Ol Smoke Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I downloaded this newest version labeled 64 bit. When I went to install it, it tried to install into the (X86) directory. As I understand, this directory is 32 bit only. So is Firefox 50.1 a true 64 bit program or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xernicus Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Not as far as I know- the only version of Firefox that fully utilizes 64-bit instructions is still in beta. (?)With that said, I do see releases marked as 64-bit on the "All builds" page: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/I did some testing, and it installs in the 64-bit program files directory. You'll be limited to only x64 compatible plugins however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader RedBaird Posted January 21, 2017 Leader Share Posted January 21, 2017 Are you switching from 32- to 64-bit versions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPotato Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Keep in mind there is close to absolutely no chance you will benefit from using it at all compared to 32bit - instead just having less addons and higher normal ram usage from it. It will eventually switch over completely, until then unless you are one of a tiny fraction of people who might have a need for it there is not really much point in installing the 64bit. Edited January 21, 2017 by SadElf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YamaelSlash Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Keep in mind there is close to absolutely no chance you will benefit from using it at all compared to 32bit - instead just having less addons and higher normal ram usage from it. It will eventually switch over completely, until then unless you are one of a tiny fraction of people who might have a need for it there is not really much point in installing the 64bit. that and teh fact it installed at least partially inX86 doesn't mean it is not X64. Lost of apps have part in x64 and otehr in x86. Not sure if that would make sense in a browser. SQL server is like this, visual studio, office, actually most of MS stuff. We do the same thing where I work. You rarely need x64. For browser I know a lot of people that use more than 2Go of ram though (Damn you chrome !). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanaraud Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Not as far as I know- the only version of Firefox that fully utilizes 64-bit instructions is still in beta. (?) With that said, I do see releases marked as 64-bit on the "All builds" page: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ I did some testing, and it installs in the 64-bit program files directory. You'll be limited to only x64 compatible plugins however. Linux has 64bit support for a long time now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xernicus Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Linux has 64bit support for a long time now? Well comparing Linux to Windows is a bit like comparing Apples to Oranges. They are both fruits (Operating Systems), but they come from different trees/vines. And the internal structure (kernel) is totally different I did check my linux machine and the binary is indeed 64-bit: /usr/lib/firefox/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, BuildID[sha1]=87f1cc34621e6dc7f08123f96fbebd7e6eb4fccc, stripped You'll notice though that I made a correction halfway through my post. Mozilla is releasing builds so quickly at this point that I can't keep track. But it looks like x86_64 reached 'production grade' at version 43, at least for Windows. I think where I was getting mixed up though was the stub installer, which is what's downloaded from the Firefox homepage if visited from a Windows machine. The version that the stub installer downloads is 32-bit. You have to manually go to 'All Builds" and choose a 64-bit Win version. I believe they do this to prevent breaking plugins. But running 32-bit programs on a x64 Linux machine is similar to how Windows handles things. In Linux, you'd run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit machine via a chroot correct? Well that's similar to what Windows does. 32-bit programs run in a different root directory "%programfiles(x86)%" and it accesses the kernel andthe rest of the system via the WoW64 emulator, or "Windows on Windows x64". Which brings me to this: that and teh fact it installed at least partially inX86 doesn't mean it is not X64. Lost of apps have part in x64 and otehr in x86. Not sure if that would make sense in a browser. SQL server is like this, visual studio, office, actually most of MS stuff. We do the same thing where I work. You rarely need x64. For browser I know a lot of people that use more than 2Go of ram though (Damn you chrome !). So while this is true, but the actual executible would be in the proper directory for it's architecture. On a 64-bit machine running x86_64 version of said software, you might see some 32-bit libraries for said programs in the x86 directory, but not the binary/executible file. It's actually not possible to install 64-bit programs to the "Program Files (x86)" directory. Nor is it possible to install 32-bit executibles within the 64-bit "Program Files" directory. The operating system won't permit it. And the reason for that is because the kernel is looking for specific environment variables. Now the DLL's cannot be directly hooked into a process with a different architecture or "bitness", but they can be via a message loop. I'm not really a programmer though, so that's about the extent of my knowledge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPotato Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 For browser I know a lot of people that use more than 2Go of ram though (Damn you chrome !). Firefox will use more than 2GB, it is large address aware. I have seen Firefox go over 3GB when pushed and only ever used the 32bit version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YamaelSlash Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Firefox will use more than 2GB, it is large address aware. I have seen Firefox go over 3GB when pushed and only ever used the 32bit version. Oh Firefox got better then. Last time i tryed it didn't have that option active. Did it started going multi-process ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YamaelSlash Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 So while this is true, but the actual executible would be in the proper directory for it's architecture. On a 64-bit machine running x86_64 version of said software, you might see some 32-bit libraries for said programs in the x86 directory, but not the binary/executible file. It's actually not possible to install 64-bit programs to the "Program Files (x86)" directory. Nor is it possible to install 32-bit executibles within the 64-bit "Program Files" directory. The operating system won't permit it. And the reason for that is because the kernel is looking for specific environment variables. Now the DLL's cannot be directly hooked into a process with a different architecture or "bitness", but they can be via a message loop. Exactly. But people rarely go look in one if they dinf it in the other one (Folder). Lots of app are multi-part(file and process). those are usally the one. Just check google chrome running on my PC and most fo process are 32Bit. Crash handler has both the x64 and x86 version running. You can make app "talk" to each other in a lot of different way (in windows at least, haven't done Linux Desktop programming). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.