News Mozilla ceases work on 64-bit Firefox for Windows

[Gareth Halfacree]

All nightly and weekly builds ceased.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...-bit-windows/1

[Corky42]

When i tried Waterfox and Pale Moon the biggest problem i had was Flash player crashing. it's a real shame there stopping development as i found the 64-bit version to be faster.

[dyzophoria]

it seems the frustration is the lack plugin developers wanting to develop on 64bit platforms, its a shame really, especially based on my experience with firefox, it tends to eat alot of memory ( for caching i guess? or whatever) it could have really helped the program if it were in 64bit,lol

[MrJay]

This seems a bit short sighted to me!

If anything id bite the bullet and cut 32bit support.

[derviansoul]

Maybe they should just cut the development on 32bits instead and force developers to update or get left behind.

[Amsalpedalb]

Originally Posted by derviansoul

force developers to update or get left behind.

That bit right there should be the current industry trend. Update to 64 bit or piss off.

[maverik-sg1]

Originally Posted by Amsalpedalb

That bit right there should be the current industry trend. Update to 64 bit or piss off.

100% with you on this, proper multi-core support and 64bit all the way.

[SchizoFrog]

You can't drop 32bit support when the majority of systems are 32bit based. That thinking is just retarded.

[Corky42]

Originally Posted by SchizoFrog

You can't drop 32bit support when the majority of systems are 32bit based. That thinking is just retarded.

I don't agree, I know its not exactly accurate but the best i could find is the steam hardware survey and it shows 59% are using Windows 7 64 bit.

[Adnoctum]

Originally Posted by From Article

With a claimed 50 per cent of Firefox Nightly users on Windows - who, by definition, are on the cutting-edge and who don't mind trading stability for the ability to try out new features before anybody else - using the 64-bit build, Mozilla's decision to cease building the software leaves a not-inconsiderable proportion of its user base in the lurch

You what?

You claim that the 50% of Firefox Nightly users represent a "not-inconsiderable proportion of its user base"?

Either that is poor wording or it is poor logic, unless you think that Nightly Build users represents a significant audience for Mozilla? I would suggest the the proportion of Firefox users who utilise the 64-bit version of Firefox would be miniscule given there was never a Win 64-bit release.

What a non-story, especially given all Mozilla has done is kill a development program and not a released product.
32-bit Firefox lives happily on Win 64-bit, and at the moment the 64-bit version gives zero advantages for the vast majority of users (or any?) and quite a few disadvantages, and Firefox may be a bit of a memory hog but I doubt there would be many situations in which Firefox would need more than 3-4GB of memory. The use just isn't there yet.
My use of 64-bit Firefox (in Linux) does not give me an improved experience over my use of the 32-bit version (Win and Linux).

Not to mention there is no 64-bit Chrome for Windows, nor is there any plans for such, Opera 64-bit has only just been released as a stable version, and does anyone use the 64-bit IE? I don't, and there is little need to do so over the 32-bit version.

Good use of resources for Mozilla to use the development effort for 32-bit Firefox until it makes sense to make a move.

[Adnoctum]

Originally Posted by Corky42

I don't agree, I know its not exactly accurate but the best i could find is the steam hardware survey and it shows 59% are using Windows 7 64 bit.

I have had this argument so many times that I should have a text file I can copy/paste from.

The Steam Hardware Survey is a snapshot of Steam users.
* Is every computer on the face of the planet polled in the Steam Survey? No?
* Then it must sample a wide variety of computer types and uses then? No, not that either?
Then it is NOT representative of the systems that "most people" have.

It is a very narrow view of a narrow audience. It is representative of the systems that Steam users have, users who game on their systems and are thus more likely to keep it updated with newer software and hardware.
That's not my mum, so she wasn't asked to participate in the Steam survey. Nor my dad. Nor my invisible friend Harvey.

[Corky42]

@Adnoctum
I know i did say it's not exactly accurate but i did try to find some information on amount of x86 versus x64, i guess it's like politicians and how they interpret the numbers

But seriously how do you measure such a thing, i mean are we only including platforms that FF runs on, or are we looking at the bigger picture?

[SchizoFrog]

Originally Posted by Corky42

I don't agree, I know its not exactly accurate but the best i could find is the steam hardware survey and it shows 59% are using Windows 7 64 bit.

Yeah, 59% of Steam Clients... I bet Steam users don't even count for a third of PCs that use a browser and even just over half of those on Steam have a 64bit machine. I think you killed your own argument there.

[SchizoFrog]

Originally Posted by Corky42

@Adnoctum
I know i did say it's not exactly accurate but i did try to find some information on amount of x86 versus x64, i guess it's like politicians and how they interpret the numbers

But seriously how do you measure such a thing, i mean are we only including platforms that FF runs on, or are we looking at the bigger picture?

Corky, you have to look at the overall picture as FF is a user CHOICE. If they went 64bit only then they would limit themselves to a tiny minority of PC users. I guess Mozilla would have a good understanding of the numbers as they can tell how many unique PC id's download their browsers and of which bit type.

[IvanIvanovich]

I've been using the x64 version on Windows since it has existed. I've never had a single problem with it or the 2 relevant plugins that I use which have an x64 version Flash and Java. I could give a flying f*ck if there is no silverlight, quicktime, or any of the other myriad crap I would go out of my way to disable and/or remove if there happened to end up on my system anyway.
Poor show Mozilla. Maybe if you actually relased a stable x64 Windows version all of the plugin developers might have bothered to release. Chicken and egg nonsense. It's no wonder x64 software uptake in general is still so pathetic with these attitudes.

[Corky42]

Originally Posted by SchizoFrog

I think you killed your own argument there.

Not a argument just a matter of opinion..

[Gradius]

They are going far back with this stupid decision. 32-bit is DEAD!

[Adnoctum]

Originally Posted by lysol

I've been using the x64 version on Windows since it has existed. I've never had a single problem with it or the 2 relevant plugins that I use which have an x64 version Flash and Java. I could give a flying f*ck if there is no silverlight, quicktime, or any of the other myriad crap I would go out of my way to disable and/or remove if there happened to end up on my system anyway.
Poor show Mozilla. Maybe if you actually relased a stable x64 Windows version all of the plugin developers might have bothered to release. Chicken and egg nonsense. It's no wonder x64 software uptake in general is still so pathetic with these attitudes.

Yes, poor show Mozilla for not providing Lysol with the browser that he wants[1]. He is even doing his best to accommodate you because he is also refraining from using many of the other plug-ins and tools that most other Internet users use or are obliged to use.

Furthermore, how dare you use your collective professional judgement to make the best choices on where to devote finite financial and software engineering resources. It really shows up your lack of commitment to providing Windows users with the best possible product when you are outspent by your competitors like Microsoft. Don't you want to win the highly profitable browser market?

Certainly it is true that Google also doesn't see fit to develop a 64-bit Windows version of Chrome, but they have never shown much interest in developing tools that would enhance the experience of using the Internet.

I'm sure that if he donated $10 in his native currency (not including beads, clams and coconuts) you could have devoted a team of software engineers[2] for 6 months or more in order to complete a 64-bit browser for him and his extremely important 64-bit Internet browsing needs. Obviously his very important 64-bit browsing needs aren't being addressed by other options like IE8/9/10 64-bit or by the recently released Opera 12 64-bit.

Buck up your game, Mozilla! Also, pull up your socks!

[1] But not the browser he deserves. Also, there should be permabans for making Batman jokes.
[2] Located in Mauritania. $10 doesn't go far on software engineers.

[impar]

Greetings!

I used to hit the 32bit RAM limit for Firefox some months ago, in my case around the 3,2-3,3GB RAM use. With the new versions and after changing two RAM wasteful RAM addons I havent met that limit yet.
Firefox is still the most stable and light on resources for my use (roughly 40-50 tabs average open at a time).

[Bogomip]

None of this matters anyway... Chrom eis the future, everybody knows it!

Get on board the chrome train now, baby

edit: src: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp