32 vs 64 bit Vivaldi.


  • Vivaldi Team

    Hi, We are offering both 32 and 64 bit builds of Vivaldi since it has been clearly stated that it's something you guys want. But we are wondering for how long it will make sense to keep them both going. I would assume there's strong opinions on this, especially on the 32 bit side :) Anyhow, Have any of you been in a situation where one or the other work better on your system and have an idea why that may be? I just want to get a feel for where you guys are on this issue these days.. //C



  • 64b seems to load faster on my PCs.
    I understand that making 2 versions has a cost, non negligible.
    Some softwares are now available only in 64b ; that could be the reason.
    Among all PCs on the planet, what are the respective % of 23b vs 64b : ???

    "To nobody, except those who will take pleasure here" (Franz Schubert, 1797-1828)



  • Although is very likely that 32bit only machines are in general too old and to slow to run Vivaldi productively, there are scenarios where a 32bit Linux installation is mandatory even on a recent system.

    Think to some Virtualized scenarios, think to forced 32bit installations because other third party SW still runs only on 32bits, think to older installations migrated over new HW.

    I think is still worth to have Vivaldi's 32bit flavor available, at least for one or two years from now.


  • Moderator

    @The_Solutor:

    Although is very likely that 32bit only machines are in general too old and to slow to run Vivaldi productively, there are scenarios where a 32bit Linux installation is mandatory even on a recent system.

    Think to some Virtualized scenarios, think to forced 32bit installations because other third party SW still runs only on 32bits, think to older installations migrated over new HW.

    I think is still worth to have Vivaldi's 32bit flavor available, at least for one or two years from now.

    Your assertion as to 32-bit machines being too old and slow to run Vivaldi could not be further off base. My second (emergency fallback) machine is a 32-bit Win10 rig, and it runs Vivaldi fast and smooth. Now the processor is capable of handling a 64-bit OS, but there is no way in hell that I am brain-wiping that machine to "upgrade" it to 64-bit, with all the data that is on there, and the fact that it runs trouble-free as-is, just to have access to a 64-bit browser.

    If Vivaldi should pare back and support only one bit-width version in Windows, then the one which will run on the most machines and thereby enjoy the widest distribution will, by far, be the 32-bit one.



  • Hi new member to the Vivaldi Browser here.

    There are a few reasons why I came to have a look at the Vivaldi Browser:

    1- It was just Featured on the BBC News show "Click" which I'm a regular viewer of that show, Theirs the fact that you also have a x64 bit version of the Browser, Plus how many watch CLICK, a lot right ?.. Potential right there.

    2- Theirs also an ever increasing number of x64 bit architecture processors selling these days and people rather go for a x64 bit machine, There's many many of reasons why x64 bits is better and I'll explain just a few of them in a minute.

    I'm a gamer, and There's a hell of a lot us out there, and 90% of us use x64 bits, It allows you to use fast amounts of Ram plus many other advantages, plus the average Joe gamer has about 16GB Ram running maybe at minimum 1600MHz on multi-core systems

    We love performance and it means a lot to us, We love moving with Technology and taking advantage of the newest types to hit the market. The migratory of us use Sata SSD's and Now most of us are moving onto the newer NVMe M.2 Interface with read write speeds averaging "Read 2150MB/s, Write 1550MB/s, The point is, There's an ever increasing demand for the x64 Bit architecture, It's all about evolving and moving with the times and using the newest technology to your advantage.

    A little Info on NVMe Tech
    NVMe

    NVMe is a communications interface/protocol developed specially for SSDs by a consortium of vendors including Intel, Samsung, Sandisk, Dell, and Seagate. Like SCSI and SATA, NVMe is designed to take advantage of the unique properties of pipeline-rich, random access, memory-based storage

    Moving on, your not forced to go down that road of course, However, That's where where/your all going eventually, Well don't take my word for it, Look at all those browsers out there, How many have now got x64 bit types out there now ?

    This is what Google have to say on the Subject.

    64-bit versions of Windows are more secure, and Chrome is no different. The 64-bit version of Chrome has a variety of additional security features. Google’s original blog post says they are able to far more effectively defend against vulnerabilities that rely on controlling the memory layout of objects” on 64-bit versions of Chrome.

    In addition, the 64-bit version of Chrome includes a 64-bit version of Adobe Flash. Google has worked with Adobe to improve Flash’s protections against various type of attack, and these exploit mitigations are more effective on 64-bit versions of Chrome.

    Well It's common knowledge x64 Bit Architecture is more secure, I would of thought that would of been a good enough reason right there to go x64Bit, No ?

    It's also noted that x64 Bit is faster and Google has shown It can gain unto 25% increase in Performance especially with visual elements, While it's crashing only half as much as there x32 bit versions. In addition, 64-bit version of Chrome can take the 64-bit version of Adobe Flash. So what you may ask ?

    Well Google has been working with Adobe to fix various types of attack that are vulnerable via the 32Bit version of flash and now the exploit mitigations are more effective on 64-bit versions of Chrome, meaning the public are more protected when using x64 Flash, and I know a lot of you 32Bit users out there love feeling secure, Well so do we x64 Bit users, though we know we have a stronger defence using x64Bit ;)

    Look, There's Good and Bad arguments for both cases right ? However, Technology is evolving and Millions of us love taking advantage of that and the words getting out that more and more companies are now compiling x64Bit versions of there applications these days.

    Anyway, That's me, I'm starving, I need to eat, Please don't stop the x64 Bit versions guys, It's a great addition and it'll be a great shame, I know I for one would stick with x64 I all the way, and many of us world, even if it means going elsewhere,

    Sadly!

    Think Security, x64-Bit is far better at protecting you against attacks than it's x32-Bit Flavour ever could, Protecting the Public user-base should be a good enough reason to compile a x64 and keep it running.

    P.S - SIDE NOTE
    There’s No Real Downside to Upgrading

    In 2014, Google noted that “the only significant known issue is the lack of 32-bit NPAPI plugin support.” This meant the Java plug-in and other browser plug-ins wouldn’t work on the 64-bit version of Chrome. However, Chrome no longer supports any type of NPAPI plug-ins as of Chrome 42, 32- or 64-bit.

    (The 64-bit version of Chrome does include a 64-bit Flash plug-in, though, and it’ll work normally with websites that use Flash.)

    If you’re using a 64-bit version of Windows, you should be using a 64-bit version of Chrome. We’re not sure why Google hasn’t automatically updated all 64-bit Windows users. It should

    Google Tech



  • Your assertion as to 32-bit machines being too old and slow to run Vivaldi could not be further off base

    I mean in general.

    You know I'm still run happily a tablet from 2003, a RAM upgrade and an SSD made it well usable even with win 8.1.

    But that said we all know that Vivaldi is perceived by many people as slow even on actual machines, because i's non native UI (greatly improved but still slower than many other browsers)

    So hardly Vivaldi will provide a satisfactory . Personally on old machines I prefer to run Opera 12 (or say chrome 5), relegating Vivaldi or other browsers to more sensitive tasks, like home banking, online shopping and so on.

    In short Vivaldi is bought over Chromium which, in turn, isn't build with older machines in mind. That's a fact that we can't change.

    Then the choice is up the single user, as usual.

    You are unwilling to upgrade, and I understand so, hence I mentioned those kind of scenarios on my previous post.



  • Just noticed my Win10 x64 computer installed the 32-bit version of Vivaldi by default… just updated to the 64-bit version... I dare say that the 32-bit version seemed speedier...

    Possible?

    Recommendation moving forward? (stay 64 for some reason or reinstall 32 bit version for performance increase)



  • @digitaltoast:

    I dare say that the 32-bit version seemed speedier…

    Possible?

    It's not just possible is almost sure.

    On windows prefer the x64 version just for data crunching SW. Phothoshop, 3dstudio, any multimedia converter, any file compressor (7zip, win rar and so on)

    "normal programs" hardly have any improvement by the x64 architecture, but almost certainly are bigger to load, slower to start, maybe by a small margin but still the x32 are the winners.



  • In school we only have 64-bit fedora. in the past fedora refused to install 32-bit programs when I tried it. So I can image there could be problems with only 32-bit or only 64-bit. I could try to install vivaldi on a fedora machine for giggles next time I'm there.

    I'm not willing to try the 64-bit version on my 32-bit netbook (lxde) or the 32-bit version on my 64-bit desktop pc(unity) though.

    As there are more casual users than gamers, I don't think gamers with gaming pcs are a factor. Then I remembered that casual users use pcs and notebooks less and less, but stick to their mobile devices. So maybe I'm not sure what the market is like.



  • Linux situation is way different than windowsone many x64 distros are x64 only, no ties with x86 compatibilities, less crap dragged from the past. They started also before MS that spent many years on IA64, a questionable choice to say the best.

    In short x64 on linux means usually more advantages than disadvantages.

    Speaking about your problem, you had just to install the libs32 that almost certainly were not installed by default, anyway is very rare to have to deal with 32bit programs on linux x64, it happens mostly on proprietary SW, which isn't possible to recompile. But almost everything else is available in both flavours.



  • Maybe you should move this discussion out of the linux part of the forum and into the general part, if it is not exclusively about vivaldi in linux systems? This is somewhat confusing to me.

    Also I'm not sure what my problem is, but I guess you mean my inability to install 32-bit programs on 64-bit fedora? It's a weird thing with the computers in Uni, we can install stuff, but I don't bother too much, since there is something wrong with them. By something wrong I mean, that our administrator accidentally set them to reset to a certain default state, after every update. So every time somebody updates, which happens, because we don't get any instructions for our pc-lab, everything we tinkled with on one of the computers is gone.
    We tried last week to install chromium and failed, so I guess I won't have any luck with vivaldi anyway. Non the less I'll give it a shot next week.



  • @Dett:

    Maybe you should move this discussion out of the linux part of the forum and into the general part, if it is not exclusively about vivaldi in linux systems? This is somewhat confusing to me.

    32 v.s. 64 is a general question. But for windows the question is almost reversed.

    Anyway, here, the original question was about the relevance of x86 buil on linux. So the linux room is its natural place

    As for your school computer obviously it it's locked and/or poorly mantained, everything can happen.

    But you can try to install a standalone version that affects just a single user, following ruario's instructions

    https://gist.github.com/ruario/8f648cc3069d1a55d9c8



  • @The_Solutor:

    Linux situation is way different than windowsone many x64 distros are x64 only, no ties with x86 compatibilities, less crap dragged from the past.

    Linux distributions just took years to figure out multilib, while Windows did WoW64 correctly from the start. So initially 64 bit Linux was 64 bit only. They sugar-coated the fact, that they weren't able to relibably install/run 32/64 bit binaries side-by-side with "less crap dragged from the past". While WINE happily runs 16 bit binaries from the real past. :lol:

    Nowdadays it's a solved problem, while Debian got it wrong (lib32), everyone else got it right (lib64). Though x86 and x86-64 both aren't the answer on Linux, x32 might be it.



  • Linux distributions just took years to figure out multilib

    Frankly I never had a single problem on Linux x64 due to the split library, since the beginning, surely I had more problem with the usual split in opposite factions about everything starting from the position of the configuration files, of the boot scripts, the use of separated option directory and so on.

    So initially 64 bit Linux was 64 bit only

    Maybe the very first experimental distros were, but at the time XP64 was still in beta1 Linux was already working w/o much troubles, but likely your mileage was different from mine because the use of different distros

    Nowdadays it's a solved problem, while Debian got it wrong (lib32), everyone else got it right (lib64)

    Many distros simply switched over time taking the libs with no numbers added as the current ones and the ones with a trailing number as the less common, that varie over rime, so did the libs placement. Frankly I cared very little of that detail

    But if you want to talk of things good/wrong regarding the libraries I can't be silent about windows Wint the x64dir called \system32 and the x32 dir called \syswow64. I still don't care, but…. :lol:



  • First Debian treated "amd64" like a complete new plattform (like "arm" for example), which resulted in an useless 64 bit only platform. Later someone noticed you might want to run 32 bit binaries, so they had the awful idea of additionally putting 32 bit libraries under /usr/lib32. But legacy 32 bit applications expect them under /usr/lib. So Debian has to patch each and every 32 bit package to make it work with their broken multilib implementation.

    System32 is there since the first release of Windows NT, regardless of the architecture. (NT was developed first for the fictional N-Ten ("NT") platform, so IBM doesn't notice that MS is planning to abandon OS/2).



  • Hello,

    i find different behavior on vivaldi-32 vs vivaldi-64.
    i try both vivaldi-1-1 32 and 64 on a linux slack-14 64 bits machine.
    -> vivaldi-32 offers only a limited feature of google maps ("lite mode"). while vivaldi-64 offers the full mode for google maps.
    (note that chrome-32 also offers only lite mode of google maps).
    so i must use vivaldi-64 to have the expected behavior in google maps…
    or is there any plugin that i should add???



  • On microsofts windows there are way to many 32 systems still, so you'll need both versions.
    For Linux, everybody that's not bound by being users on somebody else's system or by ancient or strange hardware are on 64 bit systems, if there's no 'Vivaldi 64 bit' version they'll flee. Allmost every Linux user is a poweruser on some level, having a mayor application with a '32 bit' sign on it will be a huge turn-off no matter real world differences.



  • If Vivaldi decides to remove one the two builds and I would have to chose which one, I would always keep the 32 bit build around and drop the 64 bit. One build runs everywhere, while the other one doesn't. On 64 bit hosts, a 32 bit binary can use a full 4 GB of memory per process. And each tab has one process.

    Linux servers are all x86-64 now, but 32 bit only client CPUs (x86 and ARM) are still in production and will be around for a while.


  • Moderator

    It differs from one platform to the next. 64-only might make sense for Linux and Mac (though it would mean I could no longer have Vivaldi on my Lubuntu) and 32-only would make perfect sense for Windows.



  • @bcat:

    Hello,

    i find different behavior on vivaldi-32 vs vivaldi-64.
    i try both vivaldi-1-1 32 and 64 on a linux slack-14 64 bits machine.
    -> vivaldi-32 offers only a limited feature of google maps ("lite mode"). while vivaldi-64 offers the full mode for google maps.
    (note that chrome-32 also offers only lite mode of google maps).
    so i must use vivaldi-64 to have the expected behavior in google maps…
    or is there any plugin that i should add???

    on the other side, i encounter other issues, specifically on vivaldi-64:

    • flashplayer (libpepflashplayer.so latest taken from chrome-64) does not work properly (example: nothing displayed when connecting to deezer). while flashplayer (libpepflashplayer.so taken from chrome-32) seems to work OK within vivaldi-32 (tested on deezer).
    • html-5 player does not work properly (example: black video and no sound in youtube). while html-5 player seems to work OK within vivaldi-32 (tested on youtube).

    => seeing that, i'd rather use vivaldi-32 despite my machine is a 64…


Log in to reply
 

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