Firefox at 64-bit: Do You Care?

[cookoy]

64-bit is the future. we need to go with the tide or be left behind. just ask those that stick with their 16-bit apps where 32-bit OSes started to become the norm.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]k-zon[/nom]Yea, but doesnt after awhile, increasing memory slows down performance? And for the a double increase their is like a 100 fold factor almost at times it seems for memory, if not at least 10 fold facting, on the idea of double bit. Especially given in terms of windows, that 32 gave more warrant too say to just 2Gbs. Some say 4Gbs though at times, but still.But of it though to be able to say do more maybe for what more is in terms of bit-rates, then awesome i guess.[/citation]
Yea, that 100 fold facting doesnt slows given in terms at times 4Gbs able to say do 32 awesome bicycle.

 

[cadder]

At this time the 64bit OS has more downsides than benefits, so the average user is better off with the 32bit OS. In our office we have had to supply 64bit OS machines to some employees but in some cases we have had to let them retain another computer running 32bit OS. The 64 bit OS would not run all of the programs that they needed to run.

 

[Hellbound]

I'd use firefox but cant get around the flash video stutter.

 

[whooleo]

I have been using the nightly x64 builds of firefox for the past year or more now,
and i have been using the 64bit build of flash 10 since it came out over a year now with it and 64bit build of java with no problems.

The main improvements i have noticed is that 64bit flash and java applications are far more responsive, especially flash applications with full screen vector graphics.

Same here. That and improved page loading times and responsiveness.

 

[applegetsmelaid]

I'll use Mozilla when it's 256-bit.

 

[eddieroolz]

I do care. If Mozilla is serious about upholding their philosophy that they have based themselves on, then they need to show that they can move to x64.

Unfortunately, a proprietary software giant that Mozilla has had its sights on have managed this transition faster and almost painlessly while Mozilla struggles to get an x64 built to even be stable.

 

[jn77]

I am phasing out 32bit and this has been a sore point in that process. They should have a beta for 128bit runing on itaniums now.... what is the hold up?

 

[Guest]

I downloaded 64-bit firefox a few years ago. I found that it was more responsive than firefox 3.0 in javascript heavy pages (astroempires).There's been a 64-bit version of flash for a while: square http://192.150.16.72/technologies/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11/. Basically this article has not been well researched.

Is there a big difference? I don't know, probably not, but I'm not a developer, or a reviewer. That's your job.

 

[Guest]

Netherscourge you must be living under a rock, or in a basement. In the professional and research world, there is plenty of 64-bit software that is necessary to get the job done. 32-bit will not suffice.

 

[mitch074]

uilds of Firefox have been available since before Firefox was Firefox - as a matter of fact, the Mozilla suite was available as a 64-bit compiled binary on Alpha chips and more running X11 window servers - such as, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux etc.

The first 64-bit optimized Firefox version however was version 3.0, following the general cleanup done in the "reflow" branch that resulted in Firefox 3.0 using Cairo as a rendering layer.

Since 2003, a nice little plugin named nspluginwrapper allows 64-bit users to run 32-bit plugins in 64-bit Firefox: using a very specialized and tweaked fork of Wine, it is perfectly possible ever since Firefox 1.5 to run 32-bit Flash and 32-bit Adobe Reader plugins in 64-bit Firefox. Stability isn't really great, but with the fall of Adobe Reader, Java 1.6's 64-bit browser plugin and the Square test builds of Flash, running a fully 64-bit Firefox is possible in Linux.

Another small advantage that appeared in Firefox 3.0 was the ability to make use of basic hardware accceleration through XRENDER; ever since Firefox 3.0, Linux users were able to enjoy hardware-accelerated (granted, not as accelerated as Firefox 5.0 on Windows currently is, but still), fully 64-bit browsing.

And compared to the same install on 32-bit Windows, it really could scream.

 

[JamesSneed]

I never get close to 4GB of used memory in Firefox so it doesn't matter to me. To be honest I'm fine with most applications running as 32bit on my Windows 7 64bit OS. Very few things I run I care to have 64bit, if they are fine but if not it doesn't matter.

 

[belltollsforthee]

OH MAN, there is 64 bit firefox already out?!?! I dont care if its in beta, goodbye chrome!

@mauller07 and @Whooleo
and i'm glad to hear some of guys trying it out for a while now without problems, just finish trying it out along with 64bit java and flash, thanks guys

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]The lack of x64 flash was the main reason to stay away for a long time. But now that Adobe has released this, I want x64. Most of my systems are A) Windows 7 x64. and B) Have 8+ GB of RAM, while C) I like to have lots of tabs opened, so I actually need that extra memory real estate.RAM is cheap these days. 16 GB of DDR3 will set you back maybe 120 dollars. It is time to get our web browsers up to speed...[/citation]

i run xp, 3gb ram, firefox is open, and it has about 500 tabs, right now its footprint is 1gb easily, and is hanging almost constantly, so im writing this in opera, which has, about 70 tabs open.

if going from 32bit to 64bit would help with the program hanging when i open a metric f***ton of tabs, i may consider windows 7.

 

[bv90andy]

well, since they announced that they will reduce the memory footprint, I don't. 😉

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i run xp, 3gb ram, firefox is open, and it has about 500 tabs, right now its footprint is 1gb easily, and is hanging almost constantly, so im writing this in opera, which has, about 70 tabs open.if going from 32bit to 64bit would help with the program hanging when i open a metric f***ton of tabs, i may consider windows 7.[/citation]

i don't think the devs do not take into account the crazy users who have thousands of tabs open like you into account

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]belltollsforthee[/nom]OH MAN, there is 64 bit firefox already out?!?! I dont care if its in beta, goodbye chrome!@mauller07 and @Whooleoand i'm glad to hear some of guys trying it out for a while now without problems, just finish trying it out along with 64bit java and flash, thanks guys[/citation]

its been out for years just google minefield

 

[njt]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Yea, that 100 fold facting doesnt slows given in terms at times 4Gbs able to say do 32 awesome bicycle.[/citation]

i don't want to sound aggressive, but what the hell are you two talking about? it's like you're using a different language, i don't understand absolutely *anything* in any of the sentences you two wrote

 

[njt]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i run xp, 3gb ram, firefox is open, and it has about 500 tabs, right now its footprint is 1gb easily, and is hanging almost constantly, so im writing this in opera, which has, about 70 tabs open.if going from 32bit to 64bit would help with the program hanging when i open a metric f***ton of tabs, i may consider windows 7.[/citation]

look, i think the problem there is the number of tabs open, not the browser/os bitness. unless you meant 50 tabs and slipped an extra 0, you need to start using bookmarks instead.

 

[alidan]

no i have 8 windows open with about 400-500 tabs, though i have had 800 open in the passed.

and its mostly lazyness. i open a tab to read, or to get something, and leave it for later. than i have to open more tabs, and i procrastinate further.

it seams that on xp, once firefox passes 1000mb line, the stability of the browser goes out the window.

so you know i block almost all adds and flash, so that s*** isnt taking up anything. its mostly info and images that are.