Do many of you use the x64 Nightly browser?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ratchet, Dec 6, 2014.

  1. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,912
    So far I am quite impressed with it. I've had zero issues with extensions or zero crashes. How often is it updated? I could see that being an annoying issue. Any other negatives, other than the fact that yes, it's a beta. Thank you!
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    Firefox? (I know this seems to be rather obvious but hey...! :D)
     
  3. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    I assume also that Firefox is implied here. I used to use it when it was supposedly going to be released some day but don't anymore due to their lack of commitment to it. If they don't get it done they are going to get left behind. Everyone else has already got a 64 bit browser.
     
  4. chachazz

    chachazz Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Posts:
    840
    It's 'Alpha'; it changes nightly - with recent introduction of e10s (sandboxing introduced just now), lots of crashing; it's getting better though, but not yet ready to move to Aurora channel. Extensions compatibility is coming along; Giorgio Maone recently reported NoScript is 'mostly' compatible but requires more work.
    Compatibility list - http://arewee10syet.com/

    Aurora channel quite stable and there are (not quite official) x64 builds on the public-use server - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-aurora/
     
  5. Veeshush

    Veeshush Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Posts:
    643
    Yeah, I'll never get why the windows Firefox builds painstakingly drag out to a full 64bit main release. It's not 2005 anymore, most everyone has a 64bit OS or a cpu that'd support a 64bit OS. And yeah, I get that 64bit doesn't equal magic performance gains, but it could help for it to be able to use more ram if needed. A typical Firefox session with some plugins going can easily chew up a few GBs.
     
  6. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    I don't expect that a lot of the folks waiting for a 64 bit build are expecting better performance. I am expecting potentially better security and the ability to be able to use more than 2GB of RAM for a process. No, I am not one of those that complain that an app is using RAM. I say use it when necessary, that's why I bought it.
     
  7. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    I agree, I think it's time for a 64 bit Firefox no it's Long Overdue.
     
  8. DX2

    DX2 Guest

    What about Waterfox? It's a nice 64b browser.
     
  9. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    I've tried Waterfox, Cyberfox, and Palemoon, and don't see any obvious difference from Firefox that warrants changing from FF. They each have their own inconveniences as well. I don't see a noticable difference in speed because they are 64x either. FF is OK for me.
     
  10. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    It is but a lot of 3rd party plugins don't work with it. For example toolbars that come with Internet Security packages (Kaspersky, Norton, etc.) Some may not care, but once an official 64 bit Firefox is released I'm sure these vendors will support it.
     
Loading...