
The only thing that will force 64 bit apps to be the default preference is making the OS in itself 64 bit only!


By rudy on 7/6/2009 3:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree it is getting old, Windows Vista should have been 64 bit only since they were making driver breaking changes anyway. All companies should only continue development for 64 bit builds so that feet draggers like adobe are forced to get moving.


Why, who cares?
By Oregonian2 on 7/6/2009 6:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
After reading the article, I don't see any improvement in my use of Firefox (which I'm using now) that I'd have using a 64-bit version. Off hand it doesn't seem like something that would benefit (from a user's point of view) by going to 64-bit.

There are some generic comments that I read to mean that some artificial situation might save me a few milliseconds twice a year, but I not being the nerd that I used to be, am willing not to care about that or even the pride of being "ahead" with 64-bits vs a measly 32-bits.

What real practical and significant (don't save me a few ms in loading of this page, I don't care) difference would it make to me if I were typing this in a 64-bit version rather than 32 bit version?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I really don't see how it would make any user (like me) noticeable difference.




RE: Why, who cares?
By Lerianis on 7/22/2009 11:28:42 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, but there is a difference in speed with 32-bit compared to 64-bit, with 64-bit having a sizeable edge. I have a lot of 64-bit applications now, and they run faster than their 32-bit counterparts.


Misleading graph?
By Dribble on 7/6/2009 12:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
From what I can tell they compare 3.0 32 bit with 3.1 64 bit. Why not compare 3.1 32 bit with 3.1 64 bit?

iirc 3.1 became 3.5 (as someone deemed it a bigger update then the .1 indicated). Hence they are comparing 32 bit without all the latest performance enhancements to 64 bit with them?




Yes!
By Chiisuchianu on 7/6/2009 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Great news! I love using 64bit apps and I love when people support 64bit. Help the transition to modern computing chug along!




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki