Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Mozzilla is putting 64 bit FireFox on hold.  (Read 2691 times)
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5590




Ignore
« on: November 28, 2012, 03:52:16 PM »

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.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Entered using a  WiFi Win 8.1 RT tablet or a Android tablet using 4G/LTE or WiFi.
KC4MOP
Member

Posts: 731




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2012, 03:35:06 AM »

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.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5590




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2012, 08:14:08 AM »

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. 
Logged

--------------------------------------
Entered using a  WiFi Win 8.1 RT tablet or a Android tablet using 4G/LTE or WiFi.
K0JEG
Member

Posts: 646




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2012, 08:24:20 AM »

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." Smiley 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.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5590




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2012, 10:28:04 AM »

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." Smiley 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.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Entered using a  WiFi Win 8.1 RT tablet or a Android tablet using 4G/LTE or WiFi.
N4NYY
Member

Posts: 4745




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 04:51:26 AM »

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." Smiley 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).
Logged
VE3LNY
Member

Posts: 9




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2012, 02:06:30 PM »

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

73, Jack
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!