Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Chrome Chromium Upgrades Apple

Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build 129

jones_supa writes Google has revealed that it's launching the finished 64-bit version of Chrome 39 for OS X this November, which already brought benefits in speed, security and stability on Windows. However at this point the 32-bit build for Mac will cease to exist. Just to make it clear, this decision does not apply to Windows and Linux builds, at least for now. As a side effect, 32-bit NPAPI plugins will not work on Chrome on Mac version 39 onwards. The affected hardware are only the very first x86-based Macs with Intel Core Duo processors. An interesting question remains, whether the open source version of Chrome, which is of course Chromium, could still be compiled for x86-32 on OS X.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome For Mac Drops 32-bit Build

Comments Filter:
  • Switching to 64 bit builds means that they will have to drop OSX 10.6, right? It's about time this one is left behind!

    • Re:Requirements ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @07:32PM (#47904645)

      Switching to 64 bit builds means that they will have to drop OSX 10.6, right? It's about time this one is left behind!

      No, 64 bit builds run on 10.6 just fine. You may be confused here: 10.7 requires a 64 bit processor. So if you don't support 10.6, then supporting 32 bit is pointless - anything running 10.7 upwards supports 64 bit.

      What isn't supported anymore is machines with 32 bit processor.

      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        Switching to 64 bit builds means that they will have to drop OSX 10.6, right? It's about time this one is left behind!

        No, 64 bit builds run on 10.6 just fine. You may be confused here: 10.7 requires a 64 bit processor. So if you don't support 10.6, then supporting 32 bit is pointless - anything running 10.7 upwards supports 64 bit.

        But there is also the corner case of machines like I have with a 64 bit capable CPU but only 32 bit EFI for which I am endlessly trapped on Lion (10.7). Which probably doesn't count in this case, but is always a source of endless bitching for me.

        • You aren't stuck on Lion because of 32-bit EFI; you're stuck because Apple decided to block installs onto Macs that predate 64-bit EFI. It has the same result for you, but the decision to stop providing "fat EFI" binaries WAS a decision -- one made to guarantee minimum performance, and not because of a technical requirement.
      • 64bit builds run fine on 10.6 as long as you're using a 64-bit CPU. Snow Leopard was the last OS X version to support the Intel Core Duo chips in the first-gen MacBooks, which were strictly 32-bit; those won't be able to run 64-bit Chrome. If you set the compiler target to 10.6 or lower you get a "Universal Binary", which effectively includes two versions of the same executable. Something similar used to result if you set the target for 10.4 or lower -- you'd get a package which included executables for Pow
      • by Orphis ( 1356561 )

        Thanks for the explanation!

        So it means they will be supporting only 64bit machines on 10.6, and there's probably few of them since they are likely to have upgraded to newer versions of OSX, unlike all the 32bit machines that are stuck on 10.6 and that should make the majority of 10.6 users. Am I right?

  • I'm hoping their auto update thingy won't try to force the 64 bit version (which won't work) down my throat.
    • by nashv ( 1479253 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @07:47PM (#47904699) Homepage

      Considering the stable is currently at version 37, you still have about 4 weeks. Surely, 4 weeks is enough to buy a Chromebook, no? *evil grin*

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Why buy a Chromebook when you can pick up an unwanted one from any garbage heap?

    • by Nimey ( 114278 )

      Plenty of time to switch to Firefox. Probably they'll keep offering 32-bit for a while yet, and when they stop a third-party project will come along that will, a la TenFourFox.

      • Plenty of time to switch to Firefox. Probably they'll keep offering 32-bit for a while yet, and when they stop a third-party project will come along that will, a la TenFourFox.

        All hail open source - Chrome is not (completely) open source, Firefox is. Google doesn't want or care if you want 64bit (or don't want it).

        • by Nimey ( 114278 )

          To be fair, there's Chromium (entirely OSS) and maybe someone will care enough to distribute a 32-bit Mac binary.

    • Being that your 32bit Macbooks are 8 years old.
      You really should expect to not get much updates in any software what so ever.
      I am surprised that Google had 32bit mac support.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    8 to 16: Z80 to 8088 (8-bits in memory access, but kinda mixed 8- and 16-bits internally... but the 286 was 16-bit, anyway)
    Got confused by that brain damaged paginated-memory scheme.
    16 to 32: after a long struggle against abandoning 16-bit and Windows 3.11 (which I paid for), it seemed I was doomed to buy Win98.
    Alas, Linux saved the day and I could avoid '98 and flip it at M$.
    32 to 64: still happening over here... I thought I'd be able to just use 64 this year, then realized my 2GB computers get a little le

    • We don't have enough atoms in the solar system to max out a 64bit address space.
      You would need to consume an entire galaxy to build a RAM chip big enough.

      But maybe I'm wrong...

      • The universe is plenty big enough. 2^64 is about 1.8x10^19 and there are around 10^59 atoms in just one average-sized star. That leaves 5.5x10^39 atoms per bit. That's a lot of atoms; a lot more than a trillion kilograms, in fact.

        The universe is really, really big..

        • Crap, I got my 10^ and 2^ mixed up.
          I'll go hide under a rock now.

        • by jbolden ( 176878 )

          You noticed one problem below. But there is another one. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits not 64 bits. They are (2^64)^2 in size. 2^64 is the size of a IPv6 subnet. Now the universe is still about 10^80 atoms so you still have 2.9e41 atoms per address. So your main point that the original poster was wrong about the relative size still holds.

    • 64-bit is here for a while. A lot of modern '64-bit' CPUs only support 40-bit physical addresses, so are limited to 'only' 128GB of RAM. Most support 48-bit virtual addresses (the top bit is sign extended, so all 1 or all 0 depending on whether you've got a kernel or userspace address), limiting you to 'only' 32TB of virtual addresses. If RAM sizes continue to double once every year, then it takes another year to use each bit. We currently have some machines with 256GB of RAM, so are using 41 bits. 64
  • As browsers become more and more app platform engines it is essential to use cpu instructions included after the Pentium IV in this day and age. It is 2014 and 10 years is enough. XP is the sole reason 32 bit is still around.

    Yes if it aint broke don't fix it became a conservative motto here with the nerds who are approaching middle age now, but the web is still evolving and HTML 5 and HTML 5.1 will include WebGL, more AJAX, and other things where a not just additional memory addresses but also cpu instructi

    • intel atom systems keep 32 bit systems around longer then they should of been. Windows 8 should of been the end of 32bit windows.

      Windows Server 2008 R2 was first 64-bit-only operating system released from Microsoft

      • Then have both.

        Unlike 16 bit to 32 bit it most simply is a recompile about 90% of the time unless you have assembly or something specific. My guess is the ugly Netscape API for the plugins which Chrome used to support until last year and of course Firefox is built upon this.

        Newer atoms anyway are 64 bit. In the old days this would have been obsoleted in 3 years. I would have laughed at you in 2004 if you told me most things are still 32 bit 10 years from now. XP is still freaking alive too in a few places.

  • Much as no one really likes Java exists, more the ideal of what it should be.
  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Sunday September 14, 2014 @10:50PM (#47905425) Homepage

    Why would there be any question that Chromium could still be compiled for 32-bit CPUs? It it's open-source, it can be. The only question is whether anyone cares enough to do it.

    The Firefox devs walked away from PPC processors some time ago, but there's enough interest in that platform that an independent fork of its code [floodgap.com] has been maintained.

  • Windows 64Bit: Stable version 37 is currently available as an opt-in:
    https://www.google.com/chrome/... [google.com]

You do not have mail.

Working...