Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: The One Thing Next-Gen Consoles Could Really Learn From The PC
It appears Mozilla has quietly toe-tagged 64-bit builds of its Firefox browser for Windows. In a Google Groups discussion, managing engineer Benjamin Smedberg requested coders halt development on nightly builds of its 64-bit Windows distribution.
Mozilla's reasons to end 64-bit flavors of Firefox are numerous: limited plug-in availability, more frequent hang-ups and performance issues, stability problems due in part to a niche user/developer base, difficulty distinguishing between 32-bit and 64-bit bug reports and a general feeling that 64-bit users are second-class.
There was a five-day lapse between the question's proposal and the subsequent confirmation which affirmed the demise of Firefox's more futuristic alter ego. During this time, thread participants issued a number of mixed replies both for and against the decision.
One user said, "I agree whole-heartedly about switching off Win64 Nightly builds - crash-stats are just the tip of the iceberg.", linking to this discussion which spells out some of the troubles developers and users have been experiencing with x64 builds. Another user suggested, "How about you fix the problems instead?" -- the assumption being if Mozilla focused on 64-bit development, those supposed issues would no longer be a reason for the organization to eviscerate the project.
Since Smedberg's proposal specifically called out Firefox builds for Windows, 64-bit development appears to be safe for other platforms, like Linux -- for now. If it were to be canned for Linux users though, a x64 build of Chromium seems like the best alternative for 64-bit purists.
It's interesting to note that although Firefox alternatives like Internet Explorer and Opera offer 64-bit browsers, Google Chrome remains exclusively 32-bit for Windows. By virtue of being 32-bit, Firefox is limited to 2GB of memory usage -- one of the benefits to being 64-bit is access to more physical RAM. Unlike Mozilla's browser, Chrome runs each tab as its own process. This trick allows Chrome to gracefully surpass the 2GB limit without having to be 64-bit.
User Comments: 29
Got something to say? Post a comment-
I think the competence of the coders is the problem with Firefox. They can't even get the 32 bit right. I have NEVER experienced a stable version and for the last 4 years they have not been able to fix a problem that causes ones computer to freeze if you try to access the menus. This has been a serious problem effecting thousands of users over many versions and patches, and they can't figure out a fix for it.
-
> MrAnderson said:
> We really need to just push everyone off 32 bit so that developers can focus on
> 1 code base. And the people that are actually using 64 bit and know it can have
> some peace. Microsoft should stop offering 32 bit Windows (We had XP, Vista, 7,
> now 8). 64 bit runs 32 bit code, and it will let all the driver manufacturers hurry up
> and support 64 bit since 32 will bite the dust... Geez... Are we there yet! No?!
> What's the hold up?!
Sure, are you planning to buy me all new machines, just so we don't offend your tender sensibilities?
-
"Sure, are you planning to buy me all new machines, just so we don't offend your tender sensibilities?"
No one owes you new hardware. For the same reason I don't come along and ask you to compensate me for the potential lost in my hardware because you won't upgrade.
You're free to use your old software, or try and run modern software on your old hardware, but don't complain when eventually software evolves requiring you to upgrade your machines.
Just as we moved from 8bit, and 16bit, were slowly moving from 32bit too. You'll eventually have to upgrade your hardware, it's inevitable.
No one one owes you anything, you either adapt or die.
-
> MrAnderson said:64-bit is an extension to 32-bit.
> We really need to just push everyone off 32 bit so that developers can focus on
> 1 code base. And the people that are actually using 64 bit and know it can have
> some peace. Microsoft should stop offering 32 bit Windows (We had XP, Vista, 7,
> now 8). 64 bit runs 32 bit code, and it will let all the driver manufacturers hurry up
> and support 64 bit since 32 will bite the dust... Geez... Are we there yet! No?!
> What's the hold up?!
Sure, are you planning to buy me all new machines, just so we don't offend your tender sensibilities?
Rephrasing means there is no way to strictly code for 64-bit, because the code for 32-bit will always be present.
Because the full x86 16-bit and 32-bit instruction sets remain implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] whereas existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may achieve performance improvements.Windows 32-bit has always included an emulator mode for 16-bit applications. Since the introduction to Windows 64-bit, the 16-bit emulation was sacrificed with the introduction of 32-bit emulation mode. It wasn't because 16-bit was no longer supported, it was because 16-bit was deemed no longer needed and removed. With this said I believe Microsoft will continue to support one emulation mode for backward compatibility.
It's not Microsoft's position to force software creator to support the newest OS bit release, it is our position as consumers. I feel as if I did my part when Windows 7 came out, by preordering Windows 7 64-bit upgrade. I have been patiently waiting for 64-bit software that has since been released as well as future releases. There is no reason to drop backward compatibility, especially when our hardware still fully supports 16-bit. With all this said; I do hope the next 128-bit architecture drops all this dead weight from the past, and moves forward without backward compatibility.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Microsoft backtracks: Drops daily check-ins, used games restrictions on Xbox One
-
Cookie-blocking browser plugin Ghostery feeds data to the ad industry
-
China reclaims world's fastest supercomputer title
-
Games get traded in because they are too short, Avalanche boss says
-
AT&T unleashes solar-powered phone chargers into New York parks
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.