I think the 2GB "requirement" from Microsoft should be ignored, because
plenty of our users are ignoring it.


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Chris Peterson <cpeter...@mozilla.com>

> On 2017-08-06 11:26 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson<cpeter...@mozilla.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Users with only 2 GB and 5 minute browser sessions would probably have a
>>> faster user experience with 32-bit Firefox than with 64-bit, but how do
>>> we
>>> weigh that experience versus the security benefits of ASLR?
>> Not giving users a security mechanism due to a non-obvious reason
>> feels bad. Furthermore, considering that Microsoft documents 2 GB as a
>> "requirement" for 64-bit Windows, is it really worthwhile for us to
>> treat three Windows pointer size combinations (32-bit on 32-bit,
>> 64-bit on 64-bit and 32-bit on 64-bit) as fully supported when one of
>> the combinations is in contradiction with the OS vendor's stated
>> requirements?
>> Do we have any metrics on whether 32-bit on 64-bit exhibits bugs that
>> 32-bit on 32-bit and 64-bit on 64-bit don't? That is, what kind of bug
>> burden are we keeping by catering to users who've installed 64-bit
>> Windows with less than 2 GB of RAM in contradiction with what
>> Microsoft states as a requirement?
> That's a fair question. 32-bit applications can only access 2 GB of
> virtual address space on Win32 OS, but can access 4 GB on Win64 OS. So in
> theory, some 32-bit pointer bugs could manifest differently on Win64 and
> Win32.
> Do we test 32-bit Firefox on Win32 or Win64 today? I know we build 32-bit
> Firefox on Win64. Since more people will run 32-bit Firefox on Win32 than
> on Win64, we should probably test on Win32 or at least test on Win64
> configured to only allow Firefox access to 2 GB of virtual address space.
> In our experiments with Win64 OS users, users with 2 GB or less had
> slightly worse retention and crash rates when running 64-bit Firefox than
> 32-bit Firefox.
> About 8% of Win64 users in our experiment had 2 GB or less, so we are
> talking about choosing a worse user experience for a fair number of people.
> (We didn't break out how many users had strictly less than 2 GB.) 64-bit
> Chrome's minimum memory requirement is 4 GB, so Google has similarly
> decided that supporting 32-bit on Win64 is worth the trouble.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to