64bit version


  • Moderator

    @charm3d:

    I think 32bit processors for desktop stop being sold at least 5 years ago. So all PC's sold in at least the past 5 years are 64bit. So most computers would be 64bit. It would make so sense to install a 32bit OS when you have a 64bit Processor unless you are very stupid.

    From what I can tell. Most of you seem to have 32bit systems and are bitching because those of us who have 64bit systems what software designed for our systems. So it's all about you! One said they never said a 64bit versions should not be made but this whole thread reads as a bitch at us who want a 64bit. Call me a child, look in the mirror. You all throw tantrums like 4yo little girls. Some act like they are all knowing and above the rest of us. I have just sat back and laughed at most of your comments. You have superiority complexes.

    Everyone has a right to request what they want with out being put down and belittled by a bunch of kiddies who think only of themselves and think they know it all.

    Vivaldi asked for requests I made one and got a bunch of A-holes jump on the thread. In the beginning I should have just answered "Because some of us want it" I have no need to explain myself to a bunch of kids. My request was to the Vivaldi developers and really has nothing to do with you lot at all. You want to act like children fine, don't be Trolls on other peoples threads and start your little bitching sessions on them.

    More erroneous assumptions and false conclusions.

    I bought a "new" 32-bit computer less than five years ago. I still have it.

    In fact, seven computers in this house are 32-bit, while three are 64-bit. As several millions more 32-bit machines have been sold than 64-bit ones, and as more of these are still in use than 64-bit ones have ever been sold, "most machines" are not 64-bit.

    The primary machines both my wife and I use are 64-bit - so I have zero incentive to desire 32-bit software for my daily use (while It would be REALLY nice to be able to also install Vivaldi on all of my 32-bit machines, including the two Linux ones.) That said, assuming that two thirds of the machines in the world are 64-bit, this means software should be written to EXCLUDE the final third? Or, instead, if you want maximal adoption of your new software, would you write it so that 100% of the machines could run it? And THIS, not personal benefit is why I see the wisdom of rolling out 32-bit now, and perhaps 64-bit later.

    Vivaldi DID ask for requests, and everyone DOES have the right to request what they want. Everyone else has the right to counsel the wisdom of waiting. When you begin to squeal and stomp your feet in response, and insult the intelligence of those who know what they are talking about, you may be belittled and treated like a kid.

    AFAICS, the only A-hole on the thread is the one demanding what he wants NOW, at the cost of broader adoption.



  • @charm3d:

    It would make so sense to install a 32bit OS when you have a 64bit Processor unless you are very stupid.

    Very stupid is doing something just because you can.

    When you eat something, you do it because you are hungry or because you have a brand new refrigerator ?


  • Moderator

    Your guess is as good as mine…



  • @Ayespy:

    the only A-hole on the thread is the one demanding what he wants NOW, at the cost of broader adoption.

    Who is making the assumptions? I just requested they make a 64bit. you assholes made a thing of it. I never said now. I made a request. In fact all you lot have done is make assumptions. Try grow up!


  • Moderator

    I'm sorry - were you or were you not the one telling everyone 32-bit was dead and prehistoric calling its use "stupid," and ordering people to get with the times?

    These kinds of things strike me as more than a "request." In fact they strike me as bullying and trying to get people to abandon their (rather sound, actually) thinking and agree that 64-bit should be developed instead of 32-bit.

    No one was initially an asshole to you, nor did anyone "make a thing of it" until you became antagonistic at everyone when they counseled patience in waiting for 64-bit, because the costs of doing it now outweigh the benefits, if any.



  • @The_Solutor:

    Practically a multiprocess 32 bit browser hardly will reach any of those limits.

    Could happen, but I'd hate to see the web page that requires 4 GB to be rendered. :p



  • @charm3d:

    From what I can tell. Most of you seem to have 32bit systems and are bitching because those of us who have 64bit systems what software designed for our systems.

    @charm3d:

    You all throw tantrums like 4yo little girls. Some act like they are all knowing and above the rest of us. I have just sat back and laughed at most of your comments. You have superiority complexes.

    Everyone has a right to request what they want with out being put down and belittled by a bunch of kiddies who think only of themselves and think they know it all.

    Vivaldi asked for requests I made one and got a bunch of A-holes jump on the thread. In the beginning I should have just answered "Because some of us want it" I have no need to explain myself to a bunch of kids. My request was to the Vivaldi developers and really has nothing to do with you lot at all. You want to act like children fine, don't be Trolls on other peoples threads and start your little bitching sessions on them.

    You sure know how to pick a nickname, I'll give you that.

    (And with that, I'm out of this madness of a thread…)



  • For the record, on some software I can tell a difference. I haven't had enough time to see if I can on Vivaldi yet …



  • I often have a lot of tabs open at once, and Flash has a tendency to eat up RAM when opening a lot of YouTube tabs.



  • @Knowbody:

    I often have a lot of tabs open at once, and Flash has a tendency to eat up RAM when opening a lot of YouTube tabs.

    Separate process for each tab takes care of that problem…



  • 32 or 64 bits, there shouldn't be much different in the code, maybe in some memory handling part of the code and/or data alignment portion. Usually it is just a compiler switch to compile into 32 or 64 bits executable (along with the matching sets of libraries to link with).
    For 64 bit windows running 32 bit code, it uses a emulator (WOW64) to handle the 32 bit apps, which in theory makes 32 bit apps marginally slower than native 64 bit apps and allows fewer threads. Having said that, most of the current generation CPUs does have hardware for supporting virtualization/emulation making the different in speed barely noticeable, especially for a browser app.
    Knowing Vidaldi spawn off a separate thread of each tab, will make the reason of able to access larger memory to have a 64 bit version even less, unless ones opens crazy number of tabs that will hit the WOW64 emulator thread limit (~2K threads).
    I guess for those digital obsessive individuals that wants all their apps having the same bit length, it doesn't matter if there are only very little technical advantages, they just wanted everything to be same, but for more practical individuals, many other new features are more important.
    I do open up a lot of tabs but no where near the 2K limit, my experience of having many tabs seems to crash the browser quite often and I would like to see it more stable before seeing a 64 bit version.


  • Moderator

    @Knowbody:

    I often have a lot of tabs open at once, and Flash has a tendency to eat up RAM when opening a lot of YouTube tabs.

    And that's a good reason to keep Flash 32bits, at least it will stop near 4GB. With 64bit it will eat all your RAM.

    Also, Youtube now is using HTML5 by default.



  • @eman:

    32 or 64 bits, there shouldn't be much different in the code

    Likely this is perfectly true on Linux, but not on Windows.

    If was that easy we had 64bit browsers 11 years ago.

    Instead MS kkept explorer 64 as a second choice, Firefox still doesn't have an official 64bit build and crome is close to it.

    Even Opera x64 for windows arrived way later than the Linux cousin.



  • QFT It's not 2010 for gosh sakes. (When folks were stubbornly refusing to support 64-bit, like it's 2004!)

    Even in 2005, 64-bit-enabled CPUs were common!

    And by 2006, I would have expected 99 percent of new CPUs at that time to support 64-bit! (Even the cheap ones!)


  • Moderator

    @RJARRRPCGP:

    QFT It's not 2010 for gosh sakes. (When folks were stubbornly refusing to support 64-bit, like it's 2004!)

    Even in 2005, 64-bit-enabled CPUs were common!

    And by 2006, I would have expected 99 percent of new CPUs at that time to support 64-bit! (Even the cheap ones!)

    Over half of machines still in use are 32-bit. Hence, since 32-bit will run on both architectures, it makes sense to finish developing 32-bit in order to achieve the widest possible adoption. Later, 64-bit for Windows may be a sensible use of (VERY) limited resources.



  • @Ayespy:

    Over half of machines still in use are 32-bit. Hence, since 32-bit will run on both architectures, it makes sense to finish developing 32-bit in order to achieve the widest possible adoption. Later, 64-bit for Windows may be a sensible use of (VERY) limited resources.

    It was 2010 or 2011 when Adobe actually pulled the 64-bit Flash from the internet!
    I was like, what the bleep?!

    And most the the 32-bit systems you're talking about are pre-Vista era.

    The last 32-bit only AMD CPUs were socket 462. But, Intel was tricky, all of them should have been 64-bit enabled by 2005, but Intel, with post-Northwood Pentium 4s, is alleged to have disabled 64-bit on some with a laser cut, LOL.


  • Moderator

    To be sure, many are pre-Vista. But XP sp3 will run Vivaldi. And at my left elbow as we speak is a 32-bit laptop that was delivered with Vista on it, sitting under a 32-bit ThinkPad that came with Win7 pre-loaded, and to the left and behind me, a 32-bit tower delivered with Vista, too (it's clone, with the exact same processor and a motherboard which is one letter model number different and newer BIOS, is my wife's 64-bit Win7 tower). My old tower is running really well with Win7, as is the ThinkPad (now that I maxed out the RAM and put an SSD in it), while the oldest, crummiest laptop is flying, running Win10 TP 32-bit. EVERY properly licensed windows machine from Win7 forward is getting offered a free upgrade to Win10 when it is released, which will rejuvenate them due to its much smarter resource allocation.

    So let's don't bury X86 architecture just yet. Though in its dotage, it still has several years of vibrant life ahead of it.



  • 32-bit software will run on all Windows systems, be they 32 or 64-bit. 64-bit software will only run on 64-bit Windows systems. So if you're initially developing and releasing software for which you want the widest startup exposure and have finite resources, doesn't it make sense to work on the 32-bit design and get that off the ground first? And if a 64-bit version does get released at some point to take advantage of 64-bit computer architecture, how does that create problems for 32-bit users? I run a 64-bit system with both 32-bit and 64-bit software, and I'm happy with both. I'm trying to figure out why this thread has grown to 4 pages of debate and argument… :ohmy:



  • I have been using the 64 bit build of Opera since it has been available. (Does Chropera even have one?). But I also still have a 32 bit only machines around, so I'm glad that they will run Vivaldi.

    The switch from 16 to 32 bit did go very fast due to the severe limitations of 16 bit (64 KB boundary). The last 16 bit Opera version was 3.62, if somebody still remembers it. But the transition from 32 to 64 bit is not a pressing issue yet.

    Just my two cents.



  • @RJARRRPCGP:

    The last 32-bit only AMD CPUs were socket 462. But, Intel was tricky, all of them should have been 64-bit enabled by 2005, but Intel, with post-Northwood Pentium 4s, is alleged to have disabled 64-bit on some with a laser cut, LOL.

    As I said I use 64bits since the day 1, the day -1 given I started using xp64 when still was in beta, and even the theme engine was till not working.

    That said, for most of the machines from 2004/2008, there is little pont not just using 64bit applications, but also the whole operating system, given they are usually equipped with 2/3GB of ram (often costly DDR), and slow HDDs according to the today standars.

    Sa 64bit system, its bigger size, and memory consumption makes the machine definitely less agile, and the (often supposed) advantages of 64bit OS and apps are more than shadowed.

    The same is applicabile to nowadays low end machines, even a 64bit capable netbook bought "yesterday" is way more pleasurable to use when the Windows is a 32 bit version.

    So NO ONE is against x64 itself and a x64 Vivaldi build, but stop asking for the novelties just because are novelties or trendy, and try to understand the REAL advantages and disadvantages of both worlds.

    Let the Vivaldi team focus to the features missing and the bugfix process, then we will appreciate to have an x64 build.


 

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