Clear cut explanation on why recommend 32 bit version?

  • I'm confused as to why Vivaldi suggests the 32 bit version, even when 64 bit would (I think?) be better for those who have 64 bit systems in terms of speed, etc. I've seen various explanations (most of them out of date), including:

    • there is actually no advantage to a x64 build;

    • it works for everyone, and noobs would be confused if they don't know their architecture;

    • your x64 builds are "buggy"

    Can someone definitively explain why I should download a x32 if I have x64? It just doesn't make sense to me. Are some features not included or...?


  • Moderator

    @onenil: Go ahead and use the X64.

  • Moderator

    It's known to (allegedly) cause issues more often than the 32-bit version. But I don't have any hard evidence to prove that. You should be fine going with the 64-bit version.

    Also, point for you for making a research before asking the question. I just wish I had a better answer, but it's the only thing I know regarding this issue.

  • Moderator

    In older Vivaldi time there were less testers for 64bit, but as i know the 64bit are working fine now.
    You can use 64bit on Windows.

  • @pafflick @Ayespy @Vivaldi-Moderators

    Thanks! Will I lose settings / bookmarks if I install x64, and is there anything specific I should do to prepare for the change (since we'll be installed in different directory etc)?

    Also, is multi-threaded performance likely to be better? I'm currently using the settings recommended here, including the ramdisk configuration. Will this still help (not that I'm really positive it helps a ton anyway).

  • Moderator

    It definitely should not and there's not much reason to, but to stay on the safe side you should backup your profile. Just open vivaldi://about and one of the last lines tell you where your profile is located. I recommend deleting cache (not cookies, just cache) as this will make your profile smaller for backup and might remove some cache that may be sensitive of the architecture change.

    The tips do have some impact. Especially when speaking about disabling features. Regardless, the additions by WillyYu and other changes by the team have enhanced the performance a lot since that post in ghacks.

    As for your points about x64:

    • x64 has advantages, it may work much better for high data actions, like media playback for example. For all the rest it may be the same. x64 though might use a bit more RAM, but this may only be a problem if you have few RAM.
    • x64 only works on x64 OS, but x86 can run on both x86 & x64 OS. But then web browsers send the OS architecture to the website which can then use this information to point to the correct version.
    • x64 are not more "buggy", they just might be because there are less people using it, so less bug reports for specific bugs that may exist only on the x64 version.

  • Moderator

    On the Windows platform, 64-bit Chrome/Chromium has been around for almost 3 years, so that codebase is now very mature. If you have a 64-bit OS on 64-bit hardware, it makes sense to run a 64-bit application -- most of the time -- since it's native to the platform. In the Mac world, 64-bit applications are the norm.

    I only use Windows for work purposes, but from what I remember, the biggest issue that limited 64-bit Chrome's initial uptake was that it did not support 32-bit NPAPI plugins, which was a big showstopper at the time. Today, 64-bit systems are common and 32-bit systems are on their way out. Aside from office applications where data interchange with 32-bit apps can still be an issue, there are few (if any) compelling reasons to use legacy 32-bit versions of applications on 64-bit systems anymore.

  • @An_dz @Vivaldi-Moderators

    Thanks, all. Backed up as per your instructions, but as you said, it wasn't needed. It just installed in the x86 folder (which I assume is ok?).

    While we're on the topic... as you mentioned, disabling some features as per the ghacks post definitely helped. But any opinions on using a RAM disk for the cache--whether it has a palpable influence on performance? In my case, I have 8GB RAM but a relatively slow processor (i5200u 2.2ghz).

    Love love LOVE Vivaldi, but it isn't the process (even when tinkering with flags etc.) so any feedback on RAM drive use/tips on optimization (or links to further tips) would be really appreciated.

    I also just have to say that I am so impressed by the friendliness of these forums and also the quick responses from the moderators, that aren't your typical tech "attitude" toward those of us who are less knowledgeable (forgive me, but perhaps you know what I mean).


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.