Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by ronjor, Dec 1, 2015.
Good... as far as general computing is concerned, 32bit couldn't be killed off faster in my opinion.
Im quite certain the majority of 32-bit users who felt no need for 64-bit would beg to differ.
Well, yeah. But that'll happen with anything. There were many DOS users who didn't want to install Windows 95 because they felt no need for it. And there were W95 users who didn't want to install 98, 2000, or XP because they felt no need for it. And XP users who... and so on.
There comes a point where a developer just needs to say, we're moving on and not providing support for outdated hardware or software. It's just part of the lifecycle of software and hardware. Nobody's complaining that Chrome doesn't support W95.
Excuse me.but no,
Its a case of leaving loyal users in the lurch.
Do you have any figures for 32-bit users in the world.?
A substantial figure i would assume.
FYI. As of a January 2015 article:
Many thanks JRVtejo,
Thats a substantial figure for windows machines.Linux figures are vague.
That's the best info I could find in a short search. You're welcome! Take care.
IIRC, Pentium 4 era machines are still common in the developing world. I know 64-bit gives you a huge address space, better memory protection, and all that, but leaving the less fortunate users in the cold seems wrong to me.
Then again, "running 32-bit Windows" doesn't necessarily mean "no 64-bit capability". The laptop I'm typing this on was manufactured circa 2007, shipped with a 32-bit copy of Windows Vista Home Premium, and runs 64-bit Linux just fine.
(Hint: a lot of "Pentium D" processors are actually budget Core 2 Duos.)
I think is a mean spirited move that targets poor people.
Since they'll continue to support 32 built configurations for chromium, there should be no problem for the 32bit users.
I'm sure there are a lot of devices running 32-bit operating systems. But, there comes a time when developers need to decide whether to continue supporting niche markets.
JRViero accurately points out that there are at least 70 million 32-bit PCs connected to Windows Update. That sounds like a lot, but consider that there are about 1.25 billion Windows PCs total. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/right-now-there-are-125-billion-windows-pcs-worldwide-2011-12) 70 million is 5% of that number.
Of course, the 70m number for 32 bit machines doesn't include all the machines that are not connected to Windows Update because they don't have an internet connection. But, we can ignore those machines for our purposes -- continued development of Chrome won't help someone who doesn't have a link to the internet! However, even for illustration... let's say that number was double or triple or even quadruple in size. It's still a small part of the market, and Google has to decide whether to continue to support that or move on.
Honestly, this happens all the time in the tech world and it always happens in the same way. I remember when Windows 98 users had to be brought kicking and screaming into XP. Many of the same allegations were made, that new XP-mandatory software was just a kick to the face of anyone too poor to upgrade, etc. But in the end, it is generally accepted because in the tech world, as advancement moves forward, some things will be left in the dust.
In five years, the question of "Why doesn't this support 32-bit?" will be just as dated as asking today "Why doesn't this support Windows 98?"
This is getting very off topic.
Doesn't really matter how many 32bit Windows users there are, this is about a 32bit Linux application.
Are there any users who cannot run 64bit Linux (and therefor 64bit Chrome)?
Are there any users who think (and why) they should (if they can) stick to 32bit Chrome compared to installing 64bit Linux/Chrome ?
Arch will kill i386 soon too. Not even 10% of users are using it, so it's time to move on. Not all developers are willing to support a technology that IS dying as we write.
Yes, this is about 32bit linux. Thanks, Nick.
I think this is a very callous business decision by Google. How much does it cost to continue development of a 32bit version anyway? Maybe in 10 years this would all make sense...but the second quarter of 2016? I have two Sony 32bit 1.7ghz single core laptops that still get used occasionally (my wife is using one right now off on her visit to a family gathering in Charlottesville, Va). They're still good laptops. And, I run Chrome on both of them. I'm sure my story is reproducible all over the world. Someone pointed out a PPA to Chromium earlier...but Chromium doesn't come with pepperflash installed. You have to "borrow" pepperflash from Chrome to get it. But, no 32bit Chrome means no 32bit pepperflash...which means my wife is going to bitch at me for not being able to play her Facebook games...and there's nothing I can do about it because they're 32bit laptops.
Google should have given people more warning like they did when they shut down iGoogle (I still miss it).
Actually chrome is not needed at all to obtain the pepperflash for chromium if you follow the instructions which i have provided a link for just here.
Install Fresh Player Plugin In Ubuntu Via PPA (Pepper Flash Wrapper For Firefox) ~ Web Upd8: Ubuntu / Linux blog
Personally i find it revolting that the web should be dictated by a single company or entity.Maybe we have all forgotten why T.B.L invented the web."free information for all."
32-bit linux should still have quite a significant amount of users and i find googles arrogance to be disgusting.I would sooner just dump all google products.(which incidentally i have done.)Rather than have them dictate how the web should evolve.
I agree with both of previous posts. Google will also end support for Chrome on Vista before MS will stop support for that OS. I can understand XP but why Vista? OS is similar to Windows 7 so I don't think it would be much trouble supporting browser on older OS. I hope that they won't stop support for Windows 7 before MS will stop their support.
Google drops support for things depending on usage/user base, hence why they didn't drop support for XP when Microsoft did. You are trying to rationalize dropping support for Vista before Microsoft does being a bad idea, when they have no track record of dropping support for things based on Microsoft's lead.
It's also why they are dropping support for 32bit Chrome on Linux, not Windows, due to user base usage.
Actually Fresh Player Plugin "borrows" pepperflash from Chrome as well. So, if you're using a 32bit version of Firefox...bye,bye pepperflash.
I've used Fresh Player Plugin before so I know how it works.
There must still be a substantial amount of users of computers with 32-bit architecture.Possible conversion figures to be taken into account .32-bit windows users of today are your possible 32-bit linux users of tomorrow.Still a large amount of potential 32-bit linux chrome users.
Linux is in the vanguard. The real significant OS move happening is from 32 to 64 bit OSes. Windows 10 vs Windows 7 or Mavricks vs El Capitan or all the different distros and versions of Linux are all trivial in comparison. Look how complete, fast and thorough the transition from 16 to 32 bit OSes was in the 90s. The same is happening now. If you want more the 4gb of ram, you need a 64 bit OS and that hardware fact alone is going to kill all 32 bit OSes in a few years.
Google doesn't gain anything from Windows users becoming Linux users, their browser is on both platforms. Clearly the statistics on their end for 32 bit Linux aren't high enough.
According to Steam's (small) Linux usage share, there aren't enough 32bit users to even be listed on the page. All the Linux OS's listed are 64bit.
The figures for 32-bit windows users are very much pertinent.These are potential linux users who could be shied away by the fact a 32-bit chrome will not be supported.
I'll just quote the post immediately above you since you still think that's a valid point.
sadly my point has flown over everyones head.
Separate names with a comma.