Mozilla quietly ceases Firefox 64-bit development

This is true. In terms of the applications that I want to see become 64bit the browser, its plugins, and the OS are at the top of the list. That wasn't really taken into consideration I guess for Firefox, which is a shame.

 

That's why I don't understand why the completely abandoned their development of 64 bit FF. I would understand if they had fewer resources and they wanted to concentrate first on 32 bit version and making it as stable as possible. But to completely ignore other security measures makes no sense.

 

Nor do I - but, makes no difference to me any longer - will use Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 10 instead of Firefox. Really like Chrome better anyway and I understand it's more secure.

 

As I see it, Firefox was in the process of developing sandboxed tabs & a 64 bit version. These would be the logical next stage for it as a browser I would imagine. I don't know what would benefit Firefox the most, sandboxing or 64 bit. That is, if one of them has to become a priority.

 

I suppose they may concentrate on developing sandboxing more like Chrome, which would be a good idea if they have to prioritise. I don't know how that applies to Electrolysis though.

I have a feeling that Mozilla desperately need to prioritise something otherwise they are going to be left behind somewhat by Chrome & Opera (at least). There may not be a 64 bit Chrome on the horizon but it has effective sandboxing. Opera's 64 bit browser, which I don't think has sandboxed tabs, seems to be at least as advanced as IE 9 x64 in many respects. I have found Opera x64 a better alternative (for me anyway) than Waterfox or other x64 Firefox forks.

 

I am of the opinion personally, that FF in many ways appear to have focused more on playing competitive catch up with Google version numbers than they have with addressing security issues and improving the product as a whole. I still use version 11 along with No Script and last version I tried was 15.01 and went back to 11. Just an observation and my simple thoughts. The frequent relentless updates have chased more than a few away from what I have read the past year.

I suspect there is more going on with them than just concentrating on a mobile OS over pursuing x64 development. I have used FF for many years, and the update race gets old. I also have been using IE 9 which I like but it has its quirks also, especially some scrolling issues on some pages, but overall, quite capable.

I plan on continuing with version FF 11 with No Script and find this combo to be effective and for the most part quite secure. I simply see little need personally for updating of FF with this kind of frequency as my needs are simple and quite frankly, when any manner of software begins this type of update insanity, it is more than just addressing 'security issues'. It causes me personally to take a step back, but that is just me.

Perhaps Mozilla will slow down the update releases if they will be concentrating on a mobile OS, but not likely until FF version numbers are pushed up to 24 +

Some good points brought up in this thread, i appreciate the discussion. Have a good weekend.

Jim

 

I'd rather have a sandbox than 64bit, but I'd like both.

I wish they'd spend the time on electrolysis, I think they've been focused on short term goals to try to stop the giant leak of users to Chrome. Long term though it makes more sense to move to 64bit and a multiprocess browser, short term performance gains will matter much less over time.

 

I agree.

Yes, I think that you've summed it up well.

 

Well, I may be asking for it by starting this. But I highly doubt I'm the only one who has thought of such a situation. Without useless fanboy talk and calling out folks for browser hate, do any of you think the surrender in the 64 bit fight coupled with the lack of separated processes and other increasingly common measures will eventually "kill" Firefox?

 

I don't think the masses of "average users" know or care about 64 bit or lack of separated processes and so on. They just want to browse and have all those extensions... So no, I don't think that will lead to anything close to it's death for a long time.....

 

If Firefox not being 64-bit is the reason, then it's misguided. Google Chrome is only available as 32-bit.

Makes no difference to me also. I have no problems using Firefox 32-bit in Windows. I've been using a 64-bit Firefox for years in Slackware64.

 

I don't think Firefox will die that easily. There is a cult of people following it. I don't consider myself one of those guys but the truth is that I tried most browsers for several months and each time I come back to Firefox because it just feels like home.

 

IMO, no it won't. Here are some of the reasons why I think so:

1. Ceasing the development does not mean there's no chance of them bringing it back. Furthermore, we're still in 64-bit transition phase and there are still 32-bit users. Aspects of performance and security aside, 32-bit browsers do run in 64-bit environment.

Now, it is IMO that the key reason behind this decision currently is to retain it's current user-base.

Remember what happened when they started the rapid-release schedule? Some users got annoyed because the change caused problems such as extensions not working, etc. There were vocal critics and also users who switched to other browsers. Reputation was at stake and arguably, the user-base declined. Mozilla tried to sort out the issues faced and things are just starting to 'calm down' (there are still users complaining)

Now, there are things to be considered when choosing to run a 64-bit browser:
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=224

Imagine the possible issues that may surface. Rather than go through the process now and risk everything again, they are letting the unofficial projects (e.g. Waterfox and Palemoon) to see to the needs of 64-bit users who want 64-bit browsers today.

2. Multi-process architectures has benefits in terms of stability, security, etc. However, it does come at a cost of possible overhead compared to a single process browser. There are users who choose to run Google Chrome or IE in single process mode. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there are Firefox users who don't mind it being a single-process browser. I'm not arguing for or against it...merely stating the possible existence of such users.

3. Firefox extensions support will keep the browser alive for those who are used to or in need of some extensions. Example:
http://mattryall.net/blog/2012/06/why-i-use-firefox

4. Gecko engine. Some users prefer this over Trident, WebKit or Presto. Of course, there are other browsers that uses Gecko but Firefox is the mainstream browser that uses it.

5. Mozilla branding

There are haters and there are lovers. For whatever reasons (e.g. 'privacy issues, closed-source vs open-source, etc), there are folks who would not use other mainstream browsers due to the branding.

Worse come to worse, even if Firefox 'dies', it will be reborn.

 

Its extensions are to me the real reason it has remained so popular. However, they're no longer the only game in town now. Chrome has tons of extensions and most of the ones that originated on Firefox have moved to Chrome with no issue. You also have to look at it from a marketing/media point. If the go-to websites for the masses are talking about 64bit, security measures and features, the masses being easily influenced by those they perceive to have more knowledge and/or are a popular figure/organization are much more likely to listen and say "Hey, I need/want that too."

I think it's very possible for Mozilla to be seen as "behind the times" and, with still far too many groaning about fast updates, very easily replaced.

 

I doubt Firefox will disappear any time soon. It, & more importantly, its extensions & customisation abilities will keep it alive for quite a while. People have been predicting its demise for quite a while & it just doesn't seem to be disappearing.

My guess is that Mozilla will concentrate on sandboxing & will consider a Windows 64 bit version later in time. Let's face it, a lot of computers are still 32 bit. I'd wager that the vast majority of Windows users in the world are more likely to be running 32 bit hardware than 64 bit.

I think that Mozilla have probably made the right choice here, if they are making this decision based on prioritisation.

 

They need to start leading the market instead of following thou. I agree that from security point of view having a sandboxed browser is more important than 64 bit one. However if you are trying to be the leader in the market and make yourself stand out from Chrome then having a 64 bit browser would make more sense.

 

I think that it is more the case that they need to prioritise. Firefox is up there with Chrome as being the two most popular browsers outside of IE. If I was Mozilla, I would rather concentrate on improving Firefox than trying to compete with Chrome's download success. I think that this has been their problem right from the beginning.

 

Whether Firefox lives, dies, or changes drastically over the next few years is somewhat up in the air. Windows may not support native 32bit in its next version. 32bit emulation still exists, but there will be a push towards 64bit, we've already seen multiple security features exist only for 64bit in the past, this will be the case to a greater extent as 64bit becomes the only option.

Regardless, Firefox did what it sought out to do - kill the IE monopoly. IE dominated the web and Firefox put an end to that, IE's been bleeding users ever since. Maybe Chrome will overtake it, maybe another browser, but what's left out there, for the major browsers, is IE and two open source browsers. So instead of the internet being dominated by a proprietary system, it's dominated by open systems.

I think Firefox will last for some time. I think things like NoScript alone have kept people on Firefox, that's a few million users right there. Many people have that "one thing", whether it's a feature, or extension, that keeps them on Firefox.

 

I seriously doubt it will die. Firefox has its own cult of supporters just like Apple. As for the 64 bit version, yes IMO it was a huge mistake to completely stop development. They should have at least kept 10% of their resources on it. It's better to develop at very very slow rate and slowly iron out the bugs than to rush everything in the last moment.

 

Cultists are a tiny minority of the overall user base of popular products and even them can change their minds too.

 

went to palemoon many years ago
never have looked back

 

I had tried Pale Moon years ago and actually found it slower than Firefox. But... I just tried it again, and the current version is amazingly smooth, especially the 64 bit. I just may switch to that.

-Very interesting. On my Windows 7 work desktop the 64 bit is faster. On my Windows 8 laptop the 32 bit is faster...

 

I tried the 64-bit version of Firefox on 64-bit Win 7 about a year ago and liked it for speed, but some of my favorite plugins didn't work so I went back to regular Firefox.

 

64-bit Firefox for Windows should be prioritized, not suspended

Article