To 64 or not to 64?
-
If you have CPU Usage column, found in Process Performance, it will show as a text saying "Not responding" rather than the CPU usage.
-
If you have CPU Usage column, found in Process Performance, it will show as a text saying "Not responding" rather than the CPU usage.
Ahh, thanks! It does vaguely seem like I have seen that once or twice when there was a completely non-responsive process.
But with Chrome, Chropera, etc., I don't usually see a tab/process completely hang (don't such tabs usually just "crash" or crash and restart?). Instead, I usually just see a tab hog excessive resources (CPU and/or memory) and bog down the whole browser or even the whole system. …And it's usually easy enough to spot the process with excessive CPU and/or memory usage in Task Manager or Process Explorer, but not to identify by name the tab associated with the process (unless something similar to vivaldi://memory-redirect has been developed for Chropera; IIRC you can do something similar with Chrome's built-in Task Manager, but I haven't looked at that for a couple years).
okay, now i am not able to reproduce it… i am not really sure how to quickly force an opera tab to hang up...
Thanks for checking.
Yes it would be interesting if there were a reliable method to hang a single tab in Chrome or Opera (or Vivaldi). This Stack Exchange thread seems to be asking exactly the right question, but doesn't seem to offer any good answers.
-
To 64!
And it is an information for developers, not for users.
We have 2015 century and most apps still use architecture from previous decade, and We talk here about technology where 2 years could be an era. -
If you have CPU Usage column, found in Process Performance, it will show as a text saying "Not responding" rather than the CPU usage.
Ahh, thanks! It does vaguely seem like I have seen that once or twice when there was a completely non-responsive process.
But with Chrome, Chropera, etc., I don't usually see a tab/process completely hang (don't such tabs usually just "crash" or crash and restart?). Instead, I usually just see a tab hog excessive resources (CPU and/or memory) and bog down the whole browser or even the whole system. …And it's usually easy enough to spot the process with excessive CPU and/or memory usage in Task Manager or Process Explorer, but not to identify by name the tab associated with the process (unless something similar to vivaldi://memory-redirect has been developed for Chropera; IIRC you can do something similar with Chrome's built-in Task Manager, but I haven't looked at that for a couple years).
You asked how to see a Not responding process in procexp, that's a flaw in Chrome implementation of their design. I don't have anything about it
-
@RRR13:
Wait, tablet?! What tablet?!
Uhhh Windows ThinkPad tablet maybe?
HP Elite Pad?
-
Windows on some full-windows touch devices reads touch the same way it would on a notebook touchpad - you know, faux-mouse input. There's no zoom with multi-touch, or anything like that.
-
It's now almost 2017, and I'm wondering if anyone has noticed a change in Vivaldi 64-bit, and whether or not it's worth switching to. I switched back to 32-bit early this year because, as Ayespy mentioned, it was a teeny bit faster. Are things any different now in Vivaldi 64-bit? Anything expected to change?
-
If Google claimed increased speed, security, and stability 2.5 years ago, then one has to wonder how the same can't be true of Vivaldi and other 64-bit browsers built on the same foundation.
I don't think speed is a big deal, since either way it's not going to be something that humans can notice, but the other two factors are.
-
@rseiler My bigger concern right now is whether or not Vivaldi 64-bit will take up a dramatically larger amount of RAM while being slightly slower. When I used it earlier this year, I did see higher RAM usage and it was a bit slower, so I'm wondering if that's not the case anymore.
I have 6GB of RAM by the way.
-
@rseiler - Chrome is not Chromium is not Vivaldi.
Chrome 64, as finished, tweaked, adjusted and out the door by Google, will be a bit faster on many (not all) systems. It will be somewhat more stable on some (not all) systems. In fact, some tests find it less stable. (locking up on benchmarking tests) It will support more bits of encryption, and will have longer (64-bit) addressing, and so be a tiny bit tougher to hack. It will also use more RAM and more processor cycles to achieve its greater speed in the instances where it is faster.
HOWEVER, this is for Chrome, and chrome only. 64-bit addressing is a constant across 64-bit browsers, so there's that little bit of security gain. But as to speed and stability, every browser built on Chromium lacks Chrome's proprietary stability tweaks (and cannot get them), and can only be faster if it gobbles more resources. In Vivaldi's particular case, the developers add an entire layer which all other browsers lack. This layer has to be optimized, tweaked, adjusted, repaired, re-aligned, etc. with the engine, every time a new engine version comes out. There's just so much time in the day, so for Windows, that time is spent with 32-bit, because everyone can install 32-bit, and only a large minority can install 64-bit. All of the optimizations for 32 may not fit 64 (which is not as thoroughly tested), and may in fact not be 100% compatible with 64.
So, no, speed and stability are not inherited by every Chromium-based browser, and speed is not even seen on every system. Some are actually slower. The only thing inherited by Chromium platform browsers is a slight bump in security - and even that may be insignificant.
Please read: http://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/03/32-bit-vs-64-bit-browsers-which-version-has-the-edge/
-
You should be able to install 64-bit Vivaldi to "C:\Program Files\Vivaldi" and 32-bit Vivaldi to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Vivaldi", pin both to the taskbar and run the one you feel like running at the time. They should use the same profile. You'd run the 64-bit version all the time unless you have problems. You'd just have to set one of them as the default browser for file association purposes.
I prefer 64-bit because I have a 64-bit processor, OS, and more than 4GB of RAM. I prefer the consistency. Also, I consider 32-bit and running 32-bit via an emulation layer a whole legacy compatibility thing that's meant as a fallback when a 64-bit version isn't available or you don't have a 64-bit OS.
In general, it's a no-brainer that the 64-bit version should be used.
Now, for technical reasons, if the 64-bit version is buggy and or significantly slower than the 32-bit version, that just means that 64-bit version is crap where you need to fall back to the 32-bit version if you don't want to deal with the issues. Same thing goes with ram. If you don't have enough ram to handle the 64-bit version, you'll need to fall back to the 32-bit version. The 32-bit version just shouldn't be your first choice.
As other have said though, even if the 64-bit version isn't as good, it's fun and nice to test so it can be made better.
-