32 vs 64 bit Vivaldi.
-
Linux situation is way different than windowsone many x64 distros are x64 only, no ties with x86 compatibilities, less crap dragged from the past.
Linux distributions just took years to figure out multilib, while Windows did WoW64 correctly from the start. So initially 64 bit Linux was 64 bit only. They sugar-coated the fact, that they weren't able to relibably install/run 32/64 bit binaries side-by-side with "less crap dragged from the past". While WINE happily runs 16 bit binaries from the real past. :lol:
Nowdadays it's a solved problem, while Debian got it wrong (lib32), everyone else got it right (lib64). Though x86 and x86-64 both aren't the answer on Linux, x32 might be it.
-
Linux distributions just took years to figure out multilib
Frankly I never had a single problem on Linux x64 due to the split library, since the beginning, surely I had more problem with the usual split in opposite factions about everything starting from the position of the configuration files, of the boot scripts, the use of separated option directory and so on.
So initially 64 bit Linux was 64 bit only
Maybe the very first experimental distros were, but at the time XP64 was still in beta1 Linux was already working w/o much troubles, but likely your mileage was different from mine because the use of different distros
Nowdadays it's a solved problem, while Debian got it wrong (lib32), everyone else got it right (lib64)
Many distros simply switched over time taking the libs with no numbers added as the current ones and the ones with a trailing number as the less common, that varie over rime, so did the libs placement. Frankly I cared very little of that detail
But if you want to talk of things good/wrong regarding the libraries I can't be silent about windows Wint the x64dir called \system32 and the x32 dir called \syswow64. I still don't care, but…. :lol:
-
First Debian treated "amd64" like a complete new plattform (like "arm" for example), which resulted in an useless 64 bit only platform. Later someone noticed you might want to run 32 bit binaries, so they had the awful idea of additionally putting 32 bit libraries under /usr/lib32. But legacy 32 bit applications expect them under /usr/lib. So Debian has to patch each and every 32 bit package to make it work with their broken multilib implementation.
System32 is there since the first release of Windows NT, regardless of the architecture. (NT was developed first for the fictional N-Ten ("NT") platform, so IBM doesn't notice that MS is planning to abandon OS/2).
-
Hello,
i find different behavior on vivaldi-32 vs vivaldi-64.
i try both vivaldi-1-1 32 and 64 on a linux slack-14 64 bits machine.
-> vivaldi-32 offers only a limited feature of google maps ("lite mode"). while vivaldi-64 offers the full mode for google maps.
(note that chrome-32 also offers only lite mode of google maps).
so i must use vivaldi-64 to have the expected behavior in google maps…
or is there any plugin that i should add??? -
On microsofts windows there are way to many 32 systems still, so you'll need both versions.
For Linux, everybody that's not bound by being users on somebody else's system or by ancient or strange hardware are on 64 bit systems, if there's no 'Vivaldi 64 bit' version they'll flee. Allmost every Linux user is a poweruser on some level, having a mayor application with a '32 bit' sign on it will be a huge turn-off no matter real world differences. -
If Vivaldi decides to remove one the two builds and I would have to chose which one, I would always keep the 32 bit build around and drop the 64 bit. One build runs everywhere, while the other one doesn't. On 64 bit hosts, a 32 bit binary can use a full 4 GB of memory per process. And each tab has one process.
Linux servers are all x86-64 now, but 32 bit only client CPUs (x86 and ARM) are still in production and will be around for a while.
-
It differs from one platform to the next. 64-only might make sense for Linux and Mac (though it would mean I could no longer have Vivaldi on my Lubuntu) and 32-only would make perfect sense for Windows.
-
Hello,
i find different behavior on vivaldi-32 vs vivaldi-64.
i try both vivaldi-1-1 32 and 64 on a linux slack-14 64 bits machine.
-> vivaldi-32 offers only a limited feature of google maps ("lite mode"). while vivaldi-64 offers the full mode for google maps.
(note that chrome-32 also offers only lite mode of google maps).
so i must use vivaldi-64 to have the expected behavior in google maps…
or is there any plugin that i should add???on the other side, i encounter other issues, specifically on vivaldi-64:
- flashplayer (libpepflashplayer.so latest taken from chrome-64) does not work properly (example: nothing displayed when connecting to deezer). while flashplayer (libpepflashplayer.so taken from chrome-32) seems to work OK within vivaldi-32 (tested on deezer).
- html-5 player does not work properly (example: black video and no sound in youtube). while html-5 player seems to work OK within vivaldi-32 (tested on youtube).
=> seeing that, i'd rather use vivaldi-32 despite my machine is a 64…
-
I've been 64-bit for more than a decade. My Solaris server (soon to be replaced with F25) is running Solaris 10, a March 2008 release. The Linux F14 box is x86_64, as well as the new box that is running x86_64 F25. The new box is where I am posting this from, using 64-bit Vivaldi-snapshot (latest version as of a few days ago).
I will only install 32-bit software if it is the only version available.
-
hello,
I saw that, with Vivaldi 1.10 32bit support is suspended. Anybody knows why, or it will back in product?
-
@JSJB Yes. Chromium does. And Vivaldi wants to keep it, too. But changes to the chromium 59 code, which Vivaldi recently took in, made it devilishly hard to compile a 32-bit version of Vivaldi for Linux. Hence, in the latest snapshot, there is no 32-bit Linux version. Vivaldi's aim is to support the oldest hardware it can, including all 32-bit systems running Linux, but chromium has thrown a monkey wrench in the works, and Vivaldi is trying to fix it.
-
@JSJB I don't know. I know the Vivaldi devs tried to compile a 32-bit version and couldn't. If it is now the case that 32-bit Chromium for Linux can no longer be compiled, we'll learn that soon enough. It would be a shame.
-
If there will be question which version drop, in general, for sure drop 32bit. It may be tough step, but otherwise things will not move furher. How long we have full 64bit OS? 10+ years? And most of software is still 32bit. I haven't seen running PC with 32 bit Linux. Even friends which were blidnly trying to install Linux, were installing 64bit versions. In company sphere, for sure we everywhere are using 64bit.
On Windows, I prefer also 64bit software becase 32bit software runs in emulation on 64bit OS (see WoW64 details on MSDN), there must be twice DLL's loaded, running processes etc. A lot of garbage, which must be present because of compatibility. And by droping 64bit version as somebody here mentioned, will not help to get rid of that. 64bit is the future.
-
@Gwen-Dragon I have Asus EEE PC with Atom stored in the drawer, because its only proper thing which Atom can do properly :). I tried there minimal Fedora 32bit installation with XFCE few years ago, which tooks <100MB of Ram, and it was pain to use.
-
-