Firefox Is Going 64-Bit: What You Need To Know 364
An anonymous reader writes "Firefox product manager Asa Dotzler determined that figuring out the 64-bit confusion surrounding Firefox it will be 'near the top' of his to-do list this summer and fall. One could conclude that Mozilla has no idea at this point what people are expecting from a 64-bit version of Firefox, so Dotzler is asking for some feedback. More speed? More security? What about plug-in availability? All of the above, please."
If Mozilla has no idea what to expect (Score:2)
Memory! (Score:5, Funny)
Then why make a 64 bit version at all? If the company has no idea what people expect, then they don't need to be messing with it in first place.
Hurray! With 64 bits, Firefox might be able to address all the memory it uses...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hurray! With 64 bits, Firefox might be able to address all the memory it uses...
Firefox and the OS will still need ZFS' 128 bit filesystem for the swap space.
Re:Memory! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A vanilla install of firefox doesn't seem that bad - but once you add a handful of addons, things do get leaky as hell.
Would that be Mozillas fault, or the addon writers?
Re: (Score:3)
*snip*
Don't blame the people that wrote SQLite.
Indeed, don't - blame Mozilla for not using SQLite correctly.
Using SQLite for history and bookmarks isn't such a bad idea, imho - by itself, SQLite is pretty damn light-weight (to the point where SQLite authors recommends to use it as a replacement for ad-hoc file storage). The problem with FireFox is it does things wrong - writes data too often, and writes it from the GUI thread and thus blocking the GUI. But having history and bookmarks in SQLite means you can do some pretty fast searches in it - mi
Re:If Mozilla has no idea what to expect (Score:5, Insightful)
What confuses me is why they would be framing an address-length change in terms of additional features. With the specific exception of applications where the implementation of certain features requires easy access to gigantic slabs of memory, there isn't a whole lot of connection between 64-bitness and the feature list.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking the same thing, so I looked into it a bit (no pun intended). Apparently "true" 64-bit processing uses a more modern instruction set on the CPU, so I suppose there are additional performance and security benefits to using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently "true" 64-bit processing uses a more modern instruction set on the CPU, so I suppose there are additional performance and security benefits to using it.
x86_64 has more registers than x86 (i386, 32 bit) so that can give a significant performance increase in some situations. (Note that this is not directly related to being 64 bit vs 32 bit -- it's simply having more registers with the more modern instruction set, as you put it.) Being able to do operations 64 bits at once rather than 32 bits at once speeds things up as well if the program is written to use it (and of course, this IS all about 64 bit vs 32 bit.) On the down side, pointers are larger and s
Re: (Score:3)
I've got the same thing 64bit Firefox running for ages, I even have flash 64bit so what is this news story about again?
Re: (Score:3)
Compatibility with 32-bit plugins seems like a good idea. Then they can switch to 64-bit browser without causing users hassle. For instance, they already run Flash in a separate surrogate process, so with the right interface, it shouldn't matter whether the Flash plug-in is 32 or 64 bit. And yes, I've taken this approach on Windows via COM/DCOM to make unportable 32 bit DLLs available to 64 bit applications. Can XPCOM or whatever Mozilla uses handle this kind of thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If Mozilla has no idea what to expect (Score:4, Informative)
At the moment, 64-bit FireFox will only run 64-bit plugins (As I know, running Windows FireFox Nightly 7.0a1 x64 as my default desktop browser, And there are 64-bit plugins on Windows for Java and Flash). They're working on it, though. [mozilla.org]
And most of the memory leaks are being caused by poorly-written or resource intensive plugins (Like FireBug), and they're working on that, too. "about:memory" in nightly builds now lists a complete tree of what's using the allocated memory, and more reporters are being introduced all the time.
Re:If Mozilla has no idea what to expect (Score:5, Funny)
Then why make a 64 bit version at all?
Maybe they need an excuse to change the version to 6.4?
Re:If Mozilla has no idea what to expect (Score:5, Funny)
The truth is the probably have integrated the version number as an integer all over the place, and they are desperate to switch to 64 bit before the version number hits the 32 bit integer limit later in the year.
64bit: NOT new, just Win getting parity w/linx+Mac (Score:3)
Cuz 32-bit version runs out of memory when you have it open for several days and 100's of windows/tabs?
Cuz, the 32-bit version doesn't work well on 64-bits because it isn't aligned right and suffers terrible performance penalties?
(during a bogdown today, where it had it's cpu 'peg'ed...(why the windows threading model doesn't support multiple cpu's is ... well, linux really lucked out in choosing their 1thread/proc model)
Here's the stack trace:
0) ntoskrnl.exe!memset+0x64b
1) ntoskrnl.exe!KeWaitForMultipleObj
64-bit is a misfeature (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps if they instead focused on fixing the memory leaks, pushing out 64-bit builds wouldn't be so pressing an issue?
Re:64-bit is a misfeature (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What does it mean when you say something is "32-bit clean"?
Re: (Score:2)
I cant speak for the op, but I have not heard that term in a while ... in a nutshell you can take your 16/18/24 bit app (depending on what it was running on) and shoehorn it into 32 bit space if you had a bitchy OS/System that could not deal with it
though the last time anyone had a real issue with it was in the early 90's as mac's have been 32 bit since the (very) late 80's and MS finally went (full)32 bit with windows 95
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you used an 18-bit application?
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the PDP's were 36-bit and I think 18-bit as a half-sized version wasn't uncommon either. This would be back in the 70s and before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Other than some random Linux distro, name an OS that has 'stopped shipping 32bit libraries' by default.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a 64 bit version will all FF to take advantage of more than 4 GB of memory.
Fixing leaks is a waste of effort on mozilla's part. If you had a boat with leaks would you waste time, effort and money to fix it? No. Just get a bigger hull.
Re: (Score:3)
Why get a bigger hull? Just call it "Submarine 5.0" and you're done.
Its About Compatibility (Re:64-bit is a ...) (Score:3)
Releasing a 64-bit install is about compatibility in the environment. But an implication by the parent is that Mozilla can't work on increasing compatibility and fix bugs at the same time. These two things aren't related at all where we should welcome things like this.
Or another way to think about it: We should applaud Mozilla for releasing the 64-bit installer and continue to complain about the bugs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
agreed heck even now with just this 1 page open its sucking down durn near 60 megs, which is quite impressive considering this same page on my mac + linux ppc + a stripped down bare bones gecko browser is only taking 11 megs
Re: (Score:2)
After playing with FF4 for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed Chrome. Chrome still needs a few features, but all in all, it outperforms FireFox hands down.
After playing with Chrome for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed FF5. FF5 has all the features I need and many of those are implemented far better than Chrome, but all in all, it outperforms Chrome hands down.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After playing with FF4 for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed Chrome. Chrome still needs a few features, but all in all, it outperforms FireFox hands down.
After playing with Chrome for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed FF5. FF5 has all the features I need and many of those are implemented far better than Chrome, but all in all, it outperforms Chrome hands down.
Fixed that for you.
Me too, me too!
After playing with FF5 for a couple weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed lynx. Lynx has all the features I need and many of those are implemented far better than Chrome, but all in all, it outperforms FF5 hands down.
Re: (Score:3)
Then try links. That includes JS support.
Re: (Score:2)
After playing with FF4 for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed Chrome. Chrome still needs a few features, but all in all, it outperforms FireFox hands down.
After playing with Chrome for a couple of weeks, I finally grew tired of it and installed FF5. FF5 has all the features I need and many of those are implemented far better than Chrome, but all in all, it outperforms Chrome hands down.
Fixed that for you.
The Browser wars have started (again) and MIcrosoft deosn't even have a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
What memory leak are you talking about ? I have it open for days and it never consume more than 250 000Kbyte. What are the add-on you were using ?
Oh great. (Score:5, Funny)
Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought I had been running a 64bit Firefox for years. So I wasn't? Or is this about finally doing a 64-bit Windows build? Probably since Moz Corp is entirely focused on Windows and treats Linux as a red headed stepchild.
Re: (Score:3)
>I thought I had been running a 64bit Firefox for years.
I know I have. First third party SeaMonkey builds, then the SeaMonkey Nightlies got 64 bit options, and I went to that.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought I had been running a 64bit Firefox for years. So I wasn't? Or is this about finally doing a 64-bit Windows build? Probably since Moz Corp is entirely focused on Windows and treats Linux as a red headed stepchild.
I am a Firefox dev and a Linux user. Mozilla is definitely not focused on Windows, in fact many of us devs use Linux (I am posting from Ubuntu right now), and many of the rest use OS X. Windows is in the minority.
There are 64-bit builds available from our build system, but we don't promote them. The reason is that we don't spend as much effort on QAing 64-bit builds, we have limited resources and are focused on the standard (32-bit) builds for the most part.
There are some good reasons for 64-bit browsers, for sure, but AFAIK none of the major browsers make that a priority. For example, there is a 64-bit IE9, however it ships with a hobbled JavaScript engine (without JITs), so clearly they don't intend it very seriously.
In any case, given that Firefox is open source, anyone can build a 64-bit version. I believe several Linux distros ship a 64-bit Firefox, for example. There used to be some problems with running 32-bit Flash in it, but I have heard that is workable now too.
Re: (Score:3)
It has some issues but for the majority it works.
Can you point to such a Firefox 64bit build?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you point to such a Firefox 64bit build?
Sure, Mozilla's ftp server has them here [mozilla.org] (the ones with x86_64). Those are for FF8 (Nightly build).
Re: (Score:2)
If I view the process in Activity Monitor on OSX it says Firefox is 64-bit anyway.
So I don't understand what they are announcing?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure? Linux got 64bit binaries before Windows. Sounds like 64-bit Windows is the stepchild to me.
OP is probably referring to how measurably slow Firefox is on Linux (and Mac OS X) compared to Windows, the assumption being that Mozilla cares less about Firefox on less popular platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, despite being largely neglected, both Mozilla and FF are better on Linux than Windows.
Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! (Score:2)
and justifiably so...Linux is still considered the cheapskate OS.
Development of FF for Linux takes resources. There are only 3,000 Linux Firefox users out there when, every year, FF Windows browser crashes affect over 40,000 people. They should drop Linux support and instead focus their development on the Windows version, a lot more people would be saved!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's just what your mom told your dad the night you were conceived.
Re: (Score:2)
Fwoosh!
Duh, we have had 64bit Firefox on Linux for years, it was stable enough to ship standard in RHEL3's 64 bit editions, yea that long ago. Of course I don't think Moz Corp actually had a lot to do with that, and the nspluginwrapper that made it practical to actually use came from a random outside source. So no, I didn't need to click through before letting the snark and sarcasm flow freely. Bah, Windows is pathetically behind the 64 bit curve. Remember the several years of new PCs shipping with 3GB
What? (Score:2)
The OS X version is 64 bit already. At least, I can choose whether to launch it in 32- or 64-bit mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then: there's a release already out that has the exact issues that TFA is asking feedback about.
64 bit works since forever (Score:3)
What's the problem with 64 bits? Firefox worked just fine with it for years. Unless you're using a doorstop machine or a doorstop OS, even having 32 bit libraries is a waste of disk space. Heck, even phones start having 2GB ram, suggesting ARM will need to transition soon. MIPS (Longsoon) is already there.
When project electrolysis finally lands on Firefox trunk, the only current benefit of 64 bits will be gone, but that's still not a reason to have a complete set of 32 bit libraries in memory (or even on disk).
Limits of 32 bits are annoying. For example, gcc-4.6 can partition flto compilation but it still needs to load everything into the memory. It'd be a huge waste of programming time to implement your own swapping if the OS is perfectly capable of doing that. If the address space is big enough, that is. You currently cannot compile Firefox with flto on a 32 bit machine at all, and it gives a huge (~20%) boost on typical C++ code.
Thus, your precious 32 bit systems are a doorstop architecture that would be nice to get rid of.
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer is that there is no reason to move to 64-bits, and distros that drop the 32-bit libraries by default really shouldn't be doing so. This isn't like the move from 16-bit to 32 bit where most applications would benefit from the extras. In this case you end up using more memory whether or not you get any benefit from it and there's a ton of applications which just don't benefit from the extra bits.
Oddly enough, a browser really should be one of the things that stays at 32bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I install two distinct architectures instead of just one?
Heck, I see a reason to have amd64 and armel co-installed so you can easily cross compile and test things, but amd64 and i386? What for?
Re: (Score:2)
"Limits of 32 bits are annoying. For example, gcc-4.6 can partition flto compilation but it still needs to load everything into the memory"
Wtf are you compiling that you need more than 4GB of virtual memory? The whole of Windows 7?? Sounds like you're BSing to me.
History repeats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing. I don't remember any arguments at all when the shift was 8-bit to 16-bit. :)
Re: (Score:2)
8 bit consoles aren't really 8 bit, just 256 color. The Atari 2600 could access far more than 256 bytes of memory directly, so it wasn't really 8 bit either.
You're confusing the address bus with the data bus. When people say "8-bit", "16-bit", etc., they're referring to the data bus. The address bus usually has more pins. The original 8086 had a 20-pin address bus, which is why it could access 1 MiB of memory. In the case of "256-color", that's referring to a video mode, which (usually) has nothing to do with the CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
You yunguns! Ever heard of 8080, z-80, 6800 or 6502?
Unless you're being pedantic (e.g. these were called microcomputers and not PCs) there was life before 16-bit.
Re: (Score:3)
6502 and Z80 were both considered 8-bit processors, despite having 16-bit address spaces.
64bit Firefox - what you need to know (Score:2, Funny)
What? (Score:2)
This entire article makes no sense.
We simply want a version of Firefox that takes advantage of the additional resources our 64-bit machines have.
Sure there are probably specific optimizations you can do, but really the most important thing is simply to compile it to a 64-bit program instead of the x86 they use currently.
Can someone explain to me why anyone would think differently?
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction is that this is more about window dressing. There's a lot of people out there that assume that 64-bits are always better than 32-bits and that if I paid for a 64-bit processor I want to run everything possible in 64-bits.
Probably the only reason to ever create a 64-bit processor is for platforms that don't have the 32-bit libraries. But, you add a lot of overhead and for something like a web browser you don't really gain much if anything in terms of performance.
In the long run, I bet this will
Re: (Score:3)
What?
I do not normally like to contradict someone in a technical field such as this one unless I am a really big expert (but I have looked into 32 vs 64 bit quite a lot) in that field but I am pretty sure everything you have just said is complete crap.
64 bit has many many benefits above and beyond the obvious and very nice ability to use more RAM and execute bigger instructions.
But no I have seen no evidence nor heard anyone who seemed to know what they were saying say that it uses significantly more RAM.
If
How about not breaking add-ons? (Score:2)
I'm in the Firefox beta program, so they FORCE me to upgrade over and over and over again (really obnoxiously). And every single time, Firebug and Greasemonkey stop working. Problem is, I need Firebug, in particular, to do my job, so it's inconsiderate at the very least, a horrible way to treat your beta testers. And yet, much of my coding is in preparation for HTML5, so I need to use what's in the beta too.
So
Re: (Score:3)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nightly-tester-tools/ [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Jetpack is about, apparently they just hit the 1.0 release a while back, but I don't know how an end user would gain access to that as the only downloads I see are for SDK. On the plus side it looks like they'll be adding electrolysis support to it as one of the next steps.
Poor Summary (Score:2)
Old news for linux users? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/latest-5.0/linux-x86_64/en-US/
Then just unpack it (ie double-click on it) and redirect your current firefox launcher to the new "firefox" file (right click on the launcher, select "Properties", click the "Browse" button next to "Command" and point it at the file called "firefox" in the folder you unpacked). No coding required.
If you want flash, you can download the 64 bit linux version here:
h
they really needed that (Score:5, Funny)
they truly needed that, because soon enough they'll run out of 32 bit integers they use for version numbering.
64-bit FF-based Pale Moon (Score:2)
Pale Moon is already available for people to check out. It's Windows-only, but I've been running it for a while as a secondary browser at work, and it works pretty well, albeit with a few minor quirks.
Why Not (Score:2)
Fix the damn UI Hanging issues, get ASLR fully working along with DEP and full process isolation before adding stupid features and Don't forget multithread support working correctly.
I'd much rather they fix these issues while moving towards 64bits as these alone should improve the damn stability and security. Hell if a damn Add-On hangs or creates problems, I'd love to be able to kill the thread/process that's hung instead of shuting down the entire app.
Re:App idea that is directly related to this! (Score:5, Informative)
This loony quack is getting quite annoying. For the record, chiropractors are fraudsters, voodoo witch doctors in suits who take in the gullible. This particular bird has that extra pathetic aspect in that he seems to actually believe the bullcrap he spins to others.
You're a fraud pal, a vile repugnant fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
Chiropractors are fine for dealing with back pain, shitty posture and associated issues, what's bullshit are those who claim to be able to fix all kinds of unrelated ailments via chiropracty or those who claim that everything you do every day causes harm to your body that can only be fixed by chiropracty, such as the GP.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, chiropractors are fraudsters, voodoo witch doctors in suits who take in the gullible.
Now wait a minute, I know what you're getting at but I have one question: If someone throws out their back or hip or shoulder or something and goes to a chiro, and the guy who is trained in bones and muscles and stuff can put it back in place so the person is NOT in excruciating pain any more, how is THAT fraud?
Chiropractic CAN and DOES get more credit than it is due, there are quacks and scams for sure, but chiros in general can and do help people in certain circumstances. It isn't all crap.
I have seen
Re:App idea that is directly related to this! (Score:5, Informative)
It ain't bordering on slander, it's reporting the reality that you're a fraudsters, along with all the other vile fraudsters in your "profession".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't ya know that a carpenter is really a chiropractor? They just cure subluxations in trees!!
Funny note: Firefox says subluxations isn't spelled properly. So it must be made up.
Re:App idea that is directly related to this! (Score:4, Insightful)
I take exception to your post. I know plenty of people in the medical profession. Most of them are good, honest people, who have never once mislead me on any count. They're not taking backhanders from Big Pharma.
My father is currently a practising psychiatrist, who is also doing a significant amount of research into his favourite psychiatric technique, which revolves around a one-on-one therapy to treat the roots of the problems (typically traumatic experiences). It involves little to no drugs, because it doesn't treat problems merely as a chemical imbalance.
I also take exception because I know people practising alternative medicine, and not one of them is as moronic as your post makes you sound.
Re:App idea that is directly related to this! (Score:4, Insightful)
Chiropractic has done all of this and more. Don't just take my word for it, ask ANY Chiropractor and they will tell you the same thing. Look at Chiro videos on YouTube, they have lots of Thumbs Up from other Chiros.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a brand new research technique!! Forget about all that time-wasting and expensive business of double-blinded randomized trials, and the complex process of producing 'evidence', lets just put videos of untested treatments on Youtube and see how many thumbs up votes they get. We could combine this revolutionary technique with that other ideal indicator of treatment performance called 'Just asking people'. Why we've bothered with complex trials for all these years is a true mystery.
Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3)
That's bordering on slander.
Chiropractic has saved countless millions of lives without drugs and surgery. On the contrary, it's the Big Pharma controlled Medical system that are the frauds.
- Has an MD ever cured a subluxation? No.
Why would they cure a subluxion? The General Chiropractic Council, the UK's chiropractic regulatory agency run by chiropractors, states that subluxions have nothing to do with disease:
"The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease." [gcc-uk.org]
By law, in the UK you cannot make any of the claims you have posted above.
Forget about sla
Re:App idea that is directly related to this! (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a troll. Probably not one with an agenda, beyond provoking nerd rage. Consider:
1. He posts alt-med stuff on slashdot, a "news for nerds" site. There are only a few things more likely to provoke a flamewar than peddling quackery to rationalists. Perhaps he felt creationism or microsoft trolls would be too obvious?
2. He only ever posts about the one issue. He'll shoehorn chiropractic crap into any discussion. Including a story about a new version of an old browser. This is not the behaviour of a regular poster; even the genuine alt-med believers and conspiracy theorists post about other topics.
3. He hasn't quit, despite negative karma. Every post he makes spawns flamewars. A genuine idiot would feel unwelcome, give up and leave. A troll on the other hand, revels in the flamewars.
So, he's a troll. One here purely to start trouble. He's probably laughing at every idiot who feeds him by screaming "QUACK!"
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm actually a little bit torn. I have a friend who is a chiropractor, and he honestly believes in his trade. And I think most of them do... I mean, why would you go through all that training and certification if you thought it was quackery?
And they do see results. Why? Because the placebo effect is real. Sure, a chiropractor probably isn't actually accomplishing anything, but if the patient thinks they are, they might see their pain symptoms go away.
So, yeah, they can't claim to be doing anything that has
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I had some pinched nerves. He had me hold my arms out and try to hold them level while he pushed on them. One arm was definitely weaker. To prove his point he handed me a weight and had me compare. Once brought to my attention, I could definitely feel a "lopsidedness" in my arm strength. You might think this was normal, but after tweaking my neck and upper shoulder area, the gap between greatly closed and it became easier to lift in both.
Similarly, pressure points on my ankles (that I could self apply
Re: (Score:2)
Why does a browser need to be able to access more than 4GB ? Has anyone hit that limit yet ? Or even close ?
I want the one with the bigger GB's.....
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Informative)
I've not seen my browser use more than about 800MB of memory (and that seems quite ludicrous), but there are several reasons to want a 64-bit version:
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're wasting your keyboard away. You'll never get them all and even if you do, they won't listen, understand, or care. Many, including myself, have been telling people for years that it's not just about the bigger address space. The all knowing Internet has decided we don't need a 64-bit address space and consequently all other features that come with a 64-bit processor are irrelevant.
Also, rest assured that even if Firefox became the most memory efficient browser in existence it would not matter. Once the Internet makes up its mind, you cannot change it by bringing up stupid things like facts.
Take your extra registers, SSE, shared libraries, processor tuning and shove it. The Internet has spoken.
Note to moderators: There is no +1 sarcastic, so you have no choice but to mod this insightful. No? Ok just mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I may want Linux running on a PC emulator written in JavaScript. Or I may want the latest Flash based animated jumping blinking dancing flickering seizure inducing graphics which make the web so much more informative.
But seriously, the real reason of global importance is so that you can have a much larger Farmville.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Webkit is a fine engine. Too bad no one is interested in using it to make a good browser.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think Firefox is an example of a "good browser"?
If FF4 and beyond is your standard, well... I think you might need to reevaluate. I dropped FF for Chrome as my alternate browser and have not regretted it for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
PDF in the browser is a sin.
Re: (Score:2)
And a security risk. But hey...who care's about security. We want feature creep!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone with average computing requirements, more than half a brain, and 4GB or less of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on all points, though I will say that FF4 introduced a really nice feature that saves time for me every day. That is, being able to type non-URL queries into the URL field to search FF's history database has really made my browsing more efficient. But that doesn't make up for the fact that FF4 & 5 are as leaky as the Titanic.
Re:What do I expect? Nothing (Score:5, Informative)
I have nothing against making it a 64 bit binary in general, but there really is absolutely no advantage to doing so. If your browser is eating more than 3 gigs of memory, your browser is broken, you should fix that problem first, not make it so it can eat more memory.
You're probably overlooking one of the major reasons why 64-bit binaries are beneficial (at least on the x86-64 architecture): more registers! More registers means less accessing main memory or cache just for local variables, which means faster code.
A 64-bit Firefox is also preferable if the rest of the system is already 64-bit because the need to load a whole bunch of 32-bit shared libraries which are only used by one program will be eliminated, meaning less wasted memory which may lead to better cache utilization. I'm not sure how congruous this last point is because I'm not familiar with how Firefox is built on the relevant platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
You get faster code if your code is under a lot of register pressure because you're doing computations with a bunch of reusable intermediate results, etc.
You get slower code if your code is memory-bound, especially if pointer-chasing is involved (because you blow out your caches more easily and end up having to actually talk to RAM more).
Which one matters more for a web browser is a tough question. For example, most operations on the DOM are of the pointer-chasing variety.
See also https://twitter.com/#!/bz [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The whole reason for nspluginwrapper is that you're using a 64-bit build but your plug-ins are 32-bit.
That is _exactly_ one of the reasons that Firefox is not shipping 64-bit on Windows yet (what the article is about).
So no, the only way to get rid of nspluginwrapper is to either use a 32-bit browser or not use 32-bit plug-ins. Well, or do something like Firefox on Mac, which involves shipping two copies of the code so the plugin-container process can be 32-bit...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, or do something like Firefox on Mac, which involves shipping two copies of the code so the plugin-container process can be 32-bit...
Which is what the article's talking about doing.