A question about Firefox 64-bit

[ameerat42]

Folks.

Preamble (may be shortened to "ramble.)
I got sick of not being able to maintain the Option settings for "Nightly" and uninstalled it from my 64-bit Win8.1 laptop.

So I went and searched up and down for "another" 64-bit version of Firefox and "found" it labelled as Ver 37.0e1. (Yes, a bit to chew!)

Ha-ha! I thought. That's sure different from the latest Ver 34 I have for Win 32-bit, and I can't find any other. So I proceeded to install it,
only to note as it started that it said "Installing NIGHTLY"!!! again.

And the Question:
Is this the ONLY version of Firefox for 64-bit Windows?

Ta,
Am.

[arthurking83]

According to the wiki, Mozilla will have an opt in(to 64bit) ready soon with updates at around the end of March.

So while this 64bit v37 is currently available, it appears to be basically at testing level(hence the nightly notice) until it's officially launched(at the end of March).
The reason for the v37 branch of FF is that this is where they seem to want to merge the two branches.
So in effect, once FF reaches v37, it will basically have the option for the 64bit version.

I'm seeing that many plugins will stop working, and flash is one of them.
My kids are going to be mortified! :D

If you're curious or need it(ie. for 64bit java) just stick with it(v37) .... it basically appears to be what most of us will end up using in a few moths time anyhow.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: Oh, I forgo to say too. A long, long time ago on a computer installation far far away .. I once tried Waterfox in 64bit.
I didn't last too long on the PC.
Direct comparison showed that everything back then was much slower on Waterfox.

There may be other related browsers created in 64bit code based on FF .. but I dunno 'em.

[ameerat42]

Ta Arthur. I think I understand that Chrome comes in a 64-bit version, but I prefer the old (Fire)Dog.

(-And by omission, IE.)

[Warb]

I'm not sure what options you're talking about.

But why do you need a 64bit version? Just install the 32bit one. I'm using 34.0.5 (latest) on Win 8.1 64bit, works perfectly. 64bit software usually gives you almost no advantages!

[arthurking83]

I'm not sure what options you're talking about.

But why do you need a 64bit version? .....

At some point, everyone(that uses FF 32 bit) will have to face the inevitable, which is that FF has to go 64bit too.

Just as 8 bit and 16bit OSes have gone .. 32 bit OSes will also go the same way(non existent in everyday computing).
There are/were rumours that Windows 10 may be purely 64bit, with no support for 32bit software.
Mac's OS is now only 64bit.(I dunno anything about Macs, but maybe they have no x86 support or something?)
But if it's not Win10 that drops x86 support, then maybe Win11 or 12 or whatever .. the writing is on the wall.

Some reasoning could be applied to the usage of memory.
At work we generally have many tabs open(sometimes 20, 30 or so), to do some of the tasks needed, and a lack of memory slows FF down massively.
While this is not a reflection of FF in itself, as the work PCs are so under resourced .. it still does highlight a point.
It depends on how heavily you use FF, and what you're doing.

And just to be sure Am .. Waterfox is a branch of Firefox. In every respect it is FF, with an aquatic nature to it.
I found a few essential plugins didn't work .. and that it generally showed no advantage .. and even a bit of an annoying tendency to feel sluggigsh .. so it promptly got flushed down the drain.

I'm currently using 64bit FF(the same 37a1 you seemed to get. It doesnt' feel any better, and maybe just a little worse in fact ... again the annoying 5-10sec delay when trying to open a new tab.

Using TaskManager, with about 5 tabs open and a couple showing images/or rotating images(here on AP), and a few static pages and so on, FF32 seems to use about 200Mb of RAM .. FF64 using about 275ishMb.
( I have 8g installed).

FF32 has no other process running(and basically the same tabs opened), but FF64(Nightly) has two processes called plugin container also running and combined they're using >500Mb RAM.
I'm going to shut it all down and see if I can replicate the same memory allocation in FF32 with those same windows again.

[ameerat42]

Just to explificate...

Warb. I thought I "had to" use 64-bit. From what you say, I now wonder why I had that thought.
Back to Options that wouldn't set: I could not maintain the "Google" Home page, no matter how I tried to set it, I ended up with
a Yahoo page soon after. Part of this stemmed from NOT having a "Save/OK/Etc" button to click after setting it. I might yet go back to
a 32-bit version (the 64-bit becoming more an a-version to me).

AK. Ta for that info. Apart from the options not sticking, I have no other issues. ---SPEED--- is not an issue at all. As for "Waterfox",
couldn't they have called it "Beaver"?

Epilog:
Ah, there's the horizon, and I see a 32-bit version just beyond it... - Tomorrow.

[arthurking83]

..... I have no other issues. ---SPEED--- is not an issue at all. As for "Waterfox",
couldn't they have called it "Beaver"?

....

Groundhog seems appropriate!

I think I worked out what the plugin container thingy was about.

When I closed them all down, and only opened FF32, on opening one of the pages I had opened in Nightly, the flash plugin kicked in.(I think it was something on AP .. dunno exactly).

When both Nightly and FF32 were opened, they seemed to share some resources in some way.

The difference is that with FF32 only, the flash plugin container thingy only needed about 7Mb of RAM(as opposed to >500Mb in Nightly!

I'm going to check one day to see if heavy use of flash in Nightly will not bog the browser down as much as as it does in FF.
These stupid games are driving me nutz!(but the kids are gone for the week so I can put it off till next week).


OK, so it seems you got it now Am.
No you don't need FF64(or in this instance Nightly). Well unless you're curious to trial it.
I only did because you brought up the topic! :D
actually I did because I expect to die like a cat one day .. so WHY not do so, knowing it was as a result of an insatiable curiosity!

[Warb]

There is no requirement to use 64bit software on Windows 64bit. Almost all reasonably recent 32bit software will work fine, the exceptions being some software that uses resources (such as the USB sub-systems) that have undergone significant changes.

A 64bit system moves data in 64bit blocks, which nominally doubles the speed of data moving through the system. However that only makes a difference if this was the limiting factor to start with! So 64bit software, in many cases, will not be significantly faster than 32bit software, especially if the "user experience" is limited by disk access speed, a slow graphics processor or some other outside factor. On the other hand, the 32bit version is often tried and tested, where the 64bit version may be much newer and still undergoing "optimisation".

My own approach is to use a 64bit version if it is "offered with enthusiasm". By which I mean if the 64bit version gets equal billing I'll use it. But if a website doesn't offer a 64bit version alongside the 32bit one, and I have to go searching for it, then I'll stick with the 32bit version.

[ameerat42]

Ta and ta, guys. I'll ditch half the bits later today on that machine.

[Kym]

Warb; I agree 100%.
FYI Firefox 64bit is the preferred option on other platforms (Linux etc); it seems it has taken a while for the windows version to catch up and methinks add-ons like Java and Flash might be the limiting factor

[ameerat42]

Downdated FFox to 32-bit. Seems OK. I was easily able to change the Options (Home Page) and KEEP it, via the Save button which was there in this version.

:)m.