Google's 64-bit Chrome starts emerging--on Linux
Google has begun work on a 64-bit version of Chrome for Linux, a move likely to whip Linux loyalists into a lather of excitement.
"The V8 team did some amazing work this quarter building a working 64-bit port. After a handful of changes on the Chromium side, I've had Chromium Linux building on 64-bit for the last few weeks," said Chrome engineer Dean McNamee in a mailing list message Thursday.
V8 is Chrome's engine for running programs written in the JavaScript language common on the Web. Chromium is the open-source project behind Google's branded and supported Chrome browser, and McNamee shared instructions for programmers to build 64-bit Chromium.
Virtually all PCs today come with 64-bit processors from Intel or Advanced Micro Devices, but for desktop computing, 32-bit operating systems and software are common. The transition to 64-bit software is well under way--notably with Linux and Mac OS X--but the change isn't simple. In the browser world, for example, it can be problematic running a 64-bit browser with a 32-bit plug-in such as Adobe Systems' Flash, Microsoft's Silverlight, or Sun Microsystems' Java.
In 64-bit versions, programs can take advantage of larger amounts of memory, performance can benefit from extra storage spaces called registers on processors, and some mathematically intense computing tasks can run faster. But along with issues such as broken plug-ins, 64-bit software can hog more disk space, complicate programmers' testing and support chores, and often doesn't really run appreciably faster, so the transition isn't necessarily a top priority.
For example, Mac OS X already is most of the way through its 64-bit transition, but 64-bit Safari won't arrive until Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, which is due in coming weeks. Apple, by the way, says that JavaScript will run much faster on the 64-bit version of Safari.
But Linux fans, who offset their smaller numbers with higher technical proficiency and a fondness for programming, are champions of 64-bit software. They hammered Adobe until it released a 64-bit version of Flash Player for Linux, and now they're agitating for 64-bit browsers.
Indeed, a discussion emerged on Wednesday about why a 64-bit version of Firefox isn't a higher priority.
"Optimizations such as the Tracemonkey JIT engine (a just-in-time compiler for JavaScript) have yet not been implemented for x86-64, which means that the i686 build will be faster than the x86-64 build," among other reasons, replied Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg.
Windows is another matter altogether for browser makers; although 64-bit Windows is a common option nowadays on new machines, the vast majority of existing ones are still using 32-bit Windows, and there are plenty of late adopters.
A 64-bit version of Internet Explorer ships with Microsoft's 64-bit versions of Windows, but Safari for Windows won't be available alongside the Mac OS X version when it debuts. The work to rebuild JavaScript engines for 64-bit chips applies to multiple operating systems, so producing a version for one operating system does help move a given browser to the others.
So what's standing in the way of 64-bit Chrome for Windows?
"Motivation," according to another message by Google's Marc-Antoine Ruel. Well, not just that. Google or others also need to work on the sandbox security mechanism and gyp programming tools, he said.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
With all due respect, that doesn't make much sense, and at this point, I'd say there's quite a bit of software you'd have to do without. (Like Microsoft Office, until 2010 is released!)
I moved to a 64-bit environment with Ubuntu and Vista both, and I have yet to find issues with applications that are still only available as 32-bit. I have heard that some software issues exist, but fortunately, not for me. The "Program Files (x86)" situation does leave something to be desired, though.
I have also found that Win7 does an excellent job running any app I have tested, and I did use the beta and RC before moving to RTM (as an MVLS/MSDN/TechNetPlus subscriber.) Currently, I'm building images for us to deploy using strictly the 64-bit builds of the Enterprise Edition, and although I really like using other operating systems (besides Windows,) I feel like this is M$'s best offering since my previous favorite, Win2k. I am really excited about the possibilites for both Win7 and any possible Google/Linux offering. As I see it now, there are two things that keep Linux from becoming more mainstream, and those are (1) the support of a major player, one that would be well known to anyone online (like Google) and (2) streamlining the process for things like software management. I appreciate the attempts to make things easier for end users, but there are so many ways to do similar tasks in Linux that its offputting to casual linux newbies. It's imperative that the linux community create processes for things to be done, and make that process the best it can be, in terms of effeciency and flexibility.
We have to make computers (super) easy to use, hard to break, and powerful enough that the power users can retain (and maintain) control of their systems, network and overall infrastructure.
"The GNU C Library, commonly known as glibc, is the C standard library released by the GNU Project. Originally written by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU operating system, the library's development has been overseen by a committee since 2001,[2] with Ulrich Drepper from Red Hat as the lead contributor and maintainer."
So which standards are you talking about? Mozilla Firefox runs on any platform with standard libraries installed.
http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel#TOC-Linux
Re: 64-bit Firefox, there may be some good technical reasons for not focusing now, but undoubtedly there'll be costs for that decision later. I wonder if it's a penalty of being community driven. There's not the driving voice and vision to move things in a new direction, or to be first in an emerging space. The sway of the small percentage out front just isn't enough to propel the organization where the largest audiences don't yet exist.
Take as an example the area of digital photography, where you can run into a 2GB or 3GB (applications) memory limit a lot sooner. I use 64-bit versions of Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom on Vista 64. But for example codecs for various camera raw image formats generally aren't available from the camera manufacturers yet in 64-bit format.
http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/codecs.aspx
No Nikon, no Canon, no Pentax, no Sony, but yes Olympus. The transition is under way but it's a big battleship to turn. Fortunately, in my opinion, the advantages of 64-bit software are not so staggering that the world is missing out on huge locked-up performance gains.
64-bit Win has been a commercially-significant market for several years now (starting in 2006), while 64-bit Mac is only now even possible (and only after significant Apple-required rewrites of apps). Still photography isn't as data intensive as video and animation, where 64-bit has been important for quite some time. The good news for Mac is that after all that delay, as 64-bit OSX apps become available customers are jumping on board immediately --- the ramp-up has been rapid for 64-bit OSX app pickup -- filling previously unfulfilled demand.
My claim is that where 64-bit versions are available for substantive apps, they are picked up, that's been for several years now in Win, and starting now in Mac. That's based on measured ground truth in one compute-intensive area.
They are right though, no big rush until you can't buy a 32-BIT os anymore. Just like the move from 16 to 32bit, it takes time.
Also to the above posts that 64 bit windows has been a viable OS for a long time. Before running Vista 64 I also ran XP Pro 64 and it was not a consumer useable operating system in any fashion. If you ran a business type computer with a certain type of business oriented components it would do the job ok. But once you deviated far from the mainstream business peripherals you might as well forgotten all about trying to use it. MS has been slowly incrementing over to 64 bit on the desktop and even Vista 64-bit has more than its share of driver issues and unsupported equipment , even some relatively new equipment.
I have always run windows and almost always tried to stay with the NT line instead of the 95/98 line. And I cannot begin to describe the number of really good hardware devices I have had to give up over the years in transitioning from one version to the next for no good reason or have had to compromise with partial functionality. I would give any company that transitioned to 64-bit while creating the least amount of impact on the users the +1 for winning the 64 bit transition over the company that gets there first and makes the user scrap perfectly good equipment that should be supported but isn't. And that IS Microsoft's fault just as much as the hardware vendors.
Yes, technically its better but will anyone really care.
What I meant to say is, I've already pre-purchased upgrade to Windows 7 specifically to make use of more than 4GB of RAM on my computer - ideally 16 GB. If Chrome does not play well on 64 bit, I'll have to say goodbye for now, and use IE8 64bit.
/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist
or on a boot by boot basis, hold down either 64 or 32
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB
Mozilla provides their source code. It compiles fine for 64 bit. I built my own disto and have only 64 bit libraries, unlike most distros. The 64bit version of Firefox I compiled runs great with 64 bit Flash. I watch hulu stuff with it all the time.
- by kirkpuppy August 26, 2009 5:55 AM PDT
- Also, If you look at the build instructions for Chrome on 64 bit, they have you install 32 bit libraries before you build it. So Chrome's 64bit version isn't.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(32 Comments)