[Feature Suggestion] Why no 64-bit builds?



  • Google Chrome has 64-bit builds. Why not make them for Vivaldi? It's not really going to take a lot of time to make them, right?



  • I don't know where you're looking, but they do make 64-bit builds. They are experimental though, so use at your own risk. Vivaldi Team Blog

    https://vivaldi.com/download/download.php?f=Vivaldi.1.0.201.2.x64.exe



  • I'm using the 64 bit build. It's a bit strange that it is "experimental" though, x64 has been around for quite a while now :)


  • Moderator

    @jaxtraw:

    I'm using the 64 bit build. It's a bit strange that it is "experimental" though, x64 has been around for quite a while now :)

    If you understand the development process, user populations and economics, it's not a bit strange at all. What's actually strange is that they put out Linux, especially 32-bit Linux, and Windows 64-bit this early in the development process. These moves make only the most marginal economic sense at this point because of how they thin out and challenge very scarce resources.



  • Why would anyone still be using 32 bit with modern RAM sizes? It can't even address all of 4GB!



  • @jaxtraw:

    Why would anyone still be using 32 bit with modern RAM sizes?

    The question (already well discussed here) must be reversed.

    The question is why use a 64 bit version that doesn't have any practical advantage, and which is usually slower and less tested?

    helping on debug is the only decen't reason

    It can't even address all of 4GB!

    I'm not sure you got what are the memory limits on win32



  • I don't use Win32 for the same reason I don't use Win16 and DOS these days.


  • Moderator

    @jaxtraw:

    Why would anyone still be using 32 bit with modern RAM sizes? It can't even address all of 4GB!

    The reason for modern RAM sizes is the advent of 64-bit, not vice-versa. The reasons anyone would still be using 32-bit are the same reasons, for the most part, that the ratio of 32-bit to 64-bit machines in use in this house is 3:1. Custom, comfort, replacement costs, durability of hardware, etc. Then there is also the rate of spread of technology into less-developed regions. There are over a billion people on the planet using tech, new to them, that first-world users have largely abandoned.

    The real question is why would anyone develop software (64-bit) that fewer than half of all potential users can make use of, when software which is easier to write and test (32-bit) can be used by everyone?



  • @jaxtraw:

    I don't use Win32 for the same reason I don't use Win16 and DOS these days.

    I use what works and what solve my problems.

    So please try to educate yourself about what are the advantages and the disadvantages 32 and 64 bit architectures and programs.

    And ask when you ave a clearer vision of the "problem"



  • Windows 7 and 8 in 32 bit forms are both limited to 4GB address space. That's just a fact. My machine is a 64 bit machine with 8GB of RAM. Why would I use obsolete 32 bit software on it? I've had this machine nearly 4 years. It's hardly bleeding edge technology. Vivaldi is supposed to be for power users. Why would power users be constraining themselves in insufficient memory sizes?

    As to "the reason for modern RAM sizes", it's because more memory is always better than less memory.



  • @jaxtraw:

    Windows 7 and 8 in 32 bit forms are both limited to 4GB address space.

    No that's not a fact that's the short version good for the masses, anyway no one is telling you to use a 32 bit OS, we are talking about a browser.

    My machine is a 64 bit machine with 8GB of RAM. Why would I use obsolete 32 bit software on it? I've had this machine nearly 4 years.

    My machine was a 64bit when xp 64 was in beta, more than a decade ago. So ?

    So I still use vivaldi 32 because is faster, less buggy more compatible, and hasn't practically any disadvantage against the 64 bit brother.

    Vivaldi is supposed to be for power users.

    The only powers that counts speaking about 32 and 64 are the powers of 2 :lol:

    Being a power user is a different matter.

    As to "the reason for modern RAM sizes", it's because more memory is always better than less memory.

    That's a Capitan Obvious like sentence. Too bad has little to do with a multiprocess browser that can use 2/3/4 GB of memory per process, depending on the underlying operating system



  • Well Vivaldi needs a 64 bit version as it's clear the company understands which is why they produce it, so luckily there are some of us fools prepared to use it and test it. Since we're not even at Beta yet- just tech previews and weekly(?) builds, buggy is not a problem and should be expected. I'm probably not going to be a full time Viv user until the first stable release (1.0, or whatever) so I will continue with my idiot x64 version so that it helps get a proper x64 release when the time comes. For those of us whose computers are not steam powered. :)



  • @jaxtraw:

    Well Vivaldi needs a 64 bit version

    Indeed they are building it.

    Vivaldi needs to develop it to have the product ready when it will became useful, something that may happen in the next 5 years.



  • Five years? Until then we must make do with a toy 32bit version for the amateurs? That's ridiculous. Modern machines shouldn't be forced to run 1990s standard software.



  • @jaxtraw:

    Five years? Until then we must make do with a toy 32bit version for the amateurs? That's ridiculous. Modern machines shouldn't be forced to run 1990s standard software.

    But, maybe, in the next 5 years you will mature a bit, and you will laugh a lot reading back your messages here. :lol:


  • Moderator

    Terms like "obsolete" and "power users" being inserted into the 32 vs 64 debate reveal an absence of comprehension regarding architecture and benefits. I suspect the same people would want to refer to Boeing 737's and 747's as "obsolete" as well, and refer to themselves as "exceptional drivers" because they have a lead foot.

    Vivaldi 32 will always be able to do everything Vivaldi 64 can do, irrespective whether a user is a "power user" or a novice, and will be able to do it just as well for all intents and purposes, while consuming fewer resources. The chief difference between them will be that, like most browsers (or most software for that matter) that have both versions, the 64-bit version will always be a bit more buggy.

    For my image processing work, I lean toward 64-bits for that very slight edge it gives me in speed and workload, and similarly with heavy number-crunching, like accounting software. Both of these are huge hogs of processor cycles and RAM. Aside from that, however, having been one of the earliest adopters of 64-bit computing, I've yet to see the immense (or even in most cases marginal) benefits of 64-bits over 32-bits for most use cases. I've even got two machines here on Win 7 that are virtual clones of each other, including brand and series of both mobo and CPU, with the exception one runs 64-bit and the other, 32. I have benched and tested them against each other six ways from Sunday, and the "modern" machine either exactly matches or barely beats the "obsolete" machine at every single benchmark and test.

    The only box in this house that really outpaces any others in any marked fashion not only has plenty of RAM, but six 3.3 GHz processing cores as well. And it does no worse on 32-bit progs than on 64-bit.



  • I remember precisely the same arguments being made about 32 bit versus 16 bit; doesn't make any real difference, can even less efficient due to larger word size, who needs that much RAM anyway, 16 bit was good enough for my Grandfather it's good enough for me, it will frighten the cows and make the milk curdle, God will strike us down for this abomination, etc.



  • @jaxtraw:

    I remember precisely the same arguments being made about 32 bit versus 16 bit;

    You remember pretty bad.



  • @jaxtraw:

    I remember precisely the same arguments being made about 32 bit versus 16 bit; doesn't make any real difference, can even less efficient due to larger word size, who needs that much RAM anyway, 16 bit was good enough for my Grandfather it's good enough for me, it will frighten the cows and make the milk curdle, God will strike us down for this abomination, etc.

    The issue is really one of timing. I've lived through migrations from 8-bit (Intellec-8 days) to 16-bit to 32-bit and now to 64-bit PCs. You could include 128-bit, if you count my IBM mainframe days. The reality is that each architecture makes sense only when it makes sense. In other words, what makes sense in one era and for some applications isn't necessarily as sensible in some other era and for other applications. A day may come when 64-bit architecture comes to rule all of the PC realm, both hardware and software. But this is not that day. Yet. The advantages and impetus are not sufficient, nor are they likely to be for some time to come. Reality still indeed rules the overall worlds of design and marketing, and the reality is that most applications, users, and systems in use worldwide in the present PC era are quite admirably handled by 32-bit coding.

    The world of computer hardware and software design, development and marketing ultimately responds to market and technological realities, not things like "good enough for my Grandfather' and all such platitudes. When the real demand for 64-bit material is great enough, it will fully come into its own. But that demand is not sufficient yet to drive the markets, in large part because the demonstrable advantages of a 64-bit architecture over 32-bit are not yet great enough - if they even exist, in some arenas. Put another way, there are not yet enough technical barriers to 32-bit application functionality to justify the migration costs to full-blown employment of 64-bit. Nor are there likely to be for some time to come. The present-day reality is that 32-bit is indeed "good enough" for most things being done on PCs, whether it be by Grandfather or most modern users.


  • Moderator

    @jaxtraw:

    I remember precisely the same arguments being made about 32 bit versus 16 bit; doesn't make any real difference, can even less efficient due to larger word size, who needs that much RAM anyway, 16 bit was good enough for my Grandfather it's good enough for me, it will frighten the cows and make the milk curdle, God will strike us down for this abomination, etc.

    No such (or even similar) arguments are being made here. What's being discussed is technical and economic realities as opposed to an apparent ideological addiction to "the latest thing." Sometimes the latest thing is unarguably the best. Sometimes it really isn't. What dictates whether there is a genuine distinction between "modern" and "obsolete" is the facts on the ground - not the "newness" of the product or passage of time. In the case of software, a developer and vendor must write for the world of existing users and breadth of application and adoption, as opposed to the world of ideal, advanced, or theoretical users. Wisdom sees the difference between these things. Has anyone ever noticed that no one who develops for the mass market EVER agitates for the necessity to develop 64-bit? Perhaps it's because they live in a world where they have to get their products used as widely as possible in order to put bread on the table.


Log in to reply
 

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