Firefox at 64-bit: Do You Care?
Mozilla has begun collecting feedback on what appears to be a more serious approach to move Firefox for Windows from 32 to 64 bit.
Taking the step from 32-bit to 64-bit has been much more difficult than many had anticipated and has been in the workings for close to a decade - compare that to the relatively quick transition from 16-bit to 32-bit in the mid 1990s. Of course, there are hurdles that need to be overcome and the benefits of a 64-bit app are only now becoming much more mainstream with more vendors now motivated to think about a transition.
Mozilla's product manager, Asa Dotzler, just posted a somewhat careful question to the Firefox community and asked users what they would expect from a 64-bit version. The question by itself may be confusing as the perception of a technology may not be aligned with its potential. However, Dotzler's post indicates that very little research has been done on Mozilla's side to figure out what the opportunities of a 64-bit Firefox really are as he tells his blog readers that "any help is appreciated."
Of course, Mozilla has done some research and was out quite early with a 64-bit version of Firefox. Firefox 3.1 was the first 64-bit version of Firefox and was released in fall of 2008. "Released" is an overstatement as Windows Firefox 64-bit builds have never made it past the developer channel and are even today only offered via a nightly build download (now in version 8.0). Last week, Mozilla announced much more serious test builds of Windows 64-bit builds as it installed Windows 2008 servers "that can generate the 64-bit version of Mozilla Firefox."
So my questions to you would be: Do you care? Are you waiting for a 64-bit Firefox?
My general notion is that most of us don't as we haven't really run into any problems with 32-bit yet and the benefits of 64-bit are not that obvious. I may be wrong.
Obviously, caring for 64-bit (and caring more about it than just perceiving the greater number as a bragging right) still requires quite a bit of understanding for the technology. 64-bit hardware has been available since 2003 from AMD and since 2005 from Intel, indicating that you most likely run a PC that supports the basic feature set for running 64-bit software and can go beyond the physical memory limit of 4 GB in 32-bit systems. The main benefit of such software is that it can process data in larger chunks and can distribute more memory between the OS and applications.
For example, Windows XP (32-bit) had an addressable limit of 2 GB, while the 64-bit version offered 128 GB. Windows Vista 32-bit had a 4 GB limit, while the various 64-bit versions went from 8 to 128 GB. Windows 7 32-bit has the same 4 GB limit, but its 64-bit versions now support up to 8 (Basic), 16 (Premium), or 192 GB (Professional and up). Microsoft's Windows Server 2008 R2 goes up to 2 TB in Enterprise and datacenter editions. So, provided that you have more physical memory installed than those 4 GB, there is the potential of performance increases, especially if you tend to work with many tabs and memory intensive applications.
A problem area are also plug-ins and add-ons that are not available in 64-bit - which include Flash and Java. Adobe neglected Flash 64-bit for quite a while and just announced last week that there will be a renewed effort to take Flash to 64-bit with version 11. Vast areas of the 64-bit landscape appear to still be a chicken-and-egg scenario, especially as far as browsers are concerned at this time. Unless all components are in place, it is unlikely that many users will switch. Given the fact that Mozilla is just now pitching about a transition, I would think that it is not time for the user to be concerned yet.
According to Dotzler's post, 64-bit's main problems appear to be the general education problem on what 64-bit really is, plug-in availability and the general memory footprint of Firefox 64-bit, which is higher than the footprint of the 32-bit version. Dotzler does not consider these issues as deal-breakers, and also hints that performance increases and better security features may be possible. He noted that he wants to have all the pros and cons figured out this summer or fall, which put a Firefox 64 into the early 2012 time frame?
- Some iPhone 4 Users Think They Already Have 4G
- HTC Tells Apple to Compete and Stop Complaining
- Ultraviolet Format Close to Commercial Release
- Bullet Shaped Camera Makes Movies, Not War
- Child-Powered School Bus Could Prevent Obesity
- Apple's iCloud Could Dent Flash Demand
- Lawsuit Says Granny Snagged Porn via BitTorrent
- Google Android Now on 135 Million Devices
- Lamborghini Murcielago Meets Star Wars
- The Safest Browser Against Malware? IE9
- Facebook Bans Google+ Advertisement
- 'My Friend's Been Hacked' Tool Added to Hotmail
- Mozilla Pitches BrowserID to Solve Password Mess
- Gameloft Pushing Staff into 120-hr Work Weeks?
- Rumor: Apple to Sell Contract-Free $350 iPhone
- Microsoft Offering $250K for Rustock Botnet Info
- EOL Robot Band Rocks Out to Marilyn Manson
- USB-Powered Necktie Clip Keeps You Cool
- Google+'s Female Membership is Growing Fast
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...
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.
will there be any speed improvement of 64 bit over 32 bit?
probably not, for the "average" user who opens 150 media rich tabs at once.
Aren't there more 64 bit registers on x86 hardware than GP 32-bit registers? Is there not some small performance gain there? I know the code gets broken up into microcode anyway, but I thought there was some small performance gain in just going to 64-bits due to the AMD64/EMT64 architecture.
well, with Flash sucking so much RAM, especially when streaming videos and also when u have loads of tabs on the browser, 64 bit should help, considering i've personally had my FF use like 1GB of RAM.......
dont remember how many tabs was that though
I think that most people today don't care about the technology used in a product, they care about the benefit of that technology. If one browser is faster than another, they don't care if it is because one browser uses 1024 bit addressing or if it has a built in Continuum Transfunctioner.
It is about what the technology does.
well, with Flash sucking so much RAM, especially when streaming videos and also when u have loads of tabs on the browser, 64 bit should help, considering i've personally had my FF use like 1GB of RAM....... dont remember how many tabs was that though
Usually I am upwards 1.5 - 2GB RAM with all my tabs in FF open(around 20)... and I got other programs open at the same time. I want the 64bit!!
64 bit Fox? I want! Even if there's no improvement over 32-bit... this is my support for phasing out 32-bit! =)
I think that most people today don't care about the technology used in a product, they care about the benefit of that technology. If one browser is faster than another, they don't care if it is because one browser uses 1024 bit addressing or if it has a built in Continuum Transfunctioner. It is about what the technology does.
Agreed. If I didn't feel like I was being held back by having my memory addressing limited, I wouldn't care if it was 16bit. But I think there is, at least until phase change IsoLinear hard drives come out, a tangible performance benefit to hard core web surfers in x64.
Ironically, I think low powered devices, ala the iPad, is going to be the catalyst for finally getting the ball rolling on x64. Adobe has realized that if they don't at least dominate the desktop space, Apple will steamroll them in the mobile space. They need to fully support flash so that it does not fall out of favor with desktop users looking to switch to Silverlight and HTML5...
In fact, one of the only things keeping a lot of users from switching to Linux right now is lack of web support, particularly in 64-bit, and certain plugins like Silverlight... I almost got someone to switch from Windows XP to ubuntu, but because they couldn't run Netflix, it was a no-go...
I doubt it'll yield noticeable performance improvements so to be honest, no, I don't care...
I've been waiting for this a long time. Also, Java has had 64 bit version for many, many years. Toms gets it wrong again. What has happened to your fact checking department?
It scares me to think that FF actually "needs" to give support for 64 bits... At first glance, it means that it will be able to use more memory than it does now and to use 64bit stuff (plug ins). there's no real benefit, besides memory, in terms of web browsing from 32bits to 64bits, so...
Cheers!
Gimme a noticeable improvements with hassle free add-on compatibility, and I'm a buyer, otherwise do not bother, the 32 build is doing just fine.
P.S. my faith in x64 benefits is fading out.
I have used Opera for 10 years, if Firefox where to go 64-bit i would change browser, I dont think a 64-bit is a needed change at the moment, but the conversion to 64-bit software is way too slow, i think that 64-bit windows may improve if the 32-bit emulator could be removed from windows.
No, I don't care. I don't even care for the 32 bit version.
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.
Get BlazingFast build of firefox 5.0 (exact same source, just compiled for x64),
load flash 11 beta 64bit, install 64bit java and there you go
I am using it just for fun of it on one machines and it works as it should.
Other users may found interesting other 32 bit firefox builds, that are compiled more efficently.
(i.e. support only newest processors, and work much faster than released version of firefox)
YES!! I do care.
I care not because of the performance increase which I believe will be minimal at this point, but because 64bit computing has been around for years now and the only thing holding back development. I run a 64 bit O.S. and I think it's important that software be able to take advantage of the hardware. I think all future operating systems should be 64bit, and software developers should keep up. With the current speed and capacities of current SSD's coming out I can see a day coming soon where ssd's are just as fast as ram and people will have a need for a 128bit O.S., and I think that day will come sooner then people think, and all the developers stuck in 32bit era will be left behind.. Just an opinion though.
There will never be a need for 64-bit software until developers start making high-demand/high-resource applications that are impossible to make in a 32-bit environment.
There is nothing out now that you can't just code for in a 32-bit environment and get similar, if not better results.
AMD and Intel have gone through several generations of 64-bit CPUs and they still do not get the workload that they are capable of due to businesses settling for the bigger and safer installed base of 32-bit OSs with 64-bit compatibility.
The term "64-bit" sells more Hardware than Software. That's the problem in a nutshell.
Nobody wants to spend the time making 64-bit software exclusively because they can do the same exact stuff in 32-bits. There is no obvious advantage. There are no side-by-side, real world comparisons that makes 32-bit software look inferior or obsolete.
Until developers REALLY show off the advantages of a 64-bit environment, nobody will ever really care.
Consumers will buy the hardware to "make sure" they can handle the 64-bit stuff, but the developers are afraid the make stuff that won't run in a 32-bit environment.
Blame the developers for being short-sighted and uninspired to progress beyond 32-bit aggressively.
Most computer users nowadays aren't even intelligent enough to realized WHY a computer is slowing down while they are browsing. It's because they have multiple applications open (or tabs, windows) and the system is running out of useable memory per the application because it's 32-bit. A 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications/browsers will fix this problem. Software developers need to get with the program and go 64-bit only.
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.
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.
Yea, that 100 fold facting doesnt slows given in terms at times 4Gbs able to say do 32 awesome bicycle.
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.
I'd use firefox but cant get around the flash video stutter.
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.
I'll use Mozilla when it's 256-bit.
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.
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?
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/ [...] player11/. 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.
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.
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.