/g/ - Technology

Fuck, I'm literally sad.

But there is no reason to use x64 builds of FF, performance is shit, and it uses more ram.

>>29261554
It is for people who used hundreds of tabs. I can't have 500+ tabs on 32bit browsers.
Well time to jump on waterfox i guess.

why
why why why

>Linux has native fully functional x64 support

Good night sweet windblows

Why the fuck are they doing that?
Even chrome is getting a 64 bit version (or already has).

I need a 64 bit browser, and chrome is unusable with lots of tabs and opera has shit scaling.
Fuck this gay earth.

>>29261789
Install GNU/Linux

>>29261727
Does this mean you can run Nightly x64 in Windows using Cygwin or SUA or something?

>>29261789
Get some unofficial build
Like Waterfox, though as of today it's outdated

Or the one's from here
fbuilds.com

Good riddance. It was never actually supported and even the developers said it was a shittier, buggier, slower version.

>>29261789
64 builds are shit
Your browser does not take up more than 3GB of ram ever

>>29261836
all placebo shit just like 64bit nightly

why are the doing this? fuck.

I guess I'll just stay on this build ;_;

>>29261789
>I need a 64 bit browser
Why?

>>29261789
Compile your own

>>29261868
How does it feel being wrong?

>>29261880
tab-hoarding

>>29261879
see
>>29261868
>>29261887

>>29261897
>minefield
How does it feel being retarded?

There was never a reason to use it Mozilla never supported it and the performance was terrible compared to the 32bit version.

>>29261923
>ever
You're still wrong

Duh, use Palemoon x64 instead.

>>29261868
>Your browser does not take up more than 3GB of ram ever
some people (me) go over that because WE USE IT.

>>29261815
Hmmm...Cygwin Ports doesn't already have a Nightly build?

>>29261956
Then use one of the 64bit forks. Waterfox and palemoon both have them.

>>29261956
No you don't
You just have a hoarding disorder

And even then 99% of mozillas users dont.

And if you care so much about efficiency compile it yourself

>windows users

>>29261985
>palemoon

Doesn't this get updates like twice a year or something?

>>29261923
Minefield was the name of nightly in ff 3 era dumbass. He is still using the same pathname.

>>29261985
why would I do that.

>>29261868
It does you fucking faggot.

>>29261880
Loads of tabs.

Which is better -- Palemoon or Waterfox?

>mfw Chrome is the first browser to use 64-bit

Yep, Firefox is FUCKIN FINISHED.

>>29262010
suicide by overdosing on homeopathy

>>29261998
It's at 15 which is two versions old. There's another fork out there too but I cannot remember the name of it and don't really care enough to look it up. Check the archives.

>>29262028
>botnet
>implying that can handle my tabs.

>>29261999
It's just an old screen shot

>>29262055
one process per tab
wololo

>>29262041
A nevermind I just remembered the name of it.
https://code.google.com/p/lawlietfox/

I'm wondering what the fuck their "priorities" might be...

>>29262230
Bumping the version number to catch up with Chrome

Please stop making x64 builds? How about instead, I send you an email telling you to sodomize yourself?

Whatever. I'm sure people will keep making x64 builds anyway. It's open source so it's not like they can stop us. Never thought I'd be FORCED to use unofficial builds because Mozilla can't accept that x64 native is the future.

>>29261814
And how would that solve this problem?
If my laptop had more than 2GB of RAM, I would ne certainly going over it.

>>29262230
Integrating facebook with firefox apparently.
>firefox turns into a new rockmelt
Eww

Oh shit, I just figured out why x64 won't be needed. They are going to the multiprocess architecture and there will be no reason for a single process to need that much memory. This is terrible news, I may actually need to use Opera at some point. FML.

>>29262284
Moar swap.
You know you can make it as large as you want, right?

>>29262284
Simple, use a lighter distro like Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

>>29262230
Seems like FirefoxOS and Firefox on Android. Everyone wants to milk mobile.
>>29262370
> They are going to the multiprocess architecture and there will be no reason for a single process to need that much memory
Nah. e10s (electrolysis) project has been dead too.

>>29262371
>>29262284
>All dat bloat

>no 64bit for Windows
>no Qt build for Linux

it is as if these faggots want me to switch to the botnet...

There is no stable 64bit plugin API, that takes a lot of work and for the time being it's not really that necessary for the near term at least.
I also hear that the Javascript interpreter they use has problems compiling under 64bit Windows.

>>29262426
I have 3.5Gib of Ram and 7.3Gib of Swap.
I don't give half a fuck about bloat.

Also most of it is from all the tabs in Firefox I've opened. You can't see it in the screenshot because I kept all the windows minimized in the scale applet.

>>29262426
>>29262371
>>29262284
Wow, you run Ubuntu and expect it to be light?
You obviously know nothing about desktop environments, idiot.

>>29262425
>Nah. e10s (electrolysis) project has been dead too.
I hope so, I really hope so.

>>29262501
Oh Really thats what I just pointed out

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/Giij-AZfUAM/XFtqZGJjnQ8J

This is why they killed Nightly 64-bit on Windows.
You people are retarded.

>>29262371
Everything gets way too slow for my taste, it's already slow enough as it is and only has 131 tabs, that's ridiculously low, considering I have over 500 tabs regularly on my desktop.

>>29262501
>>29262426
Firefox itself is using 800MB.

>>29262552
The best part.

>* Amazingly, there is still the perception by some Windows Nightly users that the 64-bit MSVC builds are faster than their 32-bit counterparts [8], whereas even before the recent regressions that was not the case [5] [6].

>>29262501
Ubuntu minimal +openbox +tint2 is light enough.

>>29261635
LAA patch the 32bit version, it will have 48bit ram addressing.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112556

Has a final decision even been made?

>>29262371
>Almost 8Gb of swap
>With 4Gb of Ram
As for your screenshot's resolution you are on a laptop, and not a powerful one as for that CPU load. A netbook, I think.

What the fuck do you think you might do on a netbook that would require 12 fucking Gigs of Ram?

>>29262552
So the reason they pulled them is because misinformed people on places like /g/ think they need them.

Well I can't say I didn't see that coming.

>>29262626
If so, could someone post a link?

>>29262641
Look at the third post of the OP's link.

>Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. Given the
>existing information, I have decided to proceed with disabling windows
>64-bit nightly and hourly builds. Please let us consider this discussion
>closed unless there is critical new information which needs to be presented.

>--BDS

As a long time nightly x64 user, fuck you Mozzarella.

>tfw I'd still be on firefox 3.6 if I could

Where the FUCK is Aurora 19 by the way? Nightly is already at version 20, why is aurora still at 18 and beta at 17?

>>29262698
see >>29262599 >>29262552

>>29262738
They take a few days. Stable and Nightly update at the same time then after a couple of days Aurora and Beta update.

>>29262743
>Transition Win64 Nightly users to 32-bit Nightly builds, with an unprompted update and an appropriate 'What's New' page.
>with an unprompted update
If every other browser wasn't shit, I'd drop firefox completely for this kind of behavior.

>>29262822
Well they could just leave them to rot on 20 for years thinking they're still up to date. Either way someone is going to get mad.

>>29262854
The problem is they're moving backwards. 32-bit software is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

>>29262822
It's Nightly, you shouldn't be relying on it.

>>29262925
They only pulled the x64 builds from nightly and hourly from the looks of it. Doubt they're done with x64 bit builds entirely since they're maintaining builds on linux and mac os x

>>29261499
>* Many plugins are not available in 64-bit versions
except for all the decent plugins
>* The plugins that are available don't work correctly in Firefox because we haven't implemented things like windowproc hooking, which means that hangs are more common
it's testing. Literally no one cares about hanging when using testing builds
>* Crashes submitted by 64-bit users are currently not high priority because we are working on other things.
that's fairly irrelevant
>** This is frustrating for users because they feel (and are!) second-class.
but nightly testers aren't expecting it to work properly, nor are they expecting to be 'first class'
>** It is also frustrating for stability team triage because crash-stats does not easily distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit builds in the topcrash lists and other reports. We basically ignore a set of nightly "topcrashes" because they are 64-bit only. (See bug 811051).
well then fucking start fixing them

>one reply telling him he's retarded

>Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. Given the existing information, I have decided to proceed with disabling windows 64-bit nightly and hourly builds. Please let us consider this discussion closed unless there is critical new information which needs to be presented.

What the actual fuck? is this nigger serious?

>>29262948
Fucking this.

>>29263175
>>29262552

>>29263175
>>* Many plugins are not available in 64-bit versions
Never found one that I use
>>* The plugins that are available don't work correctly in Firefox because we haven't implemented things like windowproc hooking, which means that hangs are more common
>it's testing. Literally no one cares about hanging when using testing builds
Never got one
>>* Crashes submitted by 64-bit users are currently not high priority because we are working on other things.
>that's fairly irrelevant
>>** This is frustrating for users because they feel (and are!) second-class.
I'm expecting it to crash everyday and be shit most of the time, which it isn't
>>** It is also frustrating for stability team triage because crash-stats does not easily distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit builds in the topcrash lists and other reports. We basically ignore a set of nightly "topcrashes" because they are 64-bit only. (See bug 811051).
>well then fucking start fixing them

>>29263175
see >>29262599 >>29262552
No one but misinformed ricer idiots used it for anything serious. It was just a project Mozilla wanted to start back with Deerpark but never really got around to doing, and now it just makes developer's lives more annoying because they have tons of throw away bug reports because of idiots using an unsupported, untested (even Nightly 32-bit is tested) browser.

>>29263175
>What the actual fuck? is this nigger serious?
Devs don't want to work on x64 windows builds. If someone said I will work on this don't stop the builds, noone would oppose him.

Who needs more than 3 GB of RAM for a browser? Memory management on my end seems pretty good.

>>29263290
>Devs don't want to work on x64 windows builds

Why not just saying that? For fucks sake that's a better reason that all the other bullshit reasons

>>29263228
>we haven't moved into x86_64 yet, and so doing anything for it is bad.
>let's just keep using x86 until the end of time
it'd be a valid point if people didn't want to use 64 bit builds, but people obviously do, so they should support it.

>>29263238
>No one but misinformed ricer idiots used it for anything serious.
I'd reply, but you're clearly just going to retort with more name calling.

>>29263290
>devs don't want to work on 64 bit windows builds
they don't want to work on their most popular platform?

it's their choice, but why would they not want to support 64 bit windows?

>>29263361
Probably because most of the people who use Windows doesn't need the 64 bit builds

>>29263238
Tell linux guys, I am taking away your 64bit builds and see how the shit erupts.

RIP in peace nightly

>>29263394
>shitloads of nightly users helping to test and report bugs in an upgraded platform
>99% of hardware for the past 5 years has supported x86_64
>keep shitting out 32-bit software

>>29261499
>firefox devs when intel/amd drop legacy mode from their cpus

Makes sense

I will leave this here
http://fbuild.com/.
This japanese dude seems to compile nightly for 64bit. I'm not on windows so I can't test it right now.

>>29263477
Probably the greatest shitstorm in the history of hardware.
Never going to happen, I suppose. At least not before 128bit.

>>29263477
Why would they do that? That's pretty much the only reason to stay on x86. If they wanted to drop all legacy support they would probably just switch to something shiny and new like itanium.

>>29263448
They'd flip out because they'd need to be using a multi-lib system just to run a browser.
Even if it did happen distros would just build 64-bit versions themselves.

>>29263543
>switch
>to itanium

0/10, you didn't even try. Even opera has more users than itanium.

>>29263532
>japanese botnet
no thank you

>>29263543
They surely won't drop 32 bit support. But mixing 32 and 64 bit is not a good idea in general. OSX dropped all x32 support IIRC.

>>29263622
>x32
you can't be serious.

>>29263622
>x32
Please never say that again. Thanks, management.

>>29263622
>not calling it x86-32
How pleb can you get?

>>29263622
That's OSX.
NEVER follow Apple's example.

ESPECIALLY when it compromises your freedom.

>>29263622
Did you mean: x86

>>29263593
You get the idea I didn't say they had to switch to Itanium I said something like it. Oddly enough Intel killing legacy support for x86 in Itanium is precisely why it failed so I doubt they're going to ever attempt it again.

>>29263635
>>29263639
>>29263656
>>29263661
Sorry guys. (._.)

>>29263659
>Keeping legacy support for no reason is a good idea guise

>>29263683
Apple can pull this off because their users don't do anything except use itunes and safari and both are included on every version of osx. Also mac users rotate out their macs every month for the newest model anyway. It would be quite difficult to do on other platforms though since there are quite a lot of variations and configurations on windows and linux.

>>29263683
That wouldn't be a problem if all software was free and open source. The real problem is depending on older software with no replacement that was written by a company who refuses to recompile it, or worse, a company that went out of business.

>>29263672
I don't think desktops are going to change architecture any time soon. Maybe they'll add some instructions or hardware accelerators like the one for AES, but that's about it.

However, x86 tablets, notebooks, and non-Windows servers might become endangered species.

>>29263771
*nix based operating systems do it fine. Sure there's a lot of legacy in many places (including the command line), but intentional legacy support is few and far between.
Ever try getting a program made in the late 90s to compile and run on a modern linux install?

>>29263782
>2012
>x86 tablets, notebooks, and non-Windows servers becoming endangered species
ISHYGDDT

>>29263454
THAT FUCKING RENDERING.

>>29263815
Tell that to the developers of NetBSD.

>>29263827
Why? x86 is objectively shit in all those areas.

>>29263838
>intentional legacy support is few and far between.
>few and far between
Notice how I didn't say nonexistent.

>use windows 64bit
>a small percentage of programs for windows are actually 64bit

>use linux 64bit
>almost every single thing ever is 64bit

Why do people continue to use that inferior Windows OS?

>>29263838
>NetBSD
What's wrong with this?

>64bit is just a feature
>you don't need it
>we're lazy
>Firefox 9999999999999 now with facebook intergration!
>Don't use Chrome, it's not 32bit.

>>29263871
Nobody needs 64bit programs

I think this is a good thing, I switched over, it uses less ram now than before, like I used to have firefox using 1gb+ at all times, now it's around 200mb
I am using 50 addons/extentions and I have memory fox installed.

It is good.

>>29263895
That's fine, Windows child, be stuck in the past.

Not that it's much of a surprise because you kids took forever to move off that ancient goddamn XP bullshit you've been sporting for over ten goddamn years.

>people talking about browser RAM usage
>not mentioning details about what sites, plugins, or number of tabs
>people compare the RAM usage of a screenshot of an idle browser with about:blank to a browser with 500 million anime GIFs open
you guys sure are smart

>>29263827
They will all be killed by Arm.
Which in turn will be killed by SPARC since it's the only free instruction set out there.

>>29263985
>Sparc
>Being relevant again

>>29263827
For a linux server, what's the difference between installing from the i386, x86_64, and ARM repos? For compiling software there's even less difference.

If they can all perform similar functions at similar speeds, the lowest cost CPU is going to be the one that gets used.

http://fbuild.com/

>>29263477
That will literally never fucking happen.

By the way, why is Mozilla using msvc on windows instead of mingw?

Also, why don't you people read a little and build yourself FF? It's only needed once per a few weeks and takes 1h for me.

>>29263683
>16 and 32 bit binaries don't exist anymore
Please fuck off. Some of us have old programs we like to run, and as long as we're using x86 we might as well be able to run old binaries.

>>29264218
This might be a dumb question, but I don't know anything about browsers.
Why make your own build? Is it like creating a distro, just choosing default packages and libraries and stuff?

>>29264257
You can optimize it for your computer in particular and (in theory) make it faster.

>>29264218
I can't for the life of me make a x64 PGO build.
I have no idea what I need to do build it.

>>29264288
But then it wouldn't be portable at all. What good would that be? When you get new hardware, you'd have to repeat the process over again... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

>>29264257
>Why make your own build?
To build for x86-64, when Mozilla doesn't give binaries.
To enable/disable certain build flags (features)
To build with optimizations for your machine (not very useful with FF I think).
>Is it like creating a distro, just choosing default packages and libraries and stuff?
I have no idea what are you talking about. You download the source and run a few terminal commands, or maybe load into VS and press F5.
>>29264294
Go to Mozilla's build guide and read it, I think.
I build with makepkg, so I have it easy, but I had problems with pgo builds too, I needed to build in chroot.

>>29264023
As >>29264040 stated, the lowest cost one is the one that's going to be used. OpenSPARC is there and anyone can copy (And improve) it without having to pay anything.

When Linux becomes popular and widely used, SPARC is going to make a comeback too.

>>29263815
Are you fucking retarded? Linus has infamously gone out of his way to make sure that in the past two decades no external interfaces for the sole purpose of not breaking existing binaries and maintaining legacy support, and he considers anyone that thinks intentionally breaking binaries is ok is retarded. So please shut the fuck up because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>>29264359
That's because Linus writes a kernel, not the userland you dumb fuck

>>29264333
>When you get new hardware, you'd have to repeat the process over again... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Yes, and? Are you buying new CPU each day? You'll have to rebuild fore new version anyway (depending if you want releases or git, you might want to build every day even.

So I DON'T use Waterfox?

>tfw I don't use nearly enough tabs to benefit from my glorious 64 bit GNU/Linux Firefox

>routinely use up my laptops 4gb of ram plus spill into swap just browsing 4chan
le fuck you mozilla

>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/EmXonELGjVM/discussion
>1 reply
>How about you get with the times and fix them up to be first class instead. The installer should be capable of detecting the system it's run on and install the correct version. All major browser plugins are available on 64bit now and the ones that are not are the source of topcrashes anyway. Like shitty skype or avg/norton/whatever plugins.

>Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. Given the
existing information, I have decided to proceed with disabling windows
64-bit nightly and hourly builds. Please let us consider this discussion
closed unless there is critical new information which needs to be presented.

What the fuck?

>>29262564

at last, a man with browsing habits such as myself

>>29263454
Font rendering looks like shit captain.

>>29263871
>use Linux on a 32-bit computer
>can't install anything server related because all the packages are 64-bit

>use 64-bit programs on 64-bit computer
>developers go pants on head retarded and the program magically now uses 10GB of RAM

I guess they want to build 64bits for windows without someone knowing this if they want to go so far for this.
But I don't know... 64bits is dead for Firefox. For some time but I think 64bits is going to get back some years later.

>This is frustrating for [Windows] users because they feel (and are!) second-class.

Winfag status: TOLD123

>+500 tabs
why.jpg

>>29269206
>not having over 500 tabs
How much of a pleb are you?

>>29269265
use bookmarks for fucks sake

>>29269307
You speak like I don't.
I do have thousands of bookmarks.

PS:
GNU/Linux Firefox does not properly support Flash because Mozilla decided to not use the Pepper API, thus that is not an option to switch over.

>>29269355
I have millions of bookmarks.
Get on my level.

>>29269361
Flash is dead thanks to Apple. Flash 11 is enough for legacy sites.

>>29269445
>apple
no

>>29261553
As opposed to figuratively sad?

>>29269464
No what? If you haven't noticed they very few flash only sites now thanks to iphone and ipad compatibility they want to achieve.