Hacker News Reader

Comment by bifrost | Hacker News Reader

This just reeks of dumb. Seriously guys, support 64 bit platforms or perish.

They do support 64 bit platforms. With 32 bit binaries.

If you have no need for more than 3gb of memory per process then 32 bit is a great choice. The pointers being half size is a non-trivial memory saving.

I'd be happy if windows would let you use something like the x32 build target that linux got recently for extra registers though.

There will be a memory saving but the loss of access to better instructions and the registers would surely cost you some performance overall (may be benchmark and processor dependent)

32-bit processes can get 4GB of memory on 64-bit Windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36...

I thought the limit was 2GB, which Firefox is getting dangerously close to. 4GB gives a lot more wiggle room, but I wonder how long it will last...

The problem is you need almost-contrived situations to notice these kinds of improvements, and a web browser deals with way too much I/O to fit into this category.

I'd rather not have to pollute a pure 64-bit install with a whole bunch of 32-bit libraries to run just one 32-bit app though. It's adds even more headache keeping those patched and up to date.

remember that we are talking windows here. which libraries do you have to patch for firefox (i.e. those they do not ship and which are not in the core win os)?

Have you noticed any tangible benefit to using a 64-bit build over a 32-bit one? Performance of the current x64 builds as measured by responsiveness and javascript benchmarks is about on-par with the 32-bit version for most things; the performance and even compilation of plugins is however another matter entirely and the reason for using Firefox for me over another solution is almost always the plugins available.

I have been using PaleMoon builds and from what I gather the source tree is not being tombstoned, just the nightly builds. [0]

The reasons given for crashes (driver/component out-of-tree bugs) make sense but I'm not really involved in the development or testing so I'm sure others will have better input.

[0] http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1700

Let me just say something

"Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition released on April 25, 2005" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edi...

7 years.

Go to a store, see what kind of Windows is being shipped, if it's 32 or 64bits.

If there's one version that has to be discontinued that version is the 32-bit version.

Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions, it seems Mozilla started shipping them the other day (and is not very promoted)

Computers already ship with more than 4GB memory.

Leave 32-bit, it's been enough time already.

> Linux as well suffers with lack of 64-bit versions,

Only in commercial or prop software

When you pay for memory on a monthly basis, economizing on it may be a good idea:

http://journal.dedasys.com/2008/11/24/slicehost-vs-linode

Don't compare the Virtual Size of process. This is not how it works. And yes, running x64 on my Linode/

Also, see the limitations of MongoDB and Go for example, in 32-bit systems, they are very relevant.

I look at RSS in those numbers too, and they're lower on 32 bit systems, obviously, That is how it works.

I'm not interested in MongoDB in the slightest, and while Go looks pretty cool, I'll wait for it to mature.

Sure, still, what really affects memory usage is data, not programs.

So if memory is an issue in 64-bits, most likely it will be an issue as well in 32-bit. In some cases it may make a difference, but they're not that common.

Even EC2 Micro supports 64-bits now

Sure, 64-bit uses more memory, like 32-bit use more memory than 16-bit, or like programs in ARM (and maybe Thumb) take more space than programs in x86

You run Firefox on a VPS?

Itanium is the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com