3 ms·
I don't think it's necessarily that it's more difficult but that there is less demand. On linux distros (especially since most stuff is open source) they try to
by rat87 14y ago
I don't think it's necessarily that it's more difficult but that there is less demand. On linux distros (especially since most stuff is open source) they try to get everything be 64 bit on 64 bit installs, some distros don't even ship 32 bit system libraries by default. That's why linux users wanted 64 bit flash so much(you need 64 bit plugins for a 64 bit browser although there was a hack called nspluginwrapper to let you use 32 bit flash in 64 bit fiefox). I'm guessing there is a somewhat similar push on OS X to get all 64 bit software on a 64 bit os.
On windows, firefox is just a single installed program(unlike linux where firefox's library might be shared with thunderbird, etc.), and a number of apps are 32 bit, and thats fine. Plus there is a larger selection of plugins many of which may never get a 64 bit version.
Also I may be wrong but I think that browsers these days have a lot of per architecture optimizations targeting x86 and separately arm(x86-64 optimization being a lower priority), so that 64 bit browsers may actually be slower.
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoX86 and x86-64 are pretty much the same, so any byte-code optimisation will be the same for either. X86 extensions, like SSE, are also another major area of optimisation, with modern cpus obviously having more extensions.
- rsynnott 14y agoThis isn't quite true; x86_64 has more general registers, which are helpful in writing VMs. At one time, Apple JavascriptCore was 60% faster on x86_64 Safari than on x86 Safari on the same machine, though I think the gap has reduced.