7 ms·

Mozilla quietly kills Firefox 64-bit for Windows

40 points by Reltair 14y ago

bifrost 14y ago
This just reeks of dumb. Seriously guys, support 64 bit platforms or perish.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  Have you noticed any tangible benefit to using a 64-bit build over a 32-bit one? Performance of the current x64 builds as measured by responsiveness and javascript benchmarks is about on-par with the 32-bit version for most things; the performance and even compilation of plugins is however another matter entirely and the reason for using Firefox for me over another solution is almost always the plugins available. I have been using PaleMoon builds and from what I gather the source tree is not being tombstoned, just the nightly builds. [0] The reasons given for crashes (driver/component out-of-tree bugs) make sense but I'm not really involved in the development or testing so I'm sure others will have better input. [0] http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1700 http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1700
- Negitivefrags 14y ago
  They do support 64 bit platforms. With 32 bit binaries. If you have no need for more than 3gb of memory per process then 32 bit is a great choice. The pointers being half size is a non-trivial memory saving. I'd be happy if windows would let you use something like the x32 build target that linux got recently for extra registers though.
  - josephlord 14y ago
    There will be a memory saving but the loss of access to better instructions and the registers would surely cost you some performance overall (may be benchmark and processor dependent)
  - ZoFreX 14y ago
    32-bit processes can get 4GB of memory on 64-bit Windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36... I thought the limit was 2GB, which Firefox is getting dangerously close to. 4GB gives a lot more wiggle room, but I wonder how long it will last...
  - keeperofdakeys 14y ago
    The problem is you need almost-contrived situations to notice these kinds of improvements, and a web browser deals with way too much I/O to fit into this category.
  - alexkus 14y ago
    I'd rather not have to pollute a pure 64-bit install with a whole bunch of 32-bit libraries to run just one 32-bit app though. It's adds even more headache keeping those patched and up to date.
    - ibotty 14y ago
      remember that we are talking windows here. which libraries do you have to patch for firefox (i.e. those they do not ship and which are not in the core win os)?
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Let me just say something "Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition released on April 25, 2005" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edi... 7 years. Go to a store, see what kind of Windows is being shipped, if it's 32 or 64bits. If there's one version that has to be discontinued that version is the 32-bit version. Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions, it seems Mozilla started shipping them the other day (and is not very promoted) Computers already ship with more than 4GB memory. Leave 32-bit, it's been enough time already.
  - easytiger 14y ago
    > Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions, Only in commercial or prop software
  - davidw 14y ago
    When you pay for memory on a monthly basis, economizing on it may be a good idea: http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      Don't compare the Virtual Size of process. This is not how it works. And yes, running x64 on my Linode/ Also, see the limitations of MongoDB and Go for example, in 32-bit systems, they are very relevant.
      - davidw 14y ago
        I look at RSS in those numbers too, and they're lower on 32 bit systems, obviously, That is how it works. I'm not interested in MongoDB in the slightest, and while Go looks pretty cool, I'll wait for it to mature.
        raverbashing 14y ago
        Sure, still, what really affects memory usage is data, not programs. So if memory is an issue in 64-bits, most likely it will be an issue as well in 32-bit. In some cases it may make a difference, but they're not that common. Even EC2 Micro supports 64-bits now Sure, 64-bit uses more memory, like 32-bit use more memory than 16-bit, or like programs in ARM (and maybe Thumb) take more space than programs in x86
- digeridoo 14y ago
  Itanium is the future.
mburns 14y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817574
GvS 14y ago
I use Pale Moon 64-bit, custom-built and optimized Firefox clone: http://www.palemoon.org/ http://www.palemoon.org/
- lnanek2 14y ago
  Wow, just tried that and it is surprisingly fast. Wasn't expecting to notice a difference, but I did. Running on a Windows 8 x64, SSD drive, 1.7GHz i7.
- e12e 14y ago
  Hm, I use waterfox -- and it seems to be a little better updated? http://www.waterfoxproject.org/ http://www.waterfoxproject.org/
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  ...for Windows Operating Systems.
  - robin_reala 14y ago
    Firefox is natively 64bit on Linux and OSX already.
    - mylittlepony 14y ago
      So? I replied to a comment about Pale Moon (not Firefox, which I'm obviously using), so you might wanna take your downvote back. From their website: "A custom-built and optimized Firefox-based browser for Windows"
lnanek2 14y ago
I used to use mainly Chrome and Firefox, but after moving to Windows 8 (I have to because I write some Windows 8 stuff) 64-bit, Firefox often hangs after opening, hangs after opening tabs, hangs after loading pages, etc.. I switched to using Safari as browser B, and I don't think that is even still official for Windows...
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Why not Chrome?
  - lnanek2 14y ago
    I do use Chrome. I need a second concurrent browser for various reasons.
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      Ah, I misunderstood, thanks. I'd recommend Opera!
      - beatgammit 14y ago
        +1 Opera is so underrated. Posted from Opera.
    - ghusbands 14y ago
      You can have multiple concurrent Chrome browsers, if you use the multi-user feature, detailed here: http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2364824 http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ans...
JeremyMorgan 14y ago
The big question is, why won't 64 bit catch on? Too new? I had a 64 bit chip 10 years ago and most of you probably did too. Too expensive? It's a good question and it probably comes down to programmers and habit. Multi core processing and async/multithreading are finally starting to take hold but optimizing for a 64 bit bus still seems like an afterthought. I am asking seriously because I don't have a definitive answer, but why is it just not catching on?
- byuu 14y ago
  Never underestimate human apathy. A super majority of the world does not care for progress, if it means having to change even the most nominal of habits. Not even for sometimes massive benefits. In fact, a great many individuals will become extremely vocal if you try and force something as tiny as "picking one file extension for a file type instead of using two like we have in the past." The only way things advance are when walls are finally hit. With 16-bit, this was trivial: the limitations were crippling. It'll get there with 32-bit, as applications begin to crash with the ~2GB per process memory limitations on Windows, and PCs continually appear with far more than 8GB of RAM available. But I'd say we are probably 5-10 years off from a point where we could consider deploying a 64-bit only application without losing users.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    I do not agree with your pessimistic argument regarding human nature. A much bigger issue is that migrating a massive 32-bits application to 64-bits requires too much effort, because unfortunately the C and C++ specifications have left a ton of flexibility and room for platform-specific behavior. For instance it's beyond me why those specs haven't mentioned details like concrete sizes for really basic datatypes, like Ints and Chars, especially since development in C and C++ tends to get into really low-level details and optimizations, which means you end up relying on Ints being 4 bytes in size (how could you not do that?). The truth really is that even seemingly unimportant details such as the size of Ints can mean the difference between a rock-solid 32-bits app and a 64-bits app that's broken almost beyond hope of ever being fixed. If anything, this should be the number one reason for why we must stop using C and C++ for new application developments and even in systems/embedded programming we could do a lot better, as these languages are unsuitable for continued improvements due to Moore's law, impeding progress. Can you see how this creates a vicious circle btw? So we can have affordable consumer workstations with more than 10 GB of RAM right now with multiple cores and all that, which makes client-side development in garbage-collected functional programming languages feasible, but we can't really go there because the 32-bits legacy is holding us back. That's funny and goes to show that sometimes Worse is Not Better.
mtgx 14y ago
And here I was thinking they must be already working on the 64 bit for ARMv8 and Android for a 2014 release.
- keeperofdakeys 14y ago
  This is talking specially about 64-bit on windows, related to windows-specific problems. Linux and osx have fully-functioning 64-bit versions, so this won't hinder ARM 64-bit.
PommeDeTerre 14y ago
Mozilla seems, at least to me, to be becoming more and more like the GNOME project. It's projecting a constant stream of unusual, if not outright bad, ideas and actions. The Firefox version numbering debacle, including the constant problems it caused for extensions, was just plain silly. Then there's Firefox Mobile. I've always found it very inferior to the other commonly-available mobile browsers. Aside from trying it out briefly, there was no reason to continue using it. This is probably the same for others, and likely why its uptake basically hasn't happened at all. Earlier this year they seem to have withdrawn their interest in Thunderbird, which is by far one of their better offerings. More recently, there's been a lot said about Firefox OS. There's a very good chance that this will become an unused, uninspiring, generally-ignored product, much like Firefox Mobile. And now there's this decision. Redirecting effort away from applications that are actually used, like Firefox and Thunderbird, toward things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox OS, just doesn't make sense.
- nanook 14y ago
  > things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox OS, just doesn't make sense. Firefox OS has to be the most exciting thing they're doing. Why does it not have a future?
  - trendnet 14y ago
    Because a lot of people don't give a bear about Firefox OS.
    - beatgammit 14y ago
      A lot of people do. It isn't officially released yet, so of course it's not going to be as popular as a released product. Android wasn't popular until acquired and pushed by Google.
      - sabret00the 14y ago
        Who does? Tell me of the millions and millions of users out there waiting in anticipation of Firefox OS? Firefox decide to kill off around half of their Nightly (read most diehard users) and expect to carry that good faith over to what? Firefox OS? Are you going to convince the 30 million people that bought a Samsung Galaxy S3 that all of a sudden, the brand they bought into isn't actually important and that they should jump on the Firefox OS train? It's unrealistic.
simonster 14y ago
There was never a 64-bit version of Firefox. There were 64-bit Nightly builds, which aren't even branded as Firefox. Running them because you wanted a 64-bit version of Firefox would have been a silly thing to do, because, as unreleased software, they also crash significantly more frequently than released Firefox versions, which almost certainly would have killed any productivity increase from running a 64-bit version of Firefox.

40 points by Reltair 14y ago

bifrost 14y ago

This just reeks of dumb. Seriously guys, support 64 bit platforms or perish.

shawn-butler 14y ago
Have you noticed any tangible benefit to using a 64-bit build over a 32-bit one? Performance of the current x64 builds as measured by responsiveness and javascript benchmarks is about on-par with the 32-bit version for most things; the performance and even compilation of plugins is however another matter entirely and the reason for using Firefox for me over another solution is almost always the plugins available. I have been using PaleMoon builds and from what I gather the source tree is not being tombstoned, just the nightly builds. [0] The reasons given for crashes (driver/component out-of-tree bugs) make sense but I'm not really involved in the development or testing so I'm sure others will have better input. [0] http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1700 http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1700
Negitivefrags 14y ago
They do support 64 bit platforms. With 32 bit binaries. If you have no need for more than 3gb of memory per process then 32 bit is a great choice. The pointers being half size is a non-trivial memory saving. I'd be happy if windows would let you use something like the x32 build target that linux got recently for extra registers though.
- josephlord 14y ago
  There will be a memory saving but the loss of access to better instructions and the registers would surely cost you some performance overall (may be benchmark and processor dependent)
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  32-bit processes can get 4GB of memory on 64-bit Windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36... I thought the limit was 2GB, which Firefox is getting dangerously close to. 4GB gives a lot more wiggle room, but I wonder how long it will last...
- keeperofdakeys 14y ago
  The problem is you need almost-contrived situations to notice these kinds of improvements, and a web browser deals with way too much I/O to fit into this category.
- alexkus 14y ago
  I'd rather not have to pollute a pure 64-bit install with a whole bunch of 32-bit libraries to run just one 32-bit app though. It's adds even more headache keeping those patched and up to date.
  - ibotty 14y ago
    remember that we are talking windows here. which libraries do you have to patch for firefox (i.e. those they do not ship and which are not in the core win os)?
raverbashing 14y ago
Let me just say something "Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition released on April 25, 2005" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edi... 7 years. Go to a store, see what kind of Windows is being shipped, if it's 32 or 64bits. If there's one version that has to be discontinued that version is the 32-bit version. Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions, it seems Mozilla started shipping them the other day (and is not very promoted) Computers already ship with more than 4GB memory. Leave 32-bit, it's been enough time already.
- easytiger 14y ago
  > Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions, Only in commercial or prop software
- davidw 14y ago
  When you pay for memory on a monthly basis, economizing on it may be a good idea: http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Don't compare the Virtual Size of process. This is not how it works. And yes, running x64 on my Linode/ Also, see the limitations of MongoDB and Go for example, in 32-bit systems, they are very relevant.
    - davidw 14y ago
      I look at RSS in those numbers too, and they're lower on 32 bit systems, obviously, That is how it works. I'm not interested in MongoDB in the slightest, and while Go looks pretty cool, I'll wait for it to mature.
      - raverbashing 14y ago
        Sure, still, what really affects memory usage is data, not programs. So if memory is an issue in 64-bits, most likely it will be an issue as well in 32-bit. In some cases it may make a difference, but they're not that common. Even EC2 Micro supports 64-bits now Sure, 64-bit uses more memory, like 32-bit use more memory than 16-bit, or like programs in ARM (and maybe Thumb) take more space than programs in x86
digeridoo 14y ago
Itanium is the future.

mburns 14y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817574

GvS 14y ago

I use Pale Moon 64-bit, custom-built and optimized Firefox clone: http://www.palemoon.org/ http://www.palemoon.org/

lnanek2 14y ago
Wow, just tried that and it is surprisingly fast. Wasn't expecting to notice a difference, but I did. Running on a Windows 8 x64, SSD drive, 1.7GHz i7.
e12e 14y ago
Hm, I use waterfox -- and it seems to be a little better updated? http://www.waterfoxproject.org/ http://www.waterfoxproject.org/
mylittlepony 14y ago
...for Windows Operating Systems.
- robin_reala 14y ago
  Firefox is natively 64bit on Linux and OSX already.
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    So? I replied to a comment about Pale Moon (not Firefox, which I'm obviously using), so you might wanna take your downvote back. From their website: "A custom-built and optimized Firefox-based browser for Windows"

lnanek2 14y ago

I used to use mainly Chrome and Firefox, but after moving to Windows 8 (I have to because I write some Windows 8 stuff) 64-bit, Firefox often hangs after opening, hangs after opening tabs, hangs after loading pages, etc.. I switched to using Safari as browser B, and I don't think that is even still official for Windows...

StavrosK 14y ago
Why not Chrome?
- lnanek2 14y ago
  I do use Chrome. I need a second concurrent browser for various reasons.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood, thanks. I'd recommend Opera!
    - beatgammit 14y ago
      +1 Opera is so underrated. Posted from Opera.
  - ghusbands 14y ago
    You can have multiple concurrent Chrome browsers, if you use the multi-user feature, detailed here: http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2364824 http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ans...

JeremyMorgan 14y ago

The big question is, why won't 64 bit catch on? Too new? I had a 64 bit chip 10 years ago and most of you probably did too. Too expensive? It's a good question and it probably comes down to programmers and habit. Multi core processing and async/multithreading are finally starting to take hold but optimizing for a 64 bit bus still seems like an afterthought. I am asking seriously because I don't have a definitive answer, but why is it just not catching on?

byuu 14y ago
Never underestimate human apathy. A super majority of the world does not care for progress, if it means having to change even the most nominal of habits. Not even for sometimes massive benefits. In fact, a great many individuals will become extremely vocal if you try and force something as tiny as "picking one file extension for a file type instead of using two like we have in the past." The only way things advance are when walls are finally hit. With 16-bit, this was trivial: the limitations were crippling. It'll get there with 32-bit, as applications begin to crash with the ~2GB per process memory limitations on Windows, and PCs continually appear with far more than 8GB of RAM available. But I'd say we are probably 5-10 years off from a point where we could consider deploying a 64-bit only application without losing users.
- bad_user 14y ago
  I do not agree with your pessimistic argument regarding human nature. A much bigger issue is that migrating a massive 32-bits application to 64-bits requires too much effort, because unfortunately the C and C++ specifications have left a ton of flexibility and room for platform-specific behavior. For instance it's beyond me why those specs haven't mentioned details like concrete sizes for really basic datatypes, like Ints and Chars, especially since development in C and C++ tends to get into really low-level details and optimizations, which means you end up relying on Ints being 4 bytes in size (how could you not do that?). The truth really is that even seemingly unimportant details such as the size of Ints can mean the difference between a rock-solid 32-bits app and a 64-bits app that's broken almost beyond hope of ever being fixed. If anything, this should be the number one reason for why we must stop using C and C++ for new application developments and even in systems/embedded programming we could do a lot better, as these languages are unsuitable for continued improvements due to Moore's law, impeding progress. Can you see how this creates a vicious circle btw? So we can have affordable consumer workstations with more than 10 GB of RAM right now with multiple cores and all that, which makes client-side development in garbage-collected functional programming languages feasible, but we can't really go there because the 32-bits legacy is holding us back. That's funny and goes to show that sometimes Worse is Not Better.

mtgx 14y ago

And here I was thinking they must be already working on the 64 bit for ARMv8 and Android for a 2014 release.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago
This is talking specially about 64-bit on windows, related to windows-specific problems. Linux and osx have fully-functioning 64-bit versions, so this won't hinder ARM 64-bit.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago

Mozilla seems, at least to me, to be becoming more and more like the GNOME project. It's projecting a constant stream of unusual, if not outright bad, ideas and actions. The Firefox version numbering debacle, including the constant problems it caused for extensions, was just plain silly. Then there's Firefox Mobile. I've always found it very inferior to the other commonly-available mobile browsers. Aside from trying it out briefly, there was no reason to continue using it. This is probably the same for others, and likely why its uptake basically hasn't happened at all. Earlier this year they seem to have withdrawn their interest in Thunderbird, which is by far one of their better offerings. More recently, there's been a lot said about Firefox OS. There's a very good chance that this will become an unused, uninspiring, generally-ignored product, much like Firefox Mobile. And now there's this decision. Redirecting effort away from applications that are actually used, like Firefox and Thunderbird, toward things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox OS, just doesn't make sense.

nanook 14y ago
> things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox OS, just doesn't make sense. Firefox OS has to be the most exciting thing they're doing. Why does it not have a future?
- trendnet 14y ago
  Because a lot of people don't give a bear about Firefox OS.
  - beatgammit 14y ago
    A lot of people do. It isn't officially released yet, so of course it's not going to be as popular as a released product. Android wasn't popular until acquired and pushed by Google.
    - sabret00the 14y ago
      Who does? Tell me of the millions and millions of users out there waiting in anticipation of Firefox OS? Firefox decide to kill off around half of their Nightly (read most diehard users) and expect to carry that good faith over to what? Firefox OS? Are you going to convince the 30 million people that bought a Samsung Galaxy S3 that all of a sudden, the brand they bought into isn't actually important and that they should jump on the Firefox OS train? It's unrealistic.

simonster 14y ago

There was never a 64-bit version of Firefox. There were 64-bit Nightly builds, which aren't even branded as Firefox. Running them because you wanted a 64-bit version of Firefox would have been a silly thing to do, because, as unreleased software, they also crash significantly more frequently than released Firefox versions, which almost certainly would have killed any productivity increase from running a 64-bit version of Firefox.