3 ms·

> If you prefer to stay with 32-bit Firefox after the 64-bit migration, you can simply download and re-run the Firefox 32-bit installer from the Firefox platfor

by __s 9y ago

> If you prefer to stay with 32-bit Firefox after the 64-bit migration, you can simply download and re-run the Firefox 32-bit installer from the Firefox platforms and languages download page. Any reason to do so? It'd have to be some fringe use case of '<4GB RAM system & user doesn't need fast codecs'. If it's a closed business environment I'd imagine they're on IE

jchw 9y ago
Presumably in case there's still bugs, since a lot of the Windows code probably was not really well tested for AMD64. I'd also assume 64-bit builds take up more memory due to having 64-bit pointers. Maybe most importantly they just don't want to assume, at their scale, that there isn't at least one user that might need some time to be able to move to the 64-bit builds for one reason or another.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cpeterso 9y ago
The only reason someone would stick with a 32-bit browser is for performance reasons. 64-bit applications have a larger memory footprint from all the 64-bit code and pointers. We didn't see much performance difference when testing 2 GB Windows machines hands on, but Firefox telemetry analysis showed that user retention and crash rates were worse for users with <= 2GB than for > 2GB. Only about 1% of Firefox Windows users have < 2GB and about 5% have exactly 2GB. Users with <= 2GB can still install 64-bit Firefox if they really want to by downloading the 64-bit full installer instead of the "stub installer" (a tiny downloader that detects 32- and 64-bit OS and downloads the appropriate full installer). Likewise users with > 2GB can download the 32-bit full installer, too. We wanted the Firefox installer's default to provide the best user experience, but still give users the option to run the (32- or 64-bit) application of their choice. For comparison, 64-bit Chrome's minimum memory requirement is >= 4GB.
- ac29 9y ago
  > For comparison, 64-bit Chrome's minimum memory requirement is >= 4GB. Not officially (there is no memory system requirement): https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en
  - cpeterso 9y ago
    When Google announced the migration of 32-bit Chrome Windows users to 64-bit in May, they used 4GB as a minimum for 64-bit. That Chrome system requirements page doesn't specify whether there is a minimum memory requirement for 64-bit Chrome on Windows, but I would assume it is still the same. https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2017/05/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2017/05/stable-channel...
maroonmoon 9y ago
I for one have had serious stability issues with version 55. It always crashes on facebook and cnet. And the best part, the crash submission dialog which comes up in 32 bit firefox doesn't show up for 64 bit. Also, uninstalling 64 bit and reinstalling from 32 bit installer still installs 64 bit FF. I had to remove the user config before reinstallation.
damnfine 9y ago
For legacy internal systems, and legacy OS. There are more than you would imagine still in use.

by __s 9y ago

jchw 9y ago

Presumably in case there's still bugs, since a lot of the Windows code probably was not really well tested for AMD64. I'd also assume 64-bit builds take up more memory due to having 64-bit pointers. Maybe most importantly they just don't want to assume, at their scale, that there isn't at least one user that might need some time to be able to move to the 64-bit builds for one reason or another.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cpeterso 9y ago

The only reason someone would stick with a 32-bit browser is for performance reasons. 64-bit applications have a larger memory footprint from all the 64-bit code and pointers. We didn't see much performance difference when testing 2 GB Windows machines hands on, but Firefox telemetry analysis showed that user retention and crash rates were worse for users with <= 2GB than for > 2GB. Only about 1% of Firefox Windows users have < 2GB and about 5% have exactly 2GB. Users with <= 2GB can still install 64-bit Firefox if they really want to by downloading the 64-bit full installer instead of the "stub installer" (a tiny downloader that detects 32- and 64-bit OS and downloads the appropriate full installer). Likewise users with > 2GB can download the 32-bit full installer, too. We wanted the Firefox installer's default to provide the best user experience, but still give users the option to run the (32- or 64-bit) application of their choice. For comparison, 64-bit Chrome's minimum memory requirement is >= 4GB.

ac29 9y ago
> For comparison, 64-bit Chrome's minimum memory requirement is >= 4GB. Not officially (there is no memory system requirement): https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en
- cpeterso 9y ago
  When Google announced the migration of 32-bit Chrome Windows users to 64-bit in May, they used 4GB as a minimum for 64-bit. That Chrome system requirements page doesn't specify whether there is a minimum memory requirement for 64-bit Chrome on Windows, but I would assume it is still the same. https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2017/05/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2017/05/stable-channel...

maroonmoon 9y ago

I for one have had serious stability issues with version 55. It always crashes on facebook and cnet. And the best part, the crash submission dialog which comes up in 32 bit firefox doesn't show up for 64 bit. Also, uninstalling 64 bit and reinstalling from 32 bit installer still installs 64 bit FF. I had to remove the user config before reinstallation.

damnfine 9y ago

For legacy internal systems, and legacy OS. There are more than you would imagine still in use.