Mozzilla is putting 64 bit FireFox on hold.

[W8JX]

I read yesterday that will soon stop releasing and supporting 64 bit public betas for FireFox. They sighted lack of proper support for 64 bit plug ins and drivers. They pushed back release of a official 64 bit version until at least summer 2013.

[KC4MOP]

I have a WIN 7 64 bit machine and probably never see what it really can do when it's running 32 bit programs. Especially video editing software. The Sony HD (affordable type around $120) is only 32 bit. I realize people using professional software costing thousands probably uses 64 bit. But then those people go to super computers to start rendering major video productions.
Tom I think we waste a lot of money on hardware that is more horsepower than really needed. Or that the software is really bloat-ware and really clogs up a good machine.

[W8JX]

I have a WIN 7 64 bit machine and probably never see what it really can do when it's running 32 bit programs. Especially video editing software. The Sony HD (affordable type around $120) is only 32 bit. I realize people using professional software costing thousands probably uses 64 bit. But then those people go to super computers to start rendering major video productions.
Tom I think we waste a lot of money on hardware that is more horsepower than really needed. Or that the software is really bloat-ware and really clogs up a good machine.

The biggest advantage of 64 bit hardware with a PC is to be able to get past the 3.2 gig memory barrier that 32 bit imposes. With memory cheap and flat addressing of large amounts of memory it is possible to do away with swap files of past. Also on browser side the 64 bit one is much snapper and handle multiple windows and tab effortlessly. Holding tight to 32 bit does not change the future. In past we were limited by 8 then 16 bit addressing. Nw we have outgrown 32 but moving to 64 bit the only limitations for foreseeable future is software as 64 bit can handle flat memory usage well into Exabyte range design wise (1,000,000 giga bytes) which will take some time to outgrow. To put this into better perspective, the address limit of 64 bits is equal to about 320,000  50 gig dual layer BluRay discs and 32 bit is less than the capacity of a single 4.5 gig DVD. 

[K0JEG]

Want of a 64bit OS is why I switched to Linux a few years ago. I picked up a Core2 laptop and was disappointed to see Windows Vista Home was a 32bit OS. I just did it because I figured I paid for a 64 bit microprocessor, so why not use "the whole thing." Loaded up 64 bit Ubuntu and never looked back.

I should send Microsoft a note thanking them for being stingy with Windows. Up until that time I didn't have any beef against MS, and actually didn't think Vista was any better or worse than XP (although the actual delivered product was nothing at all like what was promised), but I couldn't figure out why they wanted to keep home users in the past. I guess it had more to do with maintaining compatibility with outdated hardware more than anything else.

[W8JX]

Want of a 64bit OS is why I switched to Linux a few years ago. I picked up a Core2 laptop and was disappointed to see Windows Vista Home was a 32bit OS. I just did it because I figured I paid for a 64 bit microprocessor, so why not use "the whole thing." Loaded up 64 bit Ubuntu and never looked back.

I should send Microsoft a note thanking them for being stingy with Windows. Up until that time I didn't have any beef against MS, and actually didn't think Vista was any better or worse than XP (although the actual delivered product was nothing at all like what was promised), but I couldn't figure out why they wanted to keep home users in the past. I guess it had more to do with maintaining compatibility with outdated hardware more than anything else.

I have been running 64 bit Vista on a quad cored CPU with 8gig of ram for over 4 years and it still is a very capable and solid system and has never been reloaded. They "problem" with Vista was always the hardware more than OS after SP1. If you had a dual core or better CPU and 2+ gigs of ram with 32 bit it ran well too. If you used less it could be a pig. If Vista had launched a year later with better hardware it would have done better.

[N4NYY]

Want of a 64bit OS is why I switched to Linux a few years ago. I picked up a Core2 laptop and was disappointed to see Windows Vista Home was a 32bit OS. I just did it because I figured I paid for a 64 bit microprocessor, so why not use "the whole thing." Loaded up 64 bit Ubuntu and never looked back.

I should send Microsoft a note thanking them for being stingy with Windows. Up until that time I didn't have any beef against MS, and actually didn't think Vista was any better or worse than XP (although the actual delivered product was nothing at all like what was promised), but I couldn't figure out why they wanted to keep home users in the past. I guess it had more to do with maintaining compatibility with outdated hardware more than anything else.

I have been running 64 bit Vista on a quad cored CPU with 8gig of ram for over 4 years and it still is a very capable and solid system and has never been reloaded. They "problem" with Vista was always the hardware more than OS after SP1. If you had a dual core or better CPU and 2+ gigs of ram with 32 bit it ran well too. If you used less it could be a pig. If Vista had launched a year later with better hardware it would have done better.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. I have a Win 7 Home premium and just upgraded to 8 GB. I essentially use it for surfing, email, blogging, etc. No performance related stuff like gaming and such. For most people, this seems to do it. Numerous Firefix upgrades, and the browser still runs well. For this reason, the demand for the 64 bit just might not be there (yet).

[VE3LNY]

If you want a fully functional 64 bit version of Firefox, try PaleMoon.
http://www.palemoon.org/

73, Jack