so many new systems now come with 64-bit windows that only people
running older hardware/software use 32-bit Windows anymore. At the
least, MS should have provided an on-par version of IE9 that runs on
64-bit systems. This is dumb. I'm going to the new chrome unless FF
gives me a good reason not to. I'm not even going to consider IE9 now,
and I was looking forward to playing with it this weekend.
On 3/16/2011 11:31 AM, FORC5 wrote:
I do :-[
actually both
fp
At 08:22 AM 3/16/2011, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with:
Who runs 32-bit windows anymore?
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian Weeden<[email protected]> wrote:
Good review of IE9 over at Arstechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/reviews/2011/03/the-most-modern-browser-there-is-internet-explorer-9-reviewed.ars
Once again, MS screws up it's own product strategy:
"It's also a little disappointing that the 64-bit version is less polished
than the 32-bit version. It can't be made the default browser, and it
doesn't include the new, high-performance scripting engine. Microsoft has
long argued that 64-bit browsing isn't necessary; most plug-ins are only
32-bit, and so, the argument goes, browsing must be a 32-bit activity. This
is unfortunate. One, it leads to a certain chicken-and-egg problem: there's
little incentive to develop 64-bit plug-ins since nobody uses a 64-bit
browser due to the lack of plug-ins (though Adobe Flash 11 is likely to
include first-class 64-bit support, resolving one of the big stumbling
blocks). Making the 64-bit version first-class—the same features aand
performance as the 32-bit version—and ensuring that, at least, Miccrosoft's
own plug-ins (such as Silverlight) were supported would go a long way
towards making 64-bit browsing viable. This is, after all, much the same
route as the company took with Office."
And there are good reasons why you would want to run the 64-bit version:
"The reason that 64-bit is desirable is particularly because it offers the
potential to strengthen certain anti-hacking mechanisms. Address Space
Layout Randomization (ASLR) depends on the ability to change the in-memory
layout of things like DLLs. In a 32-bit process there are only a limited
number of random locations that can be chosen. 32-bit processes are also
more vulnerable to anti-ASLR measures such as "heap spraying" (wherein a
large proportion of the browser's memory is filled with malicious code to
make it easier for an attacker to trick the browser into executing it).
64-bit is by no means a panacea, but it does strengthen these protection
systems. For something that is as frequently attacked as a Web browser, this
kind of defense in depth is desirable."
Unfortunately, if you're running 64-bit Windows, you can't install the
32-bit version. You're stuck with the 64-bit version, which means no
scripting performance improvement and far fewer plugins. Which means I'm
sticking with Chrome.
---
Brian
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5958 (20110316) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
