Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Software Linux

Google Chrome For Linux Goes 64-bit 168

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the you-really-only-need-three dept.
Noam.of.Doom writes "The Google Chrome developers announced on August 19th the immediate availability of a new version of the Google Chrome web browser for Linux, Windows and Macintosh operating systems. Google Chrome 4.0.202.2 is here to fix a lot of annoying bugs (see below for details) and it also adds a couple of features only for the Mac platform. However, the good news is that Dean McNamee, one of the Google Chrome engineers, announced yesterday on their mailing list that a working port of the Chrome browser for 64-bit platforms is now available: 'The v8 team did some amazing work this quarter building a working 64-bit port. After a handful of changes on the Chromium side, I've had Chromium Linux building on 64-bit for the last few weeks. I believe mmoss or tony is going to get a buildbot running, and working on packaging.' Until today, Google Chrome was available on both 32- and 64-bit architectures, but it appears that the latter was running based on the 32-bit libraries. Therefore, starting with Google Chrome 4.0.202.2, 64-bit users can enjoy a true x64 version!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome For Linux Goes 64-bit

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:04AM (#29163613)

    Come on. This is Linux, not some WIMPy GUI-based OS like Winders or Suckintosh.

    I run the results of wget through a custom Perl script and then parse the results and feed image URLs back through wget and into libjpeg.

    Why do I need a bloated web browser when I have such an elegant Unix solution?

    • by Yvan256 (722131) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @01:26PM (#29164613) Homepage Journal

      This is a really bad analogy, guy.

    • I run the results of wget through a custom Perl script and then parse the results and feed image URLs back through wget and into libjpeg. Why do I need a bloated web browser when I have such an elegant Unix solution?

      Ah ha! I always suspected that RMS read Slashdot. Now my suspicions are confirmed. [lwn.net] :-)

      • by Bluesman (104513)

        That's an imposter. RMS would never use libjpeg when he can just mail a hard copy of the binary out to an assistant who will send him a photograph back.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Does it look like the computer of Neo in Matrix 1?

      You may kid, but actually, this very *freedom*, to attach everything to everything, and transform the streams of data, while everything is a file in the file system, is *the* killer feature of Linux.

      Unfortunately, Linux people somehow act ashamed for it, because the dumb masses, who know jack about actually using you computer and doing it efficiently too, think it would be some cumbersome thing of the past. And the Linux people apparently put the reality of

      • The real problem I find is when the DE's (and software designed to work with them) start being designed ignoring the mature and standard ways of doing things.
        A couple cases come to mind: network managers and automounting removable devices.
        I wish the people who write GUI utilities would
        1. Consider existing CLI utilities and systems (e.g., ifup/down)
        2. If these are insufficient improve them to support the new needs
        3. build graphical wrappers for them

        Unfortunately the mentality seems more often to be "Our interfa

  • Chromium Not Chrome (Score:5, Informative)

    by thejapanesegeek (1010005) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:06AM (#29163619) Homepage
    "Google Chrome" has not been released on the Linux platform yet. From the about:linux-splash on my chromium install:

    Chromium [google.com] is an open source browser project. Google Chrome [google.com] is a browser from Google, based on the Chromium project.

    And "Chromium" still doesn't have things like flash and printing, at least not in a stable, usable form.

    • by MrHanky (141717) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:17AM (#29163687) Homepage Journal

      Wrong. While still 'un-official', a developer preview of Google Chrome for Linux has been out for a long time, freely available. Link [chromium.org].

    • I use this version [archlinux.org] and don't experience any problems with flash. Although I miss some plugins from firefox, chromium is much faster and I use it as my primary browser.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:22AM (#29163713)

      Google really hit a home run with Chrome on Linux.

      It's as lighting quick on Linux as it is on Windows. And it's just as lighting quick days after heavy use unlike that outdated piece of crap Firefox.

      What is puzzling about Chrome/Chromium on Linux is why Google made it look like modern desktop app and not the usual 'designed by a blind person with bad taste using Windows 95 UI widgets' that appears to be the standard.

      • by Ant P. (974313)

        What is puzzling about Chrome/Chromium on Linux is why Google made it look like modern desktop app and not the usual 'designed by a blind person

        Yeah, fuck GTK and 10 years of building a GUI toolkit full of accessibility aids. Who cares about disabled people anyway?

        Obviously not Ben Goodger.

    • by Jamamala (983884) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:27AM (#29163767)
      Chromium does have flash support if you start it with --enable-plugins. It works pretty well, although admittedly I haven't tested the latest 4.0 builds or the x64 version.
      • by psavo (162634)
        I run Chromium on Ubuntu (9.04 and recent 9.10) x64 and it works well for youtube. Most annoying flash-ads worked too, but scrolling became slow & choppy on flash-laden pages (not so on windows/32 bit).
      • by Ilgaz (86384)

        A browser requiring --enable-plugins to have browser plugins enabled gives a very bad signal for its future, hopefully they do it in alpha-beta builds just to get rid of plugin related bug reports&crash reports.

        The last thing Linux desktop needs is a browser targeting 1% of browser community. Just saying...

    • by pablomme (1270790) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:31AM (#29163787)

      And "Chromium" still doesn't have things like flash and printing, at least not in a stable, usable form.

      Wrong about flash. Add '--enable-plugins' to chromium-browser's command line, and soft link the flash library into chromium's plugins directory (which they fail to tell you to do), e.g. in Ubuntu you would do:

        sudo ln -s /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/chromium-browser/plugins/

      Works well, is stable and is usable, despite the warnings that it may melt your computer etc. Printing is still unavailable.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      Wake me up when I can block ads, Flash, 3rd party cookies, and scripts. Until then it's just another browser.
      • by qubezz (520511) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @12:42PM (#29164311)
        An advertising company wants to install software on your computer. They profit by data aggregation and accumulation by seeing where on the map you are interested in going, what friends you chat with, what all the files on your computer are and how you search for them, and oh, everything you look at on the internet. Click here to install.
        • They'll also provide you with free software that you can catalog all your images & videos, including facial recognition; and provide hosting.

          And manage all your phone calls, and SMS, providing free transcription and search based off the transcription.

          If you're a website operator, you can sign up for Google Analytics, then you can collect all the IP addresses, browser-type-info, etc. of your visitors and send that info to Google. When lots of Google Analytics website owning client/aggregators send in the

          • Or, you can use NoScript and block scripts loaded from Google Analytics. If the website op wants user data (s)he should run the script in his own server to keep that info for his/her use only.

      • Wake up (Score:3, Informative)

        by cecil_turtle (820519)
        Chrome supports user scripts, and scripts for all of those things already exist. Check out http://www.adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org] for one. And it is still "just another browser" like Fx, Opera, IE, etc.
      • by rdnetto (955205)

        AdblockPlus and FlashBlock add-ons already exist in the Windows version (via GreaseMonkey). I'm not sure about Chromium though.

    • OK, I don't know a lot of background and politics of this all. I just downloaded and installed it (kubuntu jaunty 32bit). It works. Clicking on "About Google Chrome" in the settings pop-up menu (clicking the little wrench), it shows the "About" screen with the "Google Chrome" name. It mentions "made possible by the Chromium Open Source project...".
      And, by the way: yes flash plugins can be enabled as described in the posts above. Testing a single youtube video it worked. However, the first flash ad on sla
    • by Rinisari (521266) *

      Flash works great in Chromium for me. I've used it on YouTube, Scribd, and even some Flash-heavy movie and band web sites.

      It works even better if you get the 64-bit version of Flash from labs.adobe.com.

      • Wait, you visit scribd on purpose? I've been thinking how I can ban them (and a few others) from my google search results without typing -scribd every time.

    • by VanessaE (970834)
      /me looks at her browser window, then at the website it came from, then at the terminal that shows the last 'dpkg' run, then at the about:linux-splash page...

      Yup, I'm pretty sure this is Google Chrome for Linux. :-)

      I don't know that I'm going to switch to it yet, but I'll say one thing for sure - it's a lot faster than Firefox, especially on large pages (like slashdot).

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:07AM (#29163623)

    And if we are lucky, there will soon be a privacy-enabled version here:
    http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php [srware.net]

  • I can't really see using a closed-source browser when there are plenty of perfectly good open-source ones available. I'd be interested in trying chromium (the open-source version of chrome), but the last time I checked, it didn't seem mature enough to want to mess with. When it shows up in the ubuntu repos, I'll certainly be interested in giving it a spin. The thing is, Firefox is very feature-rich, and I've gotten used to/dependent on a bunch of its features, including mathml, ad blocking, flash blocking,

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Speed. If you're running it on Ubuntu I'm not sure how noticable it will be, but on Windows it is so absurdly faster than any browser you've ever ran that you'll be amazed at what its capable of. Also true on Macs, but Safari4 is not much slower.

      When you can keep the entire google suite open in tabs, with other rich web2.0 sites open at the same time and have none of them be any less responsive than a desktop app would be, it really changes how you view the web.

      On top of that the tab seperation is a killer

      • I honestly felt it was as slow as Firefox on my Eee. Though it did remain responsive a bit better while opening muliple tabs. I use uGoogle as my homepage, and will often open 8+ tabs of articles to read, Firefox often becomes unresponsive while large pages load in the background despite 2GB of system ram. Chrome/Chomium/Iron are usuall more responsive for the first few tabs, but after a few is nearly as bad. Not to mention the lack of adblock, firebug and xmarks. I do really like the layout and tab f

        • by smash (1351)
          Try running it on some javascript heavy sites. It is blisteringly fast, compared to just about any other browser (safari 4.x comes close, but is less stable).
    • Re:chromium? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rumith (983060) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:38AM (#29163831)
      You have been misinformed. Aside from the Google Update aka Omaha, Google branding and RLZ tracking (http://niichavo.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/construction-complete/ [slashdot.org]">source), it's still the same:

      Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome.

      It's like calling Firefox proprietary because you've been shipped an actual binary that uses their TM'd logo, not the one you'd get by default when compiling it from source. And the auto-update mechanism is Windows-only as far as I know (my Debian install of Chrome correctly integrates into the APT system, as it should be) so it shouldn't worry you a lot if you're an Ubuntu user.

    • by Ant P. (974313)

      If you're whining about Chrome being proprietary, why do you use Firefox, which is just as bad, instead of Iceweasel or GNU Icecat?

  • Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thatmushroom (447396) <ThatmushroomNO@SPAMmille352@purdue.edu> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:31AM (#29163785) Homepage

    Can someone explain the particular benefits of having a 64-bit browser? I particularly appreciate the fact that Firefox currently can't hog all of my RAM when something (oftentimes Flash) spirals out of control. Do web developers use memory beyond the 4 gig limit, and is this a godsend for them?

    • In cases like these Wikipedia is always your friend. Never forget! Have a read. [wikipedia.org]

    • by Lennie (16154)
      I think it's because 32-bit "Intel Architecture" does not have as much registers available, but AMD64 does. So the compiler has more registers it can use. I guess a lot of 32-bit applications need to use 32-bit libraries, although from summary I gather it didn't need that.

      I could be wrong ofcourse.
      • Re:Serious question (Score:5, Interesting)

        by faragon (789704) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @01:29PM (#29164637) Homepage

        Cons:

        - The benefit from passing from 8 to 16 general purpose registers is very little, and often, counterproductive, as total "true registers", the ones used for register renaming in OoOE [wikipedia.org] remain the same, so with twice the general purpose registers, you halve the renaming register pool. That was specially noticeable in firsts AMD64 CPUs, and *very* noticeable on Intel Pentium D CPUs (Pentium 4 with x64 support and other minor changes), acusing of insufficient register pool volume for the OoOE operation in x64 mode. Newer CPUs, having a higher pool of registers, have less impact when executing x64 code.

        - Memory and data cache wasting: Pointers take 64 bits, so unles you're doing your own memory management, with 32-bit offsets instead of using the bulk 64-bit space for adresses, you're wasting more memory, and what is worst: higher data cache usage for the same purpose, with unnecessary CPU-RAM bus overload (remember that OoOE implies data fetching! -imagine a contiguous 32 64-bit pointer vector, taking 2048 bits instead of the 1024 bits that it would take with 32-bit pointers-).

        Pros:

        However, for some things there is true benefit, and is that the number of registers for SSE operations have been also doubled, from 8 to 16. And because of the nature of the SSE code, which is usually less prone to jump misprediction and with less register aliasing, because of the nature of vector processing code.

        Corollarius:

        In my opinion a 64-bit operating system makes sense, but an application that doesn't need more than 2GB of RAM, and doesn't need to gain an extra 10% of speed up when running optimized SSE vector code, should be compiled in 32-bit mode.

        • 64bit also vastly speeds up long and double math. It doesn't really apply to a browser, but if you were using 64bit integers to store currency amounts, you'd notice a huge speedup. Adding/subtracting from longs is one thing that SSE probably won't help. ;)

          • by faragon (789704) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:16PM (#29165951) Homepage

            64bit also vastly speeds up long and double math. It doesn't really apply to a browser, but if you were using 64bit integers to store currency amounts, you'd notice a huge speedup. Adding/subtracting from longs is one thing that SSE probably won't help. ;)

            No speedup for these reasons, at all:

            1) In the case of using 64-bit 2's complement integer registers, you're able to speed-up your 64-bit interger code because operating with 64-bit integers without chaining 32-bit results on the 32-bit CPU case. However, you're missing the point that most heavily computing, such as RSA's big numbers, DES, AES, Blowfish, etc. doesn't use general purpose register but vector SIMD opcodes (e.g. SSE*), already available in the 32-bit mode (with 8 instead of 16 registers, yes), which is faster than 64-bit integer operations.

            2) Floating point ("double math") remains almost the same, but with also 8 additional SSE registers.

            3) Related to "adding/substracting from longs": In 32-bit mode, a SSE3 -or later- functional unit can execute *four* 32-bit instructions per clock (fetching 128-bit data at once), while already being able to execute from 2 to 4 integer + load/store instructions (e.g. Core2Duo or K8), so it would be faster still while chaining 32-bit results.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by atamido (1020905)

          One huge benefit of adding the ability for x64 compiling is that it forces developers to clean up their code. Even if there is no benefit to running a program in x64, just cleaning up the code to the point that it compiles properly can fix quite a number of bugs.

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @11:58AM (#29163981)

      Can someone explain the particular benefits of having a 64-bit browser?

      Not much really. If you frequently browse for porn, I suggest holding out for the TOPS-20 port which will be 69-bit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dagamer34 (1012833)
      Mainly anything to do with number crunching, 64-bit is a LOT faster. Supposedly also JavaScript in 64-bit will get a boost (as Safari 4 on Snow Leopard seems to show).
    • by harmonise (1484057) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @12:03PM (#29164019)

      Can someone explain the particular benefits of having a 64-bit browser?

      For the same reason that text editors might be 32 or 64-bit and not 16-bit. It's what the OS and hardware directly supports. Most computers shipped in the last four or five years are 64-bit and can support 64-bit operating systems. Even Microsoft has said that Windows 7 will be their last operating system to support 32-bit. It makes sense to start developing native 64-bit versions of software instead of sticking with 32-bit and using a compatibility library or layer to further complicate things or possibly screw up or need to debug. There's no direct benefit other than it's the native number of bits for your hardware, but that makes it the right thing to do.

      This is why I think leading edge distros like Ubuntu should stop supporting 32-bit and only distribute 64-bit versions of their distros. The only computers that still are 32-bit are either embedded systems or older legacy computers. We need to move on.

      • by FlyingBishop (1293238) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @12:21PM (#29164167)

        Really? I'm posting this from a 32-bit legacy computer that runs 32-bit Ubuntu just fine. I've got a 'legacy' machine on the right with XP and an Nvidia GForce 5600, also 32 bit, that is even more useful, being a Pentium. You are about 4 years too early to even begin to talk about end-of-life for 32 bit.

        I couldn't really find numbers, but I supect ditching 32 bit would entail throwing out at least half of the computers currently in use...

        I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'm fairly certain that a sufficiently large portion of computers use 32-bit to make your presumption completely infeasible for the next few years. They were still selling 32-bit machines two years ago, and people can't reasonably be expected to retire those machines until 2011, and many will still be perfectly useful until 2013 or even 2015 with a few repairs.

        Meanwhile, you can keep on living in your fantasy world where hardware can magically upgrade itself to run the latest and greatest software.

        • Really?

          Really!

          I've got a 'legacy' machine on the right with XP and an Nvidia GForce 5600, also 32 bit, that is even more useful, being a Pentium.

          Windows XP is not a leading edge linux distribution. It's not even linux which is what I was talking about.

          You are about 4 years too early to even begin to talk about end-of-life for 32 bit.

          I didn't say anything about end-of-life for 32-bits. I only mentioned dropping support for 32-bit in distros that are leading edge such as Ubuntu. Those distros really seek to p

          • Are you implying that you've never had to upgrade hardware before to run the latest and greatest software? I know the Ubuntu of today uses more resources than the Ubuntu of five years ago. Since Canonical only supports their desktop versions of Ubuntu for a maximum of three years, it's very likely that some computers that ran Ubuntu fine in 2004-2005 will be unable to run the latest version while providing adequate usability for the user. As time moves on, users of that hardware may be forced to seek a distro that uses less resources and will work better for them.

            Yes, hardware doesn't magically upgrade itself, but if you want to run the latest and greatest, state-of-the-art distro, chances are you're going to have to upgrade your hardware to keep up with the resource requirements of that distro. In that light, requiring 64-bits for, say, Ubuntu 10.04 does not seem like an unreasonable requirement.

            Right now my HTPC/NAS is a crappy old 1.33ghz Via Eden with onboard video. Not 64bit, but it does support SSE3. I'll be bummed if they drop 32bit support.

        • by Ant P. (974313)

          Meanwhile, you can keep on living in your fantasy world where hardware can magically upgrade itself to run the latest and greatest software.

          Yes, a world where 64-bit OSes and 64-bit CPUs lack the ability to run 32-bit apps concurrently is truly fantasy.

        • Since we're talking x86 here, a big reason to do an x86-64 build is the availability of more registers [wikipedia.org].
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rolfwind (528248)

          They were still selling 32-bit machines two years ago,

          Most processors have been 64bit for many years, despite the OS the machine ships with. The one major exception are most Intel Atoms, which are 32 bit. Even that has to change soon, as 1GB is the minimum for netbooks these days, 2GB going to become standard, and after that, they'll only have one more upgrade cycle before hitting the ram limit.

          and people can't reasonably be expected to retire those machines until 2011, and many will still be perfectly us

      • This is why I think leading edge distros like Ubuntu should stop supporting 32-bit and only distribute 64-bit versions of their distros. The only computers that still are 32-bit are either embedded systems or older legacy computers. We need to move on.

        Although future netbooks will have over 3 GB memory, I believe at least one manufacturer (Asus for now) will offer cheaper netbooks, lower than the current US$300 market price. I think there will be demand.

        Wouldn't it be great to have a 32-bit version of Ubuntu to run on these systems (sub-netbook, smartbook, whatever you call them)?

        • Wouldn't it be great to have a 32-bit version of Ubuntu to run on these systems (sub-netbook, smartbook, whatever you call them)?

          There already is. It's called Ubuntu Netbook Remix. [ubuntu.com] The Ubuntu dsitro could be 64-bit only while the Ubuntu Netbook Remix distro could be 32-bit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bds1986 (1268378)

        This is why I think leading edge distros like Ubuntu should stop supporting 32-bit and only distribute 64-bit versions of their distros. The only computers that still are 32-bit are either embedded systems or older legacy computers. We need to move on.

        Ubuntu has nowhere near enough market share to be able to just write off a huge swath of the personal computer userbase without alienating itself. Not to mention that one of the marketing points of Linux is that it will run on the older hardware you have laying around, unlike a certain other OS. Indeed, I'd suspect a sizable portion of Linux installs are run on old "junk hardware". Removing 32-bit for no reason other than "But 64 bit is newer!" wouldn't benefit anyone other than NetBSD uptake stats.

        32-bit h

        • Not to mention that one of the marketing points of Linux is that it will run on the older hardware you have laying around, unlike a certain other OS.

          First, Linux != Ubuntu. Just because Linux can be stripped down to require little resources doesn't mean that Ubuntu has light resource requirements. Second, there are other Linux distros that are better suited for older hardware such as Xubuntu, Puppy, Damn Small Linux, and Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Maybe even a minimum Debian or CentOS install. The resource requi

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SSpade (549608)

        64 bit binaries consume more space than 32 bit binaries. That means they make less effective use of system memory and (just as importantly) CPU cache.

        All other things being equal, a 64 bit binary will run slower, while using more system resources than a 32 bit binary, so it's something that you'd only want to do if you could actually make use of huge amounts of memory in your application directly.

        All other things aren't equal, though, as x86 is rather a "special" architecture. There the 64 bit binary will g

      • by Khyber (864651)

        "This is why I think leading edge distros like Ubuntu should stop supporting 32-bit and only distribute 64-bit versions of their distros. The only computers that still are 32-bit are either embedded systems or older legacy computers."

        There is *NO FUCKING REASON* for a POS cash register to need 64 bit hardware or software. If you can't add prices and add tax with 8 bits you might as well go home, son. There is no reason for moving to solid 64-bit simply because most programmers still haven't mastered 32-bit

        • There is *NO FUCKING REASON* for a POS cash register to need 64 bit hardware or software.

          I agree wholeheartedly. That's why those POS cash registers shouldn't be running a leading edge distro like Ubuntu. I imagine there will still be many 32-bit-only linux distros years from now. One of those distros might be better suited for a cash register or the manufacturer might decided to compile a linux environment customized to their needs.

          • by roman_mir (125474)

            Ubuntu is nowhere near being leading edge in anything. It's a Debian port with its own repositories for fuck sakes. There are maybe 600 GNU/Linux distros, I am sure many of them are way more leading edge, specifically research projects and not attempts at building a stable desktop for just any average Joe to use as a Windows replacement.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by micheas (231635)

          There is *NO FUCKING REASON* for a POS cash register to need 64 bit hardware or software

          I can think of one off the top of my head. SSL.

          64bit makes encryption much faster. Of course you are probably one of those people that thinks it is just fine that Best Buy has sent credit card numbers with authorization codes over wifi unencrypted at their stores.

        • by rduke15 (721841)

          There is *NO FUCKING REASON* for a POS cash register to need 64 bit hardware or software.

          Well, that may depend on the inflation rate in your country, and the accompanying money devaluation rate.

          • by Khyber (864651)

            I'll concede the point there - converting from USD to Zambian dollars must be insane.

      • by Eil (82413)

        This is why I think leading edge distros like Ubuntu should stop supporting 32-bit and only distribute 64-bit versions of their distros. The only computers that still are 32-bit are either embedded systems or older legacy computers. We need to move on.

        Say what?! Thank goodness you're not on the release engineering team of any major distros. :P

        There is still a LOT of 32-bit hardware out in the world and there will be for years to come. I have three machines at home, a desktop at work, and a web server that a

      • been saying this for a while.

        32-bit is dead. Let it die.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by larry bagina (561269)
      x86-64 has more registers. v8 compiles javascript into native code, so more registers means more variables stored in registers (instead of on the stack) and faster execution.
    • by Bert64 (520050)

      Depends on your processor really...
      On Sparc, MIPS or PPC, having a 64bit browser will just consume more memory (tho it can potentially use more) and possibly run slower...
      On x86-64 a 64bit browser may run faster due to having access to a larger pool of registers, as well as being compiled for a more modern architecture which is closer to the cpu being used (most x86 software tends to be compiled for a 386 as the lowest common denominator).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Curtee (60043)

      If you are running 64-bit linux already, you will get some performance advantage to running as many apps as possible in 64-bit mode. This is because your shared libraries can actually be shared. Otherwise you end up loading the same shared libraries twice (once for the 64-bit version and once for the 32-bit version). There's noticably longer startup time when you do that.

    • by Penguin (4919)

      Besides all the other posts, this might just be a small improvement in rare cases:

      The V8 javascript engine does some clever work when performing regular expression matching. Normal engines would compare one character at a time, but whenever the possibility occurs V8 matches several characters at once (eg. for /foobar/ it will try fo match "foob" instead of just first "f", then "o", then "o"), doing comparison on longer segments than just (usually) 8 bits at a time. This usually means that comparisons are gr

    • by hairyfeet (841228)
      Well I can tell you that using Firefox X64 on XP X64 the browser is snappier and more responsive and loads pages quicker as well. And here [favbrowser.com] is a link with benchmarks, just to show you that it isn't just my personal opinion. Now if Adobe will only release an X64 Windows flash I would be a happy camper. And before anybody says Linux, Linux just won't cut it for me as I have too much unsupported hardware, not to mention apps and games. It is easier just to load Firefox 32 when I want to see the occasional flash
  • Google has released its own Web browser, Chrome, with Linux version Chromium [today.com]. "We absolutely promise that we only want to completely screw over Microsoft with this, and certainly not Mozilla Firefox," said Google's Sundar Pichai. "That we put a pile of our sponsored Mozilla developers on the project is completely irrelevant. We're not evil, remember."

    "We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement."

    Microsoft was unfazed. "Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps," said marketing developer Ian Moulster. "Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you."

    Google's new browser will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in said browser and will make you a cup of tea. This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.

    Pichai stressed that Google would maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. "We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Bing."

  • This is 2009, and people are still developing/releasing for 32-bit before 64-bit? I'm typically a bit behind the curve on new processor adoption and I went AMD64 nearly 3 years ago. Do they even make 32-bit desktops anymore? This makes no sense. This headline should read "Google Chrome backported to 32 bit."
    • by Arimus (198136)

      Errr... it depends on the OS as well as the CPU; alot of Windows users are still on 32bit XP/Vista... not sure about the linux community as I've not seen any info recently on the proportion of 32bit/64bit installs.

  • Cool: now I can surf the tubes *twice* as fast as my old 32-bit browser :-)

  • ... it took Adobe, what, about 7 years for a 64-bit Linux version of Flash?

  • It is 64bit, it is all matters. The bugs will automatically fix themselves thanks to the exposed extra registers and extra commands.

    If you remember the real purpose of 64bit computing besides the archaic Intel x86 getting extra registers, it is post 4GB processes. Sorry if I joke about the obsession with 64bit browser while it doesn't really work on anything other than x86, being the only x86 only browser on planet.

    http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=firefox+using+too+much+memory [google.com]

  • I'm very happy with the current build for x64 so far. it has come a long way. it runs incredibly fast as well. it is already my default browser despite its instability.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...