|64 bit Chrome?||DJAlup||11/10/08 9:10 PM|
I would like to know if you could compile this to be a 64 bit version but with one exception! it has to be able to talk to 32 bit flash so you can still do flash stuff! like watch youtube vids without having to switch from 32 to 64 bit browsers all the time!
please and thanx
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||teQnotic||4/26/09 6:52 AM|
I also would like to see a 64-bit version. I'm currently running Vista 64 on my notebook, and haven't tried Chrome yet, but I would love to if there was a 64-bit version available.
As of now 90% of the applications I'm running are in 64-bit format.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||AdrianP||5/30/09 4:13 AM|
Awaiting the 64 bit version as well. I'm normally using chrome on 32 bit systems (one XP Pro at work and 2008 Server 32bit at home) and it's fast. I now run it on a 64 bit 2008 Server on really fast hardware and it's extreeemly slow. Dunno if that is related or not, but It would be good to have the apps running on 64 bit. The strange thing is that it's slow to access the network, to load internet pages, but mainly to get the initial reply from the hosts (or while trying to send the requests.. can't really tell. It says "Connecting..." for a really long time. It did that on 22.214.171.124 until a few minutes ago, and now still behaves the same on 28.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||wshbrn91||5/31/09 7:28 PM|
I am yet another person looking for a 64 bit version of chrome. It would be great if this would be produced soon.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||DJAlup||5/31/09 10:00 PM|
yes this would be great because most computers are now running 64 bit processors, e.g. core 2 duo, amd x2, core 2 quad, hell even the new single core celerons are 64 bit
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||agl||6/1/09 2:11 PM|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Gui-Wan||6/7/09 8:23 AM|
I'm waiting it, too. For now, there's only one thing that makes 64bit browsers unusable for me. Adobe Flash player still doesn't support 64bit computing. I wish they make 64bit flash player as soon as Chrome 64bit for Windows is released.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Chesteta||6/7/09 4:57 PM|
I too am waiting for 64-bit (windows) Thanks :)
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Cakalaky||6/16/09 1:01 PM|
Yes agree definitely need a 64-bit windows version.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||norinredes||6/29/09 3:59 PM|
I'd like a 64 bit version with 3.0, don't care about Flash at all
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||tigerhawkvok||7/2/09 12:18 PM|
I'll chime in in wanting a 64-bit version for Windows, Flash or not. Probably the optimal thing to do would be to have the 64-bit Windows installer also install Chrome32, accessible in the same location new windows are launched (IE, open new 32-bit window, open new 32-bit incognito window). This would retain plugin compatibility, etc. Alternatively, if a page is rendered that needs a plugin that has a 32-bit version exist, since Chrome runs tabs in seperate processes, it might be able to re-launch that process as a 32-bit instance, enabling the plugin, and making things seamless.
Up with 64-bit!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Floxnard||7/30/09 9:32 PM|
I was thinking the same thing. Since Chrome already runs tabs as separate processes, it seems to me that it would be able to execute as a 64-bit process and, if required, abort and run as a 32-bit process. Of course, that might mess up secured sessions. Also, I imagine, you wouldn't want to have it abort the 32-bit process and switch back to a 64-bit when you navigate away. Nevertheless, it would be a decent idea and Chrome would probably be the best browser to implement a hybrid app like that on.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||barbarossa25||8/3/09 11:13 AM|
agl said it best about the whole 32 bit java and such so....
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||tigerhawkvok||8/3/09 12:40 PM|
Well I suppose if the browser is passed session data, or is in HTTPS mode, it just instead gives a top yellow bar saying:
"This tab wants to run a 32-bit process. Would you like to refresh this page to enable the plugin?" [Yes]/[No]/[Never for this tab]
Leave the whole thing up to the user.
Given AGL's response to the 32-bit V8 engine, this also seems to work with this model. You install both engines (the current V8 an in-development 64-bit V8) and run the engine appropriate to the process of the tab.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Almad||8/14/09 2:40 AM|
Pure 64bit linux users are waiting too ,)
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||pjbdd||11/30/09 11:07 PM|
Actually it is strange to find out after buy a fantastic working 64 bits operating system there is not one 64 bits browser to use permanentaly. Explorer is in 32 bits and 64 bits version for Window systems. Install adobe CS4 the 64 bits version but has to download the Flash Player with te 32 bits explorer... Insanety is at the horizon in my perception. It shall be a blessing when a fulltime operational 64 browser will be available so I can get rid of all the 32 bits sorrow and save space at my Hard disk..
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||netster007||12/6/09 1:22 AM|
Yeah I'm w/ u guys I'm on Win7 x64 so a 64bit version of Chrome would be awesome.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||gzt7d8||12/7/09 4:47 PM|
Version 4 is just blazing compared to the competition, can you just image how much faster a 64 bit version would be?
I'm in, please register my vote.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||daraghfi||12/17/09 7:53 AM|
Only problem I see is Adobe with their 32-bit only implementation of Flash. Boo.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Randall Lind||1/25/10 7:33 PM|
Why does it seems software makers are against Windows 64? Everything has to be Linux first this is BS. Adobe now Google 64 bit is not a fad we have had a working 64bit windows for over 4-5 years starting with Windows XP. The 64 Bit XP version was only OEM sale but still. The we had Vista still software companies ignore hoping 64bit was a fad.
Linux went 64bit totally which is OK when 2% use it. Adobe and other software makers say the reason they are not in a rush is because you can run 32bit programs
in 64bit versions of windows.
Unlike Linux when you got 95% of the market you can't go totally 64bit until software makers get on board because it would be a nightmare for Microsoft when people can't go surf to web sites or run programs cause software makers don't seem to care about going 64bit.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||rct0725||3/12/10 1:04 PM|
Once and for all, as of today, 3/12 is there a 64-bit version out there? I'm getting tired of looking.
It simply boggles the mind software is still so far behind at this point. I mean, I had this problem with Windows NT but I got over it, but now it's been how many years???
I don't care about Flash at this point because, even when they do come out with a version it probably won't be secure given their stellar history!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Pikilon||3/26/10 10:27 AM|
I am linux user and Widows user.
how many developers are in the 64 bits version right now?
does this project exists?
IE has it, firefox has it. its the time to chrome to take the lead.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||keith19933||4/17/10 12:50 PM|
Can I be added to this there list of people who want and have wanted 64-bit native on Windows for ages please.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||akrimmer86||5/4/10 4:17 PM|
Still waiting on a 64 bit version of Chrome to be released. Firefox has 64 bit out now, but I would still prefer to use Chrome.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||gmoore86||5/30/10 10:44 AM|
come on google, give us a 64 bit version of chrome!!!!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||pgzerwer||6/8/10 8:03 AM|
This was answer from Google over a year ago! What is the hold-up? You folks are in danger of losing devoted customers due to the appearance of a lack of either technical expertise or concern for those who use your products.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||dj-lethal||6/9/10 5:50 PM|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||tigerhawkvok||6/15/10 5:07 PM|
Apparently, the migration of VP8 to 64-bit is done in Valve Time! ( http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time )
I do hope you guys implement it soon, but I have been happy with the evolution of Chrome. As much as I'd like to see it now, I know it'll be released on a "when it's done" sort of timeline.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Adamal||6/15/10 6:20 PM|
@pgzerwer Development takes time. They have only so many man hours they can devote to development of chrome and they have to allocate that time in a way that does the most good. You are in the minority, you maybe a devoted customer, but the feature you are requesting is probably not in high demand.
It will come when it comes.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||etherknight||7/19/10 11:58 AM|
@Adamal If pgzerwer is 'in the minority' it won't be for much longer. The use of x64 systems is growing /fast/. As of June of this year, nearly half (46%) of all Windows installations are 64-bit. It's not as if x64 OS editions are some bleeding edge thing....
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Dave Vasquez||7/24/10 2:06 PM|
I'd like to throw my hat in for a 64-bit version of Chrome for Windows 7 as well. I really don't care about Flash, if that's a limiting factor. Let Adobe make a 64-bit version of Flash if they want to support 64-bit operating systems/apps. If they don't/can't... that's their problem and it shouldn't limit Chrome - a completely separate application made by a completely separate company.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||netraven5000||8/9/10 9:08 AM|
I'd like to throw in my 2 cents that I would also like to see a 64-bit version.
I'd also like to tell EVERYONE to CALM DOWN because a 64-bit version will not necessarily perform better or faster than a 32-bit one, and there's absolutely NO reason that you can't run a 32-bit browser in a 64-bit system. There's also generally no benefit to it, except that it might take advantage of some new instructions, and has higher precision.
I think that's what Adamal meant by "you are in the minority, you maybe a devoted customer, but the feature you are requesting is probably not in high demand".
It's a nice feature, and I'd like to see it, but it's not really that important.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Gucio||8/9/10 11:53 AM|
64 bits gives you access to more than 2GB of ram per application, so i think there is no need for now since each tab is a separate process, unless you have some heavy web page that takes more than 2GB of ram in one tab... o_O
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||DrX||9/15/10 3:40 PM|
netraven5000... obviously you do not use 64bit. Every program i have that is 64bit runs faster on my box in win7 x64.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Black_ice_Spain||9/15/10 3:51 PM|
flash 64 bits its now released on windows
so now a 64bits chrome could worth it
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||petersaints||9/15/10 3:53 PM|
Now that Flash 64-bit is finally available on Windows you could/should consider making oficially available a 64-bit version of Chrome for Windows.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||petersaints||9/15/10 3:56 PM|
And I would also suggest that you could start by offering it on the Dev Channel and progressively moving it toward the Stable Channel, maybe in time of the launch of Chrome 7 or at least Chrome 8.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||netster007z||9/15/10 6:16 PM|
Flash 64 o yeah bring on the 64bit chrome for Win7!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||etherknight||9/16/10 3:53 PM|
@netraven5000 - You are missing two vital points:
1- When you have a 64-bit OS, but are using a 32-bit application, the app will run measurably *slower* than it would on a 32-bit OS. This is due the 64-bit CPU being forced to perform 'bit filling' to simulate the missing 32 bits.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||kmatheny||9/29/10 12:20 PM|
Flash 64-bit is in Labs now; so where's it at Google- Chrome 64-bit!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Jasonked||10/1/10 6:37 PM|
x64 Chrome will be only marginally faster than x86...
None of the x64 software or operating systems make any speed difference to the average home user... Stop getting hung up on the numbers you're being fed and just use your computers for the same lame crap you do everyday...
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||pdmark||10/3/10 2:55 AM|
marginally faster in 64bit is why I spend 2x as much on hardware... so make 64bit applications or I will use other providers that will.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||dragorth||10/3/10 7:20 PM|
The reason I would like a 64bit version is two-fold. The first is a simple desire to stop cluttering up my hard drive. An example is under 64bit windows, when i install a 32 bit program, it is installed under c:\program files (x86)\, versus pure 64bit versions that all install under C:\Program Files\. There are even some really crappy programs (heres looking at you adobe) that install parts of programs under both, or in the case of CS5, a 32bit and a 64bit version. There are two versions of WMP install on 64bit machines. Two versions of Windows Media Center as well as Internet explorer. That makes it harder on on me to diagnose issues on these computers when I have to figure out which version has the problem.
The second reason is that Microsoft threw in some extra memory magic that helps protect all programs on a 64bit machine, but are not going to make these features mandatory for 32 bit machines (DEP and some other things for good measure) Not to mention most hackers are still concentrating on 32bit software because of this added protection, and yes I realize that they will eventually crack it too, I would feel far safer using pure 64bit software.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||smokinzbt||10/31/10 7:26 PM|
I am just realizing what a waste of time I've been stuck with. I have a year old Dell laptop, running Intel Core i7 chip, 1.73 GHz (8 processors) with 4 GB of RAM, running 64 bit Win 7. Starting Chrome takes a while, and it takes even longer for the "most visited" sites to populate on startup. On first start, it takes nearly a minute for these to populate.
I just started a new job.. with a computer running a Core 2 processor (1.5 GHz), with 2 GB of RAM, and Win 7/32. Chrome starts (including populated most visited) in under 10 seconds.
Are you kidding me?? Seriously, I have a machine with 4 times the processors, all running FASTER than the 2 on the other machine, with twice as much RAM, and it takes 5-6 times longer on the better computer? What's the point?
64-bit Chrome... where are you? I thought Google was a leader in technology. Not a company that will get to it when they feel like it.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ranutso||11/6/10 8:21 AM|
It is not just because of speed. Maybe the speed difference is not that big, really. But I think maybe it is time we move forward on this. The more pure 64-bits programs we run on our 64-bits systems the better. 64-bits Chrome would use the 64-bits libraries of Windows (for network, desktop composition, etc). So it would help not having to load the same lib for supporting 32 and 64 bits programs at the same time.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||lostman||11/10/10 6:20 AM|
i need 64bit chrome on Windows7
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||shellcoder||12/8/10 10:52 PM|
Where's 64-bit Chrome? I need it too
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||MIKETALLICA||12/20/10 11:55 AM|
I am awaiting Chrome x64 as well!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||shellcoder||12/20/10 8:15 PM|
We need 64-bit Chrome for Windows, we really don't care if add-ons like flash etc are compatible or not. We just need a 64-bit Chrome for Windows
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||shishir333||12/29/10 11:36 PM|
I loved google chrome from start and hated firefox
But now that i am on x64, i have no other option than going for the latest firefox 4 beta or IE 9B for 64. :(
You guys are letting us(chrome lovers) down!!!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||shellcoder||1/2/11 10:25 PM|
Google, what's taking you ages? We need 64-bit Chrome for Windows
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||billybraga||1/22/11 7:19 AM|
I need Chrome x64... BUT STOP CRYING PEOPLE !!! GO SEE YOUR MOMMY OR SOMETH'N !!!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||furyhawk||1/27/11 4:45 PM|
Compiling Chromium as x64 throw so many errors before I can say 'x64 rox!'.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||shellcoder||2/6/11 8:50 AM|
How long will it take Google? 10 years?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ranutso||2/7/11 4:02 PM|
Does never sound good? They have no motivation with all the 32-bit support on 64-bit OSes. I bet Chrome will change name or morph into a different project before it has a 64-bit official release.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||vijaynats||2/17/11 11:58 PM|
Looks like chrome just got hugh up on 32-bits..lol...guess what? the next big chrome killer...Thunderbird!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||wcalderw||2/21/11 8:21 AM|
I have to agree with Jasonked.
Asking for a x64bit browser really isn't needed. Speed won't neccessarily improve, stability won't neccessarily improve, and what browser based application are you running that needs more than 2gigs of memory on the CLIENT pc? If your are then someone doesn't know how to properly write a web based application, and it definately taking the THIN out of web based computing.
The only reason I could see asking for a 64bit based web browser is because you are running a web based application that is unstable, and doing so on a system like windows x64 where all 32bit applications share the same application space. It takes just one bad apple to bring the whole bunch down. In this case yes a 64bit browser will protect your other 32bit applications from having problems like hanging or crashing, but it won't fix the original problem of having a poorly written web app...
and that's all I have to say about that...
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||ckangs||2/28/11 7:17 PM|
I like to open many tabs (40 tabs). a 64 bit browser will surely help to address this.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||3/14/11 7:18 AM|
Six months have come and gone. Adobe has a 64bit version of Flash, we need to update Chrome to 64bit to use it.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||3/14/11 7:19 AM|
64bit means twice the register size. It's more secure and it's faster. Everything Chrome is about.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Gui-Wan||3/22/11 5:00 PM|
i don't want to see "chrome.exe *32" anymore. please make native x64...
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||cityzen||3/23/11 2:38 PM|
Chromium (Chrome on linux) and V8 have both been ported to 64bit native on linux, so I would wager windows boxes aren't far behind. In the mean time, while you are forced to wait, a tip.
Toss on a linux install in a VM on your windows machine. At my work, I run chromium on gentoo in a VM and chromium renders and loads pages faster in the VM than chrome does on the host. Also, putting your browser in a VM protects you from all those dangerous things out there, like...flash.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||3/24/11 12:26 AM|
Chrome sandboxing already protects you.
My problem is that I can't dedicate all of my resources to a VM. It's always going to load more slowly
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ri.KenJi||5/9/11 2:19 PM|
It's probably a moot point for Chrome to be 64-bit because of memory access. Under 64-bit operating systems, I assume Chrome could just spawn new processes for new tabs and never hit the memory limits. Firefox and Opera, however, still run everything in a single process and would definitely benefit from being 64-bit if not multi-process like Chrome. I'm using Firefox mainly for Firefox Sync's secure synchronization feature right now and I have about 30+ tabs open using about 1.2 GB.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||5/9/11 6:17 PM|
There are a lot of significant changes moving to 64bit. Memory usage isn't a big one but it could be nice.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||bentakula||5/20/11 3:15 AM|
there is a way to run cchrome x64 for linux under windows 7 os natively, or i shall say semi natively. however god damn it chrome common
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||bentakula||5/20/11 3:15 AM|
IE 9 x64 rocks tho....\
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||abgalphabet||6/11/11 4:10 AM|
+1 to release a 64-bit version of Google Chrome
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Bryan-Ponnwitz||6/13/11 10:34 AM|
All I can say is that there's a 64-bit version of Internet Explorer... Google is dropping the ball on this one!! ESPECIALLY when V8 has already been successfully ported over to x64! Get with it guys, or you'll loose the fight for the web.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||numetheus||7/11/11 9:57 PM|
Chrome bogs down if you are using a lot of tabs that have java and flash. I have 64bit flash and 64bit java installed with 64bit Internet Explorer 9. It is a LOT faster than Chrome when you put load on it. I LOVE CHROME ... but can't stand using it for work because it is so damned slow. I have stopped using Chrome because of this. Let me know when a 64bit version comes out.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Matthew Liberty||7/14/11 6:58 AM|
Given how long it's taken to migrate the business world to x64, we might as well get started on x128 as soon as possible. The sooner the better. It's going to take 10 years to implement, and by that time 16 TB may no longer be enough memory at the current rate of technological advancement.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||petersaints||7/14/11 7:08 AM|
Yesterday Adobe launched Adobe Flash Player 11.0 Beta 1 with Windows 64-bit native support. It's about damn time all browsers get built for 64-bit (not just Chrome, but also Firefox and Opera).
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ri.KenJi||7/16/11 12:31 AM|
I just happened to to be fixing my computer using an Ubuntu live CD yesterday night. I went on a Flash page in Firefox, clicked on "Find missing plugin" and it led me to the 64-bit Flash page... just a few hours after it was up. I didn't install it yet, but I'm hoping it's as stable as others report it to be.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||7/16/11 11:11 PM|
Peter, I was just about to post. Where's our 64bit Chrome? I know they've already translated crankshift... what's the hold up?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||e_brock||7/19/11 4:21 AM|
64-bit Chrome browser for Windows??? Yes, please. I would even donate to the devs to make this happen...
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Codyt||7/20/11 8:18 AM|
Google could care less what we want lately.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Raider0001||7/25/11 10:31 AM|
I'm waiting for x64 portable version of chrome, untill that time i will use my FF portable Nightly x64 with IMAGE ZOOM plugin for the sake of what i need to watch on my large screen.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||7/25/11 8:38 PM|
I believe Linux has 64bit Chrome. I may just switch to Mint. I would expect Chrome to release a 64bit for Windows right around the official Flash 64bit release.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||ECase||9/7/11 10:27 AM|
IS THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE YET????
Technology marketing hype has always amazed me. I've used 64-bit Windows OS since 2008 or so, but I never could understand why my computers still showed programs being used in 32-bit mode. Today I finally used the magical search term query: "Windows 7 64 bit os why are all my programs running in 32 bit" and I came across an informative explanation from Adobe that you can read here:
It addresses the issue about web browsers stuck in a 32-bit operating mode, and since over the past year the majority of my computing work is done on a web browser, I determined it was relevant.
In a nutshell, web browsers, like anything else in existence, are only as powerful as its weakest link. Apparently the Flash Player was one element holding web browsers back. They very well may be other elements not related to the Flash Player, but for now it seems Adobe has released a 64-bit version. It can be found here:
The release date just happened to be 9/6/2011, so CTrexob's post in this thread on 7/16/2011 seems to be a prediction post.
I've submitted this info here so it will become relevant again - still cannot seem to find a 64-bit version of Chrome ;)
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ranutso||9/7/11 10:56 AM|
The true "problem" behind 32-bits programs running on 64-bits systems is simply the mix of different technologies. Not that OS companies (like Microsoft and Apple) haven't solved the problem of supporting both worlds pretty well. You don't see many programs crashing these days if not by the program's own fault.
But still, having all softwares on your computer running on the same "architecture", talking the same language, would be nicer for coherency's sake.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||9/11/11 5:08 AM|
V8 has been ported... Flash has been ported... what's up Google?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||ileadu||9/15/11 5:58 PM|
I need chrome x64 edition.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||San0013||9/25/11 8:13 AM|
comeon google *32 looks so ugly with chrome in my taskmgr
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||JackyH||9/30/11 3:33 PM|
Thanks for your feedback on 64 bit Chrome. Please see the links below and start the issues to follow progress for Mac and Windows; there is already 64-bit Chrome for Linnux.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||9/30/11 6:31 PM|
Great to hear some word on this. Thank you Jacky.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Rafael Kafka||10/8/11 8:30 PM|
Congratulation, JackyH, the march of progress is always amazing! Now with stable flash 63 we hope to see chrome 64 soon in all platforms!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||11/6/11 12:07 AM|
Haven't seen any more comments on that Chromium page.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||DrX||11/7/11 12:21 PM|
any updates to this?
|(unknown)||11/15/11 8:45 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||keith19933||11/16/11 6:43 AM|
I replied to this when I did use Windows, now on 64-bit Linux I think the issue is pretty obvious, memory usage. Chrome has always been terrible for it's memory use and 64-bit dramatises this, I mean on 64-Bit Ubuntu I have a few tabs open and a couple of extensions installed, but with nothing using Flash (not even ads, I have click-to-play on) and About Memory reports Chrome's on about 1GB of Private Memory. This isn't so much of a problem on Ubuntu because the OS doesn't use too much however with the newer versions of Windows and all the bloat that comes with them, things are going to be pushed into swap rather quickly, removing any advantages 64-bit may give. Now, you could argue people with plenty of memory shouldn't have a problem but the issue is there are a vast number of laptops about with 3GB memory and 64-bit Windows 7 and the majority of owners of said laptops will install the 64-bit version (because they believe it's 'better'), get terrible performance and simply move to other browsers rather then trying 32-bit. Google of course can't admit they're scared of scaring the people who aren't tech-savvy but think they are away and losing/stunting market growth.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||11/16/11 4:24 PM|
She let us know very specifically what had been done and what still needs to be done. That's all anyone has asked for.
@Keith:I don't think that's the issue.
1) Chrome's memory usage is average. In the long run it's often better than Firefox's (due to the multiprocess architecture it has more intitial use but long term will use less.)
2) I've seen Firefox use ~2GB with 3 tabs open. Not including the plugin container.
3) It's more likely that the 64bit sandbox is giving them the trouble.
Both Ubuntu and Windows use like... ~500MB on startup if we're going by Win7/8.
And 64bit has far more improvements than address space.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||thedeerhunter||11/20/11 10:08 AM|
Really disappointed in Google on this one. When i first found Chrome... i thought it was an amazing step up from IE. Then i upgraded to a 64bit machine... Chrome runs very poorly when at all. I've begrudgingly switched back to IE but think Google has really missed a trick. Not sure if i'll switch back to Chrome if and when they finally release a 64 bit version. If you can't count on being properly supported... what's the point?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Theseuskhan||11/20/11 11:06 PM|
Chrome as a 32 Bit ap Deer hunter, benchmarks above every other browser. The one usefull reason that Chrome has to go 64 bit is to perhaps aid those Battlelog users=d as the netcode now for BF runs threw the browser. However i trust google will bring it out when its ready. The lack in time has not been because of Google, Literately up till now none of the web's coding systems Java, Asp etc have not ran 64 bit. Why create a product for something that literately has 0 use in this current net world. =p However , until everyone does reach a 64 bit browser then why would web developers cater for it at all. Its a Ying Yang situation
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||11/28/11 6:40 PM|
It's strange how the project is open source but it's so hard to tell what's going on with development.
I'd love to hear more consistent updates on where 64bit Chrome is.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||11/28/11 6:42 PM|
Yes, 32bit Chrome benchmarks higher than any other 64bit browser. But 64bit Firefox is about 10% faster than32bit.
Not to mention being able to take advantage of the other benefits that come with 64bit. One such thing being ASLR.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||cay0tic||11/30/11 2:48 PM|
I agree with evansca on this one.
I mean seriously?! Two + years for a request and still nothing. No time frame given. I understand this may be on the back-burner but this is getting pretty crazy. The time this has been under development is similar to that of the "next big game".
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Tcreek||11/30/11 9:31 PM|
How's that "progress" going, Google?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Rowas||11/30/11 10:02 PM|
Ugh. I barely installed Windows 7 64- bit with an i7 and 24 gb of ram.... I was so eager to experience the fastest browser on decent specs and it doesn't exist.
Oh well. I hope you hurry google. I'll still use the 32 bit version, but I can't say I approve.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||11/30/11 10:44 PM|
I would like to see more work on this/ more transparency.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||12/15/11 3:17 PM|
Opera now has 64bit. Chrome is the only browser that hasn't upgraded.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Sparx_UK||12/18/11 2:50 AM|
Was really hoping a 64 bit version would be out by now
I was forced to remove chrome due to windows explorer locking up on me on Win 7 64 bit , really gutted as was massively impressed with it as a browser. Now am back on IE 64 bit until Google come out with a 64 bit release :(
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Curious142||12/23/11 12:33 PM|
@Sparx_UK, I'm running Chrome (32-bit) on Windows pro sp1 64-bit and everything works fine. And I didn't have to make any special "adjustments" or anything like that to Windows. Your 64-bit Windows 7 must need some "adjustments". Good luck.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||summon511||12/24/11 12:13 PM|
i just cant beleive it......its 2012 and no 64 version yet? come on google.....stay up to the technology as you were in the past
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||cristiano.orlando||12/28/11 3:24 AM|
Chrome is slower and slower
With 4 pinned tabs and 3 - 5 common tabs open, it can take about 1 - 1.5 gb of ram from 500mb to 1.5 in a few hours, and the cache management is ridiculous... users can´t even configure the cache use / limits in a proper way, having to use command line stuff... because if the cache is heavy, the browser becomes response less.
I downloaded nighlty builds of FF and had no problems... and I downloaded Waterfox, a x64 stable build of firefox 9... less ram use and way too faster than x86 version.
So why isn´t Chrome being released for x64 windows users ?
Adobe already made flash x64, Oracle already released tons of x64 versions... so please, or I (and other users) are gonna wipe Chrome from our systems and use only browsers that support x64
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Bob Kerns||12/29/11 7:37 PM|
Grrr. Now I have to go install a 32-bit version of Java, after I deleted it to to make room on my SSD.
Chrome is the *only* use of 32-bit Java left on my system.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||wpijeff||1/2/12 1:21 PM|
evansca11 - I think people just voted because of how excited they were to see a Google Employee actually reading and responding to an issue in the help forum at all, even though it didn't contain any new information.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||1/5/12 3:08 PM|
It did contain new information.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Mark.Stewart||1/10/12 6:49 PM|
The reason for compiling 64 bit Chrome is because new OS's and new machines use more memory than frail old 32 bit programs and older systems can handle. Millions of 64 platforms are sinking in mud, to oblige outdated 32 bit daft ware. Not for long!
When you run 32 on a 64 system, it's like sewing with glue in your fingers, driving to work backwards, watching our machines crash and stall over and over again. All so we can oblige outdated technology. So someone in the know, please tell us all: is there (((any))) advantage to NOT GOING 64? Go-Go-Go!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Mark.Stewart||1/10/12 8:27 PM|
On a system with Norton 360, a super sloggy 32 bit that promises to go 64 in a month or two, running IE is a curse. No. IE is a SUPER CURSE. IE no longer supports Flash. Grr that Bob! IE and Adobe are at each other's throats again. Imagine Symantec is shouting them on from the sidelines. Now Flash 32, core of the Flash engine. There's 64 bit H--- warmed over.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Mark.Stewart||1/10/12 8:35 PM|
Just 100 GB is enough for SSD running Windows 7-64. I use SATA's for user files. Properties » Location, 5 sceonds and they move onto the spinners. But I do keep and run copies of sloppy old DVD installs on my SSD.
Windows install, 5 minutes (too much 32 garbage sticking around there). Office 2010-64, 30 seconds. Acrobat 10-mostly-64, 40 seconds. And so on. I am getting ready to trial two SSD's - one for Windows and one for active data. Leave those sweet old wrinkly, sleepy spinners to dream their long lost dreams.
Mommy, I want to be a Sleep Therapist.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ri.KenJi||1/11/12 9:28 AM|
Mark.Stewart, did you know that 64-bit software also uses more memory? Because memory addresses are now twice the size, you automatically increase memory usage. What advantage do you gain when Chrome spawns a process for each tab (or several tabs depending on how you configured Chrome)? Do you expect a single tab to consume 2 GiB of memory?
One of my Firefox instances on my computer currently has 153 tabs opened. It currently consumes approximately 1 GiB of RAM. The out-of-process plugin container (due to all the Adobe Flash content loaded from the pages) associated with that instance uses approximately 800 MiB. I've got another instance of Firefox running on another account that uses 600 MiB with about 32 MiB in use by the out-of-process plugin container. In total, 169 tabs opened (not counting the Adobe Flash content) doesn't even hit 2 GiB.
The only real advantage to making software 64-bit is clearing up any compatibility problems between plugins and extensions and if you ran Chrome as a single process.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||1/11/12 4:03 PM|
What you're referring to is Long Bloat and it's really not an issue - it can be optimized for. There are times where you can't get around it but it's not suddenly going to double your RAM usage.
64bit processes have the ability to address more data at once. This means RAM and Disk actions can be handled in fewer CPU cycles - not super relevant for a browser.
64bit processes can also access double the registers on the CPU. This can actually lead to significant performance improvements for specific activities such as encryption and decryption, functions used by browsers more often than users realize!
Access to double the registers also means a much more randomized address space, which means bruteforcing ASLR'd areas is almost impossible. Chrome already randomizes its own address space before allowing windows to do so but it's always nice to have better security.
In short, you will have a slight increase in RAM usage, a situationally significant improvement in performance, and a nice increase in security.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ri.KenJi||1/11/12 5:45 PM|
@CTrexob: I was careful to not say that memory usage was doubled, if you'd read carefully.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||1/30/12 2:48 PM|
Could we hear more about this from the devs?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||1/30/12 2:51 PM|
I see that now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
To be clear and concise there are these benefits to 64bit Chrome:
1)* 64bit ASLR = significantly more random ASLR
2) Larger address space = handle large disk operations or RAM operations in a single CPU cycle/
3) Call Convention on 64bit is much better. Stack uses FIFO in RAM for 32bit and has a Stack register on 64bit allowing for essentially instant access to process memory on the stack, which is very important.
*Chrome already randomizes its address space before Windows does so it's actually fairly random already. But due to limits in how much you can offset it's nice to have more.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||skype id||1/30/12 8:39 PM|
Why is Google in the stone ages when they have the money to compete? I use IE 64 daily and just checked to see if Google finally was smart enough to figure it out after 4 years of 64 bit and Google can not get their heads out of the sand. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||DrX||2/5/12 7:18 PM|
gave up... switched to waterfox.. (64bit firefox 10) flash, silverlight, and java are 64bit now. Everything works.... goodbye chrome. Let me know when you get your head out of your behind.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||2/5/12 8:20 PM|
Yes, all major plugins (the three you mentioned) have 64bit versions now. It would be nice to see Chrome be able to use those.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Paul d Troy||2/6/12 2:16 AM|
Got Waterfox 10 going really nicely, but wheres 64bit Chrome?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||MacGyver88||2/11/12 1:26 AM|
Smooth scrolling is much much much better in Waterfox than it is in Chrome (make sure to activate Smooth Scrolling in the settings and under about:flags respectively).
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||ug123||2/15/12 10:07 AM|
there is 64bit version for firefox called waterfox, also ff 64bit is also as nightly build,
opera too has 64bit version for windows and both are significantly faster than their 32 bit counter parts for windows o/s.
could not find 64bit version of chrome for windows myself.
one problem though flash player for 64 bit browser is kind of buggy and not quite good as 32bit and that too it is beta release.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Nadram||2/22/12 12:18 PM|
Damn... Still nothing? this thread has been going on for almost 2 years now :s
I really hope to see this come to life soon.
All the best to the developers' team.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||2/22/12 12:23 PM|
More updates would be great. Last we saw Chrome 64bit seemed very close. V8 has been ported, what's left?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||jdk1.0||2/22/12 3:51 PM|
Just curious what most users are going to do with 64bit Chrome. Are you going to check your email and watch youtube? I can do that with 8 bits. Larger address space, more security (dodgy), access more disk space in one cpu cycle (?), load 64 bit versions of plugins that already exist in 32 bit?
Everything will eventually be 64bit. In the meantime NOBODY who is a normal user will EVER notice the difference. I can design and build a 512 bit system and write a program for it that is slower than a 4 bit equivalent. All this nonsense of "needing" 64 bit right away in order to "double my speed" is making my stomach turn.
You want 64-bits? Go run 64 bit IE or Firefox on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7030_Stretch and then come back here and tell us how your day went...
(That's a joke (kind of), btw.)
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||2/22/12 9:22 PM|
So you listed a series of reasons why 64bit is superior and then said that nobody would notice.
Except... people would notice. A lot of sites use heavy scripting, which would benefit (significantly) from 64bit.
Decoding images and videos (hey, youtube!... or like... literally any page on the internet lol) would be faster.
More security is dodgy? 32bit ASLR is nearly useless. 64bit ASLR isn't. Chrome bridges the gap by randomizing its address space twice, but skipping that step would be way better for the user. I doubt Flash randomizes first... 64bit Flash would be significantly more secure because of this.
What about GZIP? Again, here's somewhere 64bit computing would give fair performance improvements across the board.
Desk space and LAA are the same thing - it's about accessing data in fewer cycles. Less relevant to a browser since almost all files a browser will ever deal with will be smaller than that limit but whatever - at least worth mentioning.
Does 64bit = speed and security? No. If you just ported directly to 64bit you could potentially have the same program but using more RAM.
But optimizing for 64bit will noticeably increase "user experience."
So, basically - yes. It would be very nice to see Chrome 64bit.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||antoneti||2/24/12 1:57 AM|
I would like to forget about 32 bits but there is no way, in general the transition to 64bits has been managed awful ....
Why I need Chrome 64bits? for example, not to need to install jvm 32 bits for example, I will have to install jvm 32 and 64 bits.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||nighthawk475||2/28/12 3:11 PM|
i would like to point out that there is beginning to be a difference, especially in the gaming industry, in minecraft (really the reason im here) you cant use optimal settings without java 64 bit (specific the far render distance setting), and its recommended by oracle to only have one version of java (and while it does supply instructions for having both 32 and 64 bit versions simultaneously, its just easier to only have one) i love using Google chrome, i personally think its much faster the IE and more user friendly, and i just never used firefox, but really this thread has been here for two years, and Google still hasn't come out with an official 64 bit browser. I'm beginning to loose faith in the company I thought had the resources to do anything, and if Microsoft of all companies can do it, why can't Google? Really, just get a product out because soon I'm going to be switching away from Google Chrome so i can play my games in HD.
|This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||CTrexob||3/3/12 2:17 PM|
Converting and optimizing for 64bit is very difficult - that's why it's not out yet.
|(unknown)||4/4/12 4:45 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||NanoTechSoldier||4/4/12 4:49 AM|
I Wouldn't Say, Converting 32bit Software To 64bit, Is Very Difficult...
It's Just Time Consuming...
With New Processors, Coming Out With More Physical Cores Available...
So, When A New Processor, Comes Out.. They Don't Have To Re-Write The 64bit Code, To Support Them.. They Are Essentially, Predicting CPU Development, All The Time & Coding For It..
FireFox Nightly x64.. Is More Of A Alpha Test & Is Still Riddled With 32bit Code..
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Cody21||4/13/12 9:05 AM|
OK, add me as well ... I was required to upgrade to Windows 7 to get support for new DSLR file processing (raw images) - got my spanking new laptop with everything & reinstalled CHROME (to take advantage of bookmarks getting synced). Chrome is horrific under Windows 7, imho.
example to see what I mean:
go to www.craigslist.org
Other sites have lines squiched together horizontally - sort of like letters nearly on top of each other.
Windows Explorer 9 does NOT behave this way. So unless there is an update fix or a setting to fix this, I'm reluctantly back to IE9 ... ugh ...
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||zainbhai||4/30/12 5:10 PM|
Chrome is hanging on i5 4gb with 100gb free space machine! every other thing is running smoothly!!! When Google makes the actual step? Do we assume they are getting outdated?
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||choppergirl||5/9/12 9:40 AM|
If you want an x64 browser so bad, then use Firefox x64 and Explorer x64, you already know they exist.
At most you people will only get a 5% speed gain from an x64 version of Chrome.
I wonder how many of you would shut up if an x64 Chrome existed, but you had to pay for it....
You've probably never paided for using Google searches, or for Chrome x32, or any Google web products, and yet you bitch for more for free, and demand that its expected of Google.
Sure I'd like an x64 Chrome, it would give me a 5% speed boost on my low end X2 3600's I use, and the number 1 app I use is Chrome.... *but*... I know if I just spent some money and upgraded to an i7 from these 10 year old processors, I'd get a 10,000% speed increase on x32 Chrome.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Steve Elsass||5/10/12 12:57 AM|
*It's All About The RAM. 3 GB of RAM is becoming too small a sandbox for Chrome to call home.*
Your main point is most people would barely notice the increase.
Here's why I strongly disagree. As I see it the problem for the end user revolves around memory usage (RAM).
Reference Item 1
Note too that as people continue to move their communications and business to the cloud this problem will grow exponentially.
So.... If a person has a fast modern computer with few 32 bit processes running, I would agree with you that a 64 bit version of Chrome would only make a small difference in performance.
But many businesses and power users, as well as the general public's migration to more and more cloud computing all make cases for the need for 64 bit Chrome for Windows. And this is a problem that "buy more RAM" won't fix.
3 GB of RAM is quickly becoming too small a sandbox for Chrome to call home.
|(unknown)||5/10/12 12:59 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Steve Elsass||5/10/12 1:11 AM|
I should have added the obvious implication on point A; that adding more RAM beyond 3GB will not improve performance of Chrome, or any of the rest of the 32 bit Windows computer.
A faster processor might make a difference depending what the current and intended CPUs are. But the average home and small business user has no clue how to upgrade a CPU. More often than not upgrading a CPU involves costly tech support expense, is not possible due to motherboard limitations, or requires the even greater cost of just buying a new computer.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||cay0tic||5/11/12 7:58 PM|
I have used Firefox x64 nightly and IE64 and frankly, guess what, they're BETTER! Why am I using Chrome then? Well Chrome integrates well with all the Google services that I use and there sync across platforms is much more transparent than Firefox.
Numerous people may not pay Google for services doesnt mean that there are none. I pay Google for various services such as Apps and Google Offers. Google's main business revenue is through advertising, mostly through their search engine, which lo and behold, we need a web browser to access. So although we may not be paying Google directly for searches (the companies do that), as long as we keep using Google's search engine, companies keep paying them to advertise.
And I actually would pay Google for an x64 Chrome. Hell I'll even do a monthly donation until completion as long as I can see some progress and an ETA.
And yes, I can say its "expected" to have an x64 Chrome. There is a migration of apps to x64. Where there used to be a handful of x64 apps, now there are many. Its also been for the better part of 4 years in this request. 4 years in the software industry is eons.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||vickas54||7/9/12 10:01 AM|
It's unfortunate that so many have fallen into the marketing hype that they *need* 64bit. hell i was even thinking of downgrading to 32 bit because all of the browsers and media players are (were) still 32 bit, given thats what my htpc is used for. it would be nice to get rid of the WoW64 compatibility layer, even though I wouldn't notice a difference.
however progress is necessary in all categories of life, and if google doesn't even announce progress on a 64bit windows version (even if they are working hard on it), many other software makers won't bother either, thus delaying the eventual removal of 32 bit compatibility.
I know some may cry foul at that last part, but it is an eventuality. Just as 16bit x86 was left behind, so (eventually) must 32bit be.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||DDjusD||7/18/12 11:02 PM|
I expected better from Google. They should at least let people know how the development of it is going. Seriously Google, stop being so ignorant and finish this. Either you're paying your programmers to sleep and goof off, or your not even working on it.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||iueras||8/13/12 6:45 PM|
Not working on it. They have blocked comments on the google code site relating to 64 bit windows versions. There has been absolutely no progress or news on this since 2008. I seriously doubt they are even thinking about it, being too busy trying to integrate the next google+ crap that no one wants into it to worry about features that people actually want. Typical large company arrogance, they grabbed the market share they wanted and now the users can go take a piss. Go grab the 64 bit version of Firefox and never look back at this horrible horrible company.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||iueras||8/13/12 6:48 PM|
Oh bullshit. Your answer might have held some water 4 years ago when they started working on this, but the 64 bit Linux versions have been out with 64 bit flash for some time. The ONLY excuse for not having a 64 bit windows version is pure laziness at this point. They just plain don't care to work on it. They have their Windows users so why worry about it, right? Typical Google arrogance.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||iueras||8/13/12 6:49 PM|
I'm just sick of having to maintain both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of java and flash just to accomodate Chrome. Ditching it at this point tonight since 4 years of no news while Linux(!) gets version after 64 bit version. I might start using it again if google gets their act together and actually pushes out the windows version of the 64 bit code they ALREADY HAVE WRITTEN FOR GODS SAKE.
|(unknown)||8/13/12 6:54 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||iueras||8/14/12 3:56 PM|
Joined you. Absolutely disgusting that there has been no response for literally 4 years for 64 bit Windows users while the few Linux users have had 64 bit Chrome for a long long time now.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Ahmed Gaveem||9/23/12 6:53 AM|
Is there any update on the Windows 7 64 bit front? It's been more than two years since the last update, and the issues page hasn't been updated for quite a while.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||RGWilder||10/16/12 7:05 PM|
OK, so we're merging all the Chrome 64x threads together, but still not answering any questions. Now, as of today, MAC OSX removes JavaRTE, and needs to be installed directly from java.com. But as you know, JavaRTE will not run in 32 bit browsers. Let's get around to pushing the code through to MAC and Windows users.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||ffxrunner||11/3/12 11:18 AM|
still... chrome is better than firefox no matter what
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||veniteo||11/4/12 4:21 AM|
Ill add my voice make a 64-bit chrome!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Steve Elsass||11/4/12 5:25 AM|
Not sure how many people read through this entire thread.
Just so it's clearly understood, it's Windows which is lacking a 64 bit Chrome and which would be nice to see happen.
But do know, there IS a 64 Bit Chrome which works extremely well.
Personally I find that I use Windows most of the day, (even though I'd rather not, LOL)
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Jaqueh||11/4/12 11:39 PM|
I want 64-bit Chrome ASAP because Java does not work on Mountain Lion's Chrome.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Austin Wang||12/8/12 10:24 PM|
Now that Java SE 7 on Mac doesn't support 32 bit browsers like Chrome, I think it's the time to make the change.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Kent Conover||12/12/12 8:27 AM|
The installation tool for the next release of Matlab requires Java7. However I cannot install Java7 without inactivating Chrome! Please add my voice to those clamouring for a 64 bit version!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Muja Garc||12/20/12 1:09 PM|
Mee to mates,Chrome 64 bit would be awesome.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||abcdefghijkl||12/23/12 6:44 PM|
Ditto, 64-bit PLEASE!!!
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||JamesBrewer||1/14/13 5:20 PM|
your statement is basically the chicken and the egg....someone has to make a move to force others....the big OS companies have been the driving force in the past....MS went 64, Apple, linux etc...., chip manufacturers went 64..I don't really care if websites in themselves are still written in 32bit java or have 32 bit flash...It comes down to is google going to be a leader or a follower, for now its a follower. It is a poor argument to say they don't want to produce a 64bit browser because most of the web content is still in 32bit.....so why should any company seek inovation???
Glad you're not the CEO or anything...
CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and contains information that
is privileged and confidential. If you, the reader of this message, are not
the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by return email and delete the original message.
Unless it relates to the official business of Singapore American School,
any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||JamesBrewer||1/14/13 5:24 PM|
This thread goes back over 4 years.....wow....HTML5...and IE for everyone
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Steve Elsass||1/14/13 6:08 PM|
Yous stated, "It is a poor argument to say they don't want to produce a 64bit browser..."
Read more of the above thread.
Microsoft and Apple don't get 64 bit versions.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||JamesBrewer||1/14/13 6:46 PM|
You have a problem comprehending what you read..your right...MS and APPL didn't get 64bit versions of chrome......but as stated..they(their operating systems) went to 64 bit.....and INTEL as well as many other chip manufacturers went 64bit as well....
THAT's MY POINT......the industry has to get driven, has to have leaders and google came out and kind of ..maybe...perhaps...wanting to help drive the industry to a better way of doing things....Chrome, android, google apps....and well they seem to have lost that drive.
There was 8bit, then came 16, up to 32bit...and guess what all software manufactures progressed accordingly...but the statement was made..why would google produce a 64 bit browser when a majority of sites are still in 32bit...yes why..if you can't figure out the why...you have bigger problems to deal with.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Steve Elsass||1/14/13 7:54 PM|
Relax chief! :-)
Knowledge and understanding are (usually) improved with the passage of time, aka learning. While it is true a long while back I asked the question "Why?"
To your point, "but as stated..they(their operating systems) went to 64 bit.....and INTEL as well as many other chip manufacturers went 64bit as well....
THAT's MY POINT....."
Yes, and no.
By allowing for the mixed environment, they eased adoption and compatibility, but they also gave a tacit nod to developers to continue focusing on 32 bit apps.
Time will solve all of this of course.
At least try out the 64 bit Chrome that does exist today on full 64 bit platforms like Linux - no hybrid OS required.
|Re: 64 bit Chrome?||Austin Wang||1/18/13 4:09 PM|
Although there are 64 bit versions of chrome available for linux, it's still going to take some time to make the mac version 64 bit, because Chrome for Mac is still part Carbon, and they have to port it all to Cocoa if they make it 64 bit.