What's the relevance of coming-up with a 64-Bit Browser Edition?



  • Hello Folks! Till the last BETA edition there were no segregation of downloading & installing the Vivaldi in 2 different variants aka 32-bit & 64-bit! As a result, the Browser on my Desktop PC is very much a Stable edition now, but in a 32-Bit variant. Can someone please help explain the relevance of installing & using the 64-bit over 32-Bit edition, especially when a 64-Bit edition has much larger footprint!? Why should we be using a 64-Bit Vivaldi over its 32-Bit variant? Isn't the latter LIGHT on the System resources? Lastly, Can both of these be accommodated at the same time? If so, how? Iam on a 64-Bit Win 8 Desktop PC which score awfully low on PC Stress Test! So should I remain stick with current 32-bit or make a transition to 64-Bit? Please Guide.... Thanks.


  • Moderator

    64bit browsers are about 15-20% faster, the code may be consuming more RAM tand 32bit, BUT the browser can use more than 3 GB RAM (if theer is mich RAM on system) for surfing.

    You can try the 64bit and if you think it is too slow, uninstall it and install 32bit version.
    Your own Vivaldi browser data will stay be the same for both architecture.

    Give it a try.



  • Alternately, you can install one version (or both) as standalone - without sharing browser data (but you can import from one to the other).

    I have both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of final 1.0 installed at the moment.

    Note: I have been using the 64 bit snapshots since Beta 1 :silly:



  • Hello Gwen Dragon! I have a 2GB RAM on my Desktop PC, & as I have pointed out earlier that my PC score abysmally LOW towards the PC Stress Test!

    Iam sorry. but I couldn't follow you correctly as there is an ambiguity in the statement. You have pointed out that 64-Bit Browser is a way faster over its 32-bit counterpart in spite of consuming More RAM & throttling one's System down! ? Is that what you mean to say? Please help resolve the ambiguity.



  • What she meant was - if your PC has more than 3GB of ram, the 64 bit version could use the ram more efficiently than the 32 bit version. This makes it faster as no RAM swapping would have to be done (because of the address space limit of 32 bit).

    With only 2GB ram, I'd stick with the 32 bit version until you add more ram so that your 64 bit OS can run better, anyway ;)



  • Wonderful!

    TbGbe! Thanks for a Categoric statement! & you know what…...Iam going Stupid over a Period of 1 Year or so as I always prefer a 64-bit Software Application in the lure (& a misplaced perception) of a better Compatibility!

    My experience weren't turning out to be of Optimized quality either....& yet I were running madly after 64-bit editions , be it for Browsers, Image Editing Softwares..& what not!

    Now I would always ensure to keep the size LEAN & MEAN for the sake a better User experience! Many Thanks! :-)



  • If you don't intend to increase the RAM beyond 2GB, you're really better off running 32-bit Windows if it's still practical to reinstall.



  • Dear All!

    Won't it be Good Idea to put a 'Disclaimer' or 'Word of Suggestion' on the Download-Page of Vivaldi's Official Website to proactively inform the prospective Users, Novices in this regard!?

    Something like–--Who should go for 64-Bit Edition? OR Optimized PC Configuration for a 64-Bit Vivaldi edition!

    None of the reputed or even the lesser known Software-Download Websites are taking any initiative to clear the air on who should prefer 64-Bit over 32-Bit!? Most of the Individuals weigh the given choices only by considering the type of OS variant installed on their PC or Laptops & hardly pay a heed towards the Hardware Configuration required to reap benefits out of much-touted 64-Bit edition!

    Therefore, Why not Vivaldi champion the cause of End-User awareness by putting an Eye-Catching Note on its Download-Page? Please deliberate! Thank you.



  • @saurabhdua:

    Wonderful!

    TbGbe! Thanks for a Categoric statement! & you know what…...Iam going Stupid over a Period of 1 Year or so as I always prefer a 64-bit Software Application in the lure (& a misplaced perception) of a better Compatibility!

    My experience weren't turning out to be of Optimized quality either....& yet I were running madly after 64-bit editions , be it for Browsers, Image Editing Softwares..& what not!

    Now I would always ensure to keep the size LEAN & MEAN for the sake a better User experience! Many Thanks! :-)

    YANA (You are not alone)
    I did the same thing when I first used a 64 bit OS (8GB Ram), even for minor things like text editors, when I've never edited any text file over 20MB :huh:
    However, it "only" took me a couple of months to realise what I was doing :silly:

    Edit: Just seen your "awareness" post.
    To be fair, not many people have a 64 bit OS on computers with less than 3GB ram - you may consider your system "special" B)



  • I first started using 64-bit with the latest snapshot.

    It does seem faster, but it's not using a lot of RAM.

    I don't open loads of tabs like some people. I have only one pair of hands and one pair of eyes.



  • Hello TbGbe!

    How Good is the Idea to install only the 'Portable' versions of every desired Software!? When do we get to see the Portable Version of Vivaldi Web Browser? & till that meantime, Please redesign the present Installer to prevent various Icons (like Desktop, Taskbar & Start-menu) from being strewn mindlessly & without seeking User's consent! Thanks. :-)



  • @saurabhdua:

    … How Good is the Idea to install only the 'Portable' versions of every desired Software!? When do we get to see the Portable Version of Vivaldi Web Browser? ...

    True "portable" software implies the software doesn't make any registry entries when 'installed' and will run 100% if put on a flash-drive and run on a different system. However, if the software employs a user's account keys from the original OS to encrypt something (like saved passwords), that software will not be able to decrypt the saved information if it's run on another computer, hence it's not truly "portable".

    On the other hand, software can alternatively be "stand alone", meaning it also doesn't make registry entries, but it does employ certain unique elements from the host system (such as user-account encryption keys). In that case, it will also run fine on other systems but none of its account-encrypted stored data will be accessible on that other system. In a sense, it's 99% 'portable'. In the case of most chromium browsers like Vivaldi, stored user password files are protected by encryption using the account keys for the system on which the software was first installed… in which case, those saved passwords would not be accessible if that install on a flash-drive was accessed from another system. Otherwise, the software would run fine.

    What a stand-alone installation offers is the ability to have multiple software versions exist simultaneously and independently on a system, because the registry hasn't been entangled and confused with similar entries from the various versions. In Vivaldi's case, it means you can install and maintain multiple versions (eg: Snapshot, Beta, Stable) and use them at will without the registry confusion or profile corruption that would occur if they were all installed "normally" or "full-install". On my system, I keep Vivaldi Stable as a full-installation and all the other Vivaldi versions as stand-alone installs on my hard drive. At one point, I had 13 different Vivaldi stand-alones (Betas and Snapshots) on the system, though I've since pared that down to 5 stand-alones.

    Depending on the software, portable installs may limit or make more difficult a user's access to the full service facilities of the host system or prevent it from being a default program, but in Vivaldi's case, neither of those is true.



  • @saurabhdua:

    Hello TbGbe!

    How Good is the Idea to install only the 'Portable' versions of every desired Software!? When do we get to see the Portable Version of Vivaldi Web Browser? & till that meantime, Please redesign the present Installer to prevent various Icons (like Desktop, Taskbar & Start-menu) from being strewn mindlessly & without seeking User's consent! Thanks. :-)

    I wish I could help redesign things, but I'm not a Vivaldi developer. Just another user :(



  • @Gwen-Dragon:

    64bit browsers are about 15-20% faster, the code may be consuming more RAM tand 32bit, BUT the browser can use more than 3 GB RAM (if theer is mich RAM on system) for surfing.

    Do you have any benchmark results to back this up? I would not expect Peacekeeper to run any faster on 64-bit than 32-bit and it doesn't. The 32-bit version is actually slightly faster in my tests.

    1.1.443.3 (Developer Build) (64-bit) = 3038 and 7/7
    1.1.443.3 (Developer Build) (32-bit) = 3067 and 7/7



  • I would like to "Update" the Dear Community Members that I have already begun the Clean-Up process of my Desktop PC, & have now started getting rid of the installed 64-Bit Versions! I have administered an Oath to always install any Software App in the following order of preference–-- :-

    Portable 32-Bit Version>Main Installer 32-Bit version!

    It appears as though the advent of 64-Bit Versions (be it for Windows OS or Software Applications) is an Outcome of Frivolity & Extravagance!



  • @saurabhdua:

    Dear All!

    Won't it be Good Idea to put a 'Disclaimer' or 'Word of Suggestion' on the Download-Page of Vivaldi's Official Website to proactively inform the prospective Users, Novices in this regard!?

    Something like–--Who should go for 64-Bit Edition? OR Optimized PC Configuration for a 64-Bit Vivaldi edition!

    None of the reputed or even the lesser known Software-Download Websites are taking any initiative to clear the air on who should prefer 64-Bit over 32-Bit!? Most of the Individuals weigh the given choices only by considering the type of OS variant installed on their PC or Laptops & hardly pay a heed towards the Hardware Configuration required to reap benefits out of much-touted 64-Bit edition!

    Therefore, Why not Vivaldi champion the cause of End-User awareness by putting an Eye-Catching Note on its Download-Page? Please deliberate! Thank you.

    Vivaldi will only need to do this if they decide that they are going to be a browser for the masses, and not a browser for the tech savvy; most of the tech savvy crowd is well aware of the differences between 32-bit programmes and 64-bit programmes.

    That being said, I am very all for some sort of explanation being clearly central on the download page if Vivaldi is going to be gearing out past the tech crowd, as I hate not giving information to those who do not have it - it's the fastest way for users to do something they don't mean to, even if in this case there's really no harm done to their computer by "installing the wrong version". Everyone should have the chance to have the optimum set up for their system, really.

    However, if Vivadli isn't aiming to be a "for the masses browser", then it sort of is a redundant disclaimer and just a waste of space on the page, and not really the kind of information we're looking for when we hit the download page, so it shouldn't be included.

    Sometimes it seems like Vivaldi's going to stay tech crowd only, sometimes it seems like they're going to go mass market, so it's sort of hard to say what to champion for here.



  • @Gwen-Dragon:

    64bit browsers are about 15-20% faster

    No Gwen, they aren't

    http://www.digitalcitizen.life/google-chrome-64-bit-it-better-32-bit-version



  • Actually, the funny thing about that article is that they do a load of tests showing that the 64-bit version of Chrome shows absolutely no improvement over the 32-bit version - in fact it's slightly worse - then conclude that it's worth using 64-bit from now on…?!?!? :S

    :lol:



  • @Gwen-Dragon:

    64bit browsers are about 15-20% faster

    They aren't any faster, but marginally slower due to the increased register overhead.

    , the code may be consuming more RAM tand 32bit,

    A 64 bit executable consumes less RAM than 32 bit executable on a 64 bit host, because of less runtime overhead. For example a 32 bit Chromium on Win64 has to load Windows on Windows 64 (WoW) and all extra 32 bit DLLs for each process. A native 64 bit one hasn't. Multi-process architecture makes that runtime overhead worse BTW. This doesn't apply to a 32 bit executable on a 32 bit host, of course

    But there are other good reasons to go 64: 64 bit browsers are more secure. Many classic exploit types don't work anymore on x86-64 Long Mode. And exploit mitigation techniques like ASLR are only really effective on 64 bit platforms with native 64 bit code.



  • @jtsn:

    But there are other good reasons to go 64: 64 bit browsers are more secure. Many classic exploit types don't work anymore on x86-64 Long Mode. And exploit mitigation techniques like ASLR are only really effective on 64 bit platforms with native 64 bit code.

    That's a sentence that worked perfectly in 2004 or so, when XP64 was released, nowadays you're likely more secure using win3.11 rather than win10 x64, given the threats are aimed to the more widespread OSes.

    Speaking aboutWindows OSes and not programs, yes x64 are in general more secure, but just because the driver signature enforcement, which anyway is an MS choice, not an architectural difference.


Log in to reply
 

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