Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

I filed bug 1274659 [1] to track this proposal and attempted to summarize the issues brought up. Please add any technical comments and blocking bugs there. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274659 -e On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Tobias B. Besemer <

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Freitag, 20. Mai 2016 01:48:24 UTC+2 schrieb Robert Strong: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tobias B. Besemer wrote: > > > Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 22:41:01 UTC+2 schrieb Benjamin Smedberg: > > > We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit > > Firefox > > > it's low

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tobias B. Besemer < tobias.bese...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 22:41:01 UTC+2 schrieb Benjamin Smedberg: > > We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit > Firefox > > it's low on the list. We're still dealing with Flash

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 22:41:01 UTC+2 schrieb Benjamin Smedberg: > We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit Firefox > it's low on the list. We're still dealing with Flash sandboxing/functional > regressions as a blocker for wider rollout, and the next step is probably >

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 14:35:52 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Hearsum: > On 2016-05-12 06:44 PM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > >> Lawrence Mandel writes: > >> > >>> Do we need this criteria? > >>> > >>> RAM - Does it hurt to move an

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 10:34:59 UTC+2 schrieb bo...@mozilla.com: > On Thursday, 12 May 2016 21:36:53 UTC+1, Chris Peterson wrote: > > Yes. Flash and Silverlight both have 64-bit plugins that work in 64-bit > > Firefox. Streaming video services will likely move their Firefox users > > from

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2016 18:56:19 UTC+2 schrieb Ben Hearsum: > Do you have thoughts on how we'll be able to serve the users the correct > build if we have to base the decision on plugins they may have or other > information that's not in the update ping? We can already detect 32-bit > builds

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2016 18:22:53 UTC+2 schrieb David Baron: > On Thursday 2016-05-12 11:45 -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > > requirement for x86-64 processors, and the overall performance should > > generally be better (modulo memory usage, I'm not sure if we have an > > exact comparison).

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Friday 2016-05-13 13:10 -0700, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On 64-bit systems, pointers take 8 bytes of memory instead of 4. A lot of > the contents of memory is pointers. Thus a 64-bit build consumes more > memory for a given workload. It isn't as bad as, say, twice as much memory, > but it is

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit Firefox it's low on the list. We're still dealing with Flash sandboxing/functional regressions as a blocker for wider rollout, and the next step is probably to progressively roll out win64 to new users before we consider anything

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:02 PM, wrote: > Why do you developers keep insisting breathlessly that 64-bit builds are > memory hogs? I'm a power user who has 3 windows and 1,565 tabs open. I have > a 4 GB laptop and a 16 GB desktop replaced a 6 GB desktop. I like to think

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 7:35:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Hearsum wrote: > On 2016-05-12 06:44 PM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > >> Lawrence Mandel writes: > >> > >>> Do we need this criteria? > >>> > >>> RAM - Does it hurt to move an

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On 2016-05-12 06:44 PM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Lawrence Mandel writes: Do we need this criteria? RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? Yes. OOM will be more common with 64-bit builds on systems with

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, khag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > > Lawrence Mandel writes: > > > > > Do we need this criteria? > > > > > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? > > > > Yes. OOM will

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 21:36:53 UTC+1, Chris Peterson wrote: > Yes. Flash and Silverlight both have 64-bit plugins that work in 64-bit > Firefox. Streaming video services will likely move their Firefox users > from Silverlight to Widevine this year, so Silverlight usage will > decline by

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 11:47:15 PM UTC+2, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Lawrence Mandel writes: > > > Do we need this criteria? > > > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? > > Yes. OOM will be more common with 64-bit builds on systems with > less RAM because 64-bit builds use

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday 2016-05-12 15:33 -0700, Kyle Huey wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > > > Lawrence Mandel writes: > > > > > Do we need this criteria? > > > > > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? > > > > Yes. OOM will be more

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Lawrence Mandel writes: > > > Do we need this criteria? > > > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? > > Yes. OOM will be more common with 64-bit builds on systems with > less RAM because 64-bit builds

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Last time I checked we saw something like a 35% increase in overhead on AWSY going from 32-bit to 64-bit Firefox on 64-bit Windows, so yes there is a significant impact. On the other hand you no-longer run into the OOM-because-of-address-space-exhaustion and

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Lawrence Mandel writes: > Do we need this criteria? > > RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? Yes. OOM will be more common with 64-bit builds on systems with less RAM because 64-bit builds use more memory. ___ dev-platform mailing list

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Yes. Flash and Silverlight both have 64-bit plugins that work in 64-bit Firefox. Streaming video services will likely move their Firefox users from Silverlight to Widevine this year, so Silverlight usage will decline by EOY. On 5/12/16 1:10 PM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote: Flash installs the

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Flash installs the 32-bit and 64-bit plugin versions side by side already (in System32 and SysWOW64, respectively), so I don't think that's an issue here. -Ryan On 5/12/2016 3:38 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote: Do we need this criteria? RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? NPAPI

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Do we need this criteria? RAM - Does it hurt to move an instance that has <4GB? NPAPI - We've announced that we'll remove support this year [1]. Should we just wait until we do? Do we have a solution for Flash on Win64 that makes this viable? Lawrence [1]

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

This is a slight change from the current model where we purposely make the client very dumb, and make the decision on the server (to minimize the possibility of client-side bug making updates impossible). However, this doesn't seem like a case where we could get somebody stuck very easily, and

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

I suspect we'd want to add some extra token like "it's ok to update this 32-bit build to a 64-bit build", and have all the gating logic live on the client-side. Odds are if we want to change the criteria we'd have to change the client anyway. -Ted On Thu, May 12, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Ben Hearsum

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Do you have thoughts on how we'll be able to serve the users the correct build if we have to base the decision on plugins they may have or other information that's not in the update ping? We can already detect 32-bit builds on 64-bit Windows through the build target, but information about

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

On Thursday 2016-05-12 11:45 -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > requirement for x86-64 processors, and the overall performance should > generally be better (modulo memory usage, I'm not sure if we have an > exact comparison). Additionally 64-bit builds are much less likely to > encounter OOM crashes

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

The DLL Interceptor has some problems on 64-bit Windows 10 that we'd probably want to fix before doing this. See bug 1240977. On 5/12/2016 9:45 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: Hello, Given all the discussion around SSE[2] lately, I was curious as to whether we had made any plans to update Windows

Re: Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

We would have to since other users on the system can have shortcuts pointing to the original location. We've also performed some minimal testing that this is fine when we looked into this a couple of years ago. Robert On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:

Updating 32-bit Windows users to 64-bit Windows builds?

Hello, Given all the discussion around SSE[2] lately, I was curious as to whether we had made any plans to update Windows users that are running 32-bit Windows builds on a 64-bit Windows OS to our 64-bit Windows builds. The 64-bit Windows builds do use SSE2, since that's a baseline requirement