Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
64-bit Firefox for Windows lands in Mozilla's nightly trunk builds
Lee just stumbled across something big: the first 64-bit build of Firefox 3.7 (4.0) for Windows.... aaaand... it's slower than the 32-bit variant, at least when it comes to the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark.
You'll need the Visual Studio 2010 redistributable for msvcr100.dll, but other than that, just grab the ZIP from Mozilla's latest nightly trunk and off you go! (Both of those are direct download links, by the way.)
You'll need the Visual Studio 2010 redistributable for msvcr100.dll, but other than that, just grab the ZIP from Mozilla's latest nightly trunk and off you go! (Both of those are direct download links, by the way.)
Regarding the SunSpider test, the 64-bit version clocked in at 418ms, while 32-bit came in significantly faster at 373ms. Of course, the SunSpider test might not be designed for 64-bit browsers... and this is still early days! There isn't even a 64-bit Flash plug-in for Windows...
Still, if you're an enthusiast, grab the 64-bit version of Firefox and give it a go!
Comments
15
Subscribe to commentsNakul SharmaMay 28th 2010 4:12PM
so is it different from minefield 64-bit? or it is minefield out of its "beta".
and yea no 64-bit flash juice is the reason why i uninstalled minefield last time i tried it.
Sebastian AnthonyMay 28th 2010 4:14PM
It's Minefield, 3.7a5 -- what will become 4.0.
Apparently Linux has a 64-bit Flash plug-in... but not Windows!
cloud858rkMay 28th 2010 5:23PM
Linux does have 64-bit flash, but it is beta and god awful. *was burnt by installing 64-bit Ubuntu*
saudrapsmannJun 4th 2010 11:45AM
They're all Firefox. Consider Minefield as the "developer's build" of Firefox, and Namoroka as the "beta".
I'm using 64-bit Linux, and while the 64-bit version of Flash in the repository is less stable, you can easily install the 32-bit version on a 64-bit distro.
What I recommend, though, is just going to Adobe's website and installing 64-bit flash from there instead of the repository. Fixed any issue I had with the Linux port.
great.wad.of.spamMay 28th 2010 4:50PM
What advantage does a 64bit browser have?
I've never seen a good explanation.
great.wad.of.spamMay 28th 2010 5:05PM
Hmmm. I'm using the standard downloads of firefox, opera, and chrome on my 64 bit Win7 machine. I've never even fired up the 64 bit version of IE.
KeegdnaBMay 28th 2010 4:34PM
Adobe needs to stop dagging their feet on Flash64, especially since it'll work wonders for those pesky memory leaks that have apple and the whole world turning against them. It's the only reason 64-bit browsers haven't been standard yet, but I'm glad Mozilla is going ahead with or without it cause again, with access to all 4 gigs of ram I had, those notorious memory leaks should be much more tolerable (not that they shouldn't still be working on reducing memory use)
Jack BMay 28th 2010 7:18PM
The error is caused by not having this installed
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/confirmation.aspx?familyId=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867&displayLang=en
Hey 'great.wad.of.spam' the main advantage of the x64 version is it opens much much faster.
although the x64 is slightly slower in benchmarks it feels like its alot faster and will only speed up the as the x64 builds gets older
Sebastian AnthonyMay 28th 2010 7:54PM
The Peacemaker (Futuremark) benchmark puts the 64-bit version SLIGHTLY ahead of 32-bit, but it's really marginal.
The interface feels a bit laggier in 64-bit, but that could be for a variety of unrelated reasons.
enerGIMay 29th 2010 1:16AM
64-bit, 32-bit, i dont care, i just want a browser that WORKS!
tracker1May 29th 2010 2:49PM
The biggest advantage of the 64-bit version is it can address more memory. Honestly, very few *applications* utilize 64-bit, and in Windows generally will use *more* memory than the 32-bit version. 64-bit OS, hell yeah. 64-bit apps, only if they need and can use more than 2-4GB of ram. I really don't want a browser where my typical usage, or atypical exceeds 4GB of memory in use... Maybe if WebGL and Canvas usage *really* take off, but not now.
ShadowGodMay 29th 2010 4:32PM
Or you could just use Chrome and do that benchmark in 235ms.
stinlen56May 29th 2010 7:43PM
For all the naysayers out there that always try to convince us that 32-bit is good enough and that you don't need to run 64-bit apps, I have two words for you: "Compatibility layer". Running 32 in a 64 is not native and requires a compatibility layer. More moving parts means more of an opportunity for something to go wrong. I want 64-bit programs whether or not I'm going to use 4GB of RAM for that one program.
Stefan PolteJun 1st 2010 2:50PM
Yeah, SunSpider and V8 were slightly slower, but it's always good to look at the partial results, especially when it comes to Futuremark's Peacekeeper - have a more detailed view on the topic @ http://www.polte.org . Pretty impressive for this Fox 64bit in it's early stage of development!
Neil T.Jun 2nd 2010 10:40AM
I think part of the reason why Firefox will have out-of-process plugins in 3.6.4 and 4.0 is that a 64-bit build of the browser will be able to use a 32-bit plugin. If I remember correctly, Safari runs as a 64-bit app on Macs (where it can) but uses the 32-bit Flash plugin.