No 64-bit (x64) Firefox 4.0, 32-bit (x86) Only

[oZ.]

Mozilla has set up a webpage with a list of the operating systems which will be supported by the successor of Firefox 3.6.

"•Microsoft Windows

◦32-bit builds only

◦minimum version: Windows 2000

◦CPU architecture: i386, x86-64

•Mac OS X

◦32- and 64-bit builds (universal binary)

◦minimum version: Mac OS X 10.5

◦CPU architecture: i386, x86-64

•Linux

◦32-bit builds only

◦minimum version: tbd

◦CPU architecture: i386, x86-64."

If you're holding your breath while waiting for the 64-bit (x64) flavor of Firefox 4.0, feel free to exhale now.

The next major iteration of Mozilla's open source browser will support 32-bit (x86) platforms exclusively, despite some very promising work from the browser vendor early in the development process for version 4.0.

Mozilla's Director of Firefox, Mike Beltzner confirmed the fact that an x64 flavor of Firefox won't be added to the existing x86 version, per the 32-bit/64-bit Internet Explorer 8 model.

Firefox users should not despair though. Fact is that Mozilla hasn't given up on delivering a 64-bit version of Firefox, just not with Firefox 4.0.

"I've been working on the list of supported platforms for Firefox 4 and wanted to provide an update on some decisions that have been reached," Beltzner noted.

"In February of this year, there was a discussion in which we decided that the minimum supported version of Mac OS X would be 10.5 (Leopard).

"Early in the summer we decided to not yet provide supported 64-bit builds on Windows, and will instead work on delivering those in some future release.

"In July we decided that the minimum supported version of Windows would be Windows 2000.

"After some evaluation we decided this week to drop support for OSX/PPC; Firefox 4 Mac OS X binaries will ship as universal builds for i386/x86-64 only.

"We are considering dropping support for i386 architectures which do not support SSE2 (older Athlon CPUs, some VIA chipsets) but have not yet reached a final decision here," he explained.

Back in May 2010, Mozilla revealed plans to start offering an x64 flavor of Firefox 4.0 for Windows.

Just days later, the browser vendor was providing the first nightly builds for download to early adopters. However, at this point in time it appears that plans of a 64-bit Firefox 4.0 won't materialize.

Firefox 4.0 will continue to support the traditional platforms for which the browser has been available, namely Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.

Source

[Magiddo]

Good thing i use Opera :D

[Night Owl]

I hope Mozilla now takes the resources that would have worked on 64-bit Firefox 4 and puts them to good use on 32-bit Firefox 4 to make Firefox 4 the best it can be.

[viking]

But the 32-bit version will still work in 64-bit WIN7, right?

What would the advantage be to have a 64-bit native browser (in 64-bit WIN7)?

[RobrPatty]

But the 32-bit version will still work in 64-bit WIN7, right?

What would the advantage be to have a 64-bit native browser (in 64-bit WIN7)?

Yes the x32 will work in x64 environment. The advantage of a x64 browser is speed. It functions better and faster. The problem is that flashplayer only comes in x32 flavor.

That's the major setback for the x64 browser. If flashplayer came in x64 flavor I'd use the corresponding browser in a heartbeat.

[DKT27]

Sad to see this. I guess they are not willing to make a 64bit version unless it gets compulsory, or they are hiding some details.

Doesn't stop me from using it though. Firefox 4 is still faster than 3.6.

[Purple Trail]

But the 32-bit version will still work in 64-bit WIN7, right?

What would the advantage be to have a 64-bit native browser (in 64-bit WIN7)?

Yes the x32 will work in x64 environment. The advantage of a x64 browser is speed. It functions better and faster. The problem is that flashplayer only comes in x32 flavor.

That's the major setback for the x64 browser. If flashplayer came in x64 flavor I'd use the corresponding browser in a heartbeat.

It's x86, not x32.

[oZ.]

Sad to see this. I guess they are not willing to make a 64bit version unless it gets compulsory, or they are hiding some details.

Doesn't stop me from using it though. Firefox 4 is still faster than 3.6.

ya we 64 bits just don't get to use a faster and more stable version of firefox. other wise is awesome

[Dooohhh]

That doesn't make any sense.. if they write "◦CPU architecture: i386, x86-64", it suggests that there will be both x86 (32bit) and X64 (64bit) architecture right? Anyway, i wouldn't make much of at difference when it comes to speed. The advantage is that it can use more ram. Anyway i really support 64bit versions, since 32bit only programs is what's holding technology back..

[Night Owl]

@Dooohhh: The architecture means the hardware is 64-bit and the Windows is 64-bit. But the browser will be 32-bit. Most 32-bit applications run fine on 64-bit PCs and 64-bit Windows. 32-bit Firefox 3.6.8 and 32-bit Firefox 4 Beta run fine on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine.

[Dooohhh]

@Dooohhh: The architecture means the hardware is 64-bit and the Windows is 64-bit. But the browser will be 32-bit. Most 32-bit applications run fine on 64-bit PCs and 64-bit Windows. 32-bit Firefox 3.6.8 and 32-bit Firefox 4 Beta run fine on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine.

Jesus haha in my hurry i didn't see the small text saying "◦32-bit builds only" :) Still all companies should start making their applications 64bit, to not hold back technology!

[omega5]

Strange... If they're not providing it then what would the files in the bottom of this directory on their FTP server be?

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-4.0b6pre.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-4.0b6pre.en-US.win64-x86_64.tests.zip

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-4.0b6pre.en-US.win64-x86_64.txt

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-4.0b6pre.en-US.win64-x86_64.zip

Perhaps the article meant that it wouldn't be an *official* release of x86_64 bit support for windblows but Mozilla will still provide the builds for the adventurous?

[pmalc]

We still have Google Chrome, it's time to switch.

[oZ.]

We still have Google Chrome, it's time to switch.

Chrome is nothing but speed, not point

[Dooohhh]

We still have Google Chrome, it's time to switch.

Chrome is nothing but speed, not point

Chrome is everything and speed.. it can even sync your extensions and preferences from computer to computer :)

[bashar]

i got the sense that FF is becoming lame as IE

but i'm still huge fan , i will wait for the final 4.0 to come out

and we'll see from there

[oZ.]

i got the sense that FF is becoming lame as IE

but i'm still huge fan , i will wait for the final 4.0 to come out

and we'll see from there

ya i sense that too i would say they are not getting enough $ from Google anymore. but ill use it for the addons i have to. or else is chrome for speed.

[donizme]

i got the sense that FF is becoming lame as IE

but i'm still huge fan , i will wait for the final 4.0 to come out

and we'll see from there

Yeah I get this same feeling. Chrome is twice as quick as Firefox so every time I navigate to a Website with Firefox, I think to myself: I could have saved 0.5s of my life if I'd done it with Chrome. That 0.5s must add up over a year to I dunno lol, anyone good at maths?

[Night Owl]

i got the sense that FF is becoming lame as IE

but i'm still huge fan , i will wait for the final 4.0 to come out

and we'll see from there

I feel exactly the same way.

I am still shocked at the nonsense I see going on with [bug 578443] Block Internet Download Manager for Firefox 4.0b1, and more.... It's absolutely shocking to read that the developers don't know what they're doing. And it's absolutely horrific that they don't even bother to test their changes. :o :fear:

[oZ.]

i got the sense that FF is becoming lame as IE

but i'm still huge fan , i will wait for the final 4.0 to come out

and we'll see from there

I feel exactly the same way.

I am still shocked at the nonsense I see going on with [bug 578443] Block Internet Download Manager for Firefox 4.0b1, and more.... It's absolutely shocking to read that the developers don't know what they're doing. And it's absolutely horrific that they don't even bother to test their changes. :o :fear:

well i woulnd't switch even if i want to for speed, unless chrome got all the ad-ons that firefox has and dedicated add-on developers

[RobrPatty]

Have to agree with oZ. chrome is not as dedicated to updating as ff. I'm using ff4 betapre6 x32 and developers are updating everyday.

[Purple Trail]

Have to agree with oZ. chrome is not as dedicated to updating as ff. I'm using ff4 betapre6 x32 and developers are updating everyday.

Actually you are wrong, Chrome builds are released daily, with more than 1 build per day.