Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
Interviewed by CNN on 13/09/2012 06:52, Desiree told the world: > Fx is currently using 1.6GB RAM and my motherboard on this 6.5 year old > machine limits me to 2GB total. I can't wait for a new computer (about the > only reason I want a new one) that will have 16 or 24GB RAM. I plan to use > the RAM. I won't be using Sea Monkey much if it has no 64bit build. Why the > push anyway to 64bit Windows if all the programs are 32bit? Both Fx and SM > are gigantic RAM hogs so, of course, there should be a 64bit version. With > Opera, I don't need 64bit version as it properly releases RAM when minimized > to the taskbar. Mozilla browsers do not. (The worst RAM hog though is > Chrome with that nightmarish sandbox for each tab. I could easily use more > than the total RAM I currently have for this machine just on Chrome, but > practically speaking that wouldn't happen because I like to be able to use > Task Manager and you cannot if you have 100+ tabs open in Chrome as that > causes chaotic clutter in Task Manager). Yes, it *can* happen, and your 1.6 Gb case is proof enough. But as you point out, it *should not* happen -- a browser should not need that much RAM. So the more pressing concern, one that the MemShrink project guys are addressing, is reducing RAM usage to reasonable levels. Raising the theoretical limit of RAM usage is not a pressing need if using *half* the current limit is considered "way too much" by users. > I'd be ecstatic to lose Silverlight, Flash and Java ( I have no plugins on > Fx or SM), but I would not want to lose my extensions. I wouldn't care > though with SM if I lost my extensions because only one of my important > extensions works in Seamonkey. I wouldn't want to lose them in Fx though as > they are the sole reason I use a Mozilla browser (and the reason Fx is my > default browser rather than SM). Most extensions are platform, bit-width (is that the correct term?) and version agnostic -- they are based only on Javascript, HTML, XUL and such portable technologies. So they probably would need minor tweaks at most to work with a 64-bit browser. A few extensions, usually quite complex ones, such as Enigmail, include binary components which have to be specifically compiled for each platform, and those would have to be recompiled for 64-bit. > Anyhow, I think it way past the time for all browsers to have 64 bit > versions and for extensions to be 64 bit. Eventually, yes, there's where the market is moving towards. But you should note that only one major browser currently has a Windows 64-bit version (that would be Internet Exploder), and few IE users bother to use it -- it does improve a little on IE's laughable security, but that's a benefit most users are unable to notice. Regarding your question in the first paragraph: generally speaking, the push to 64-bit is in order to raise the *overall* Windows memory limit. If you have 4Gb (actually more like 3.2 Gb) total, you have a hard time juggling three 1Gb apps plus the operating system itself. If you can go to, say, 16Gb, you can comfortably run twice as many apps and STILL give each of them a lot more RAM. Or, to put it another way: in 32-bit Windows, the *practical* limit to the amount of RAM you can give an app is way lower than the *theoretical* limit. In 64-bit Windows, there is no distinction -- you can go all the way up to the theoretical limit, if you have enough RAM in the computer. A few memory-hungry applications do benefit more directly from the 64-bit environment, though. I think Adobe no longer makes a 32-bit version of Premiere, for instance. Photoshop has both 64-bit and 32-bit versions -- but by default, the 32-bit version is *always* installed. That's because of the large number of 32-bit plugins for Photoshop that won't run in the 64-bit version. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my iBot. * Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.12.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Rex wrote: >> I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. Daniel wrote: Rex, have a look at http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/#2.12.1 and, under "Contributed builds (other platforms)" you should find a link to the latest, full, 64 bit, version for your OS. Rex's O/S is Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate; the only build listed under Contributed builds (other platforms) is Linux. Windows 7 <> Linux. Philip Taylor Philip, I'm on Linux, so I expected to see a Linux version, but, as Rex was on Windows, I hoped he would see a Windows version, but I see you're on Windows, too, and if you're seeing the Linux page, then I was wrong. He should be able to find a Windows WOW64 version somewhere there! -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
"MCBastos" wrote in message news:-5mdna5h8i8v-cznnz2dnuvz_oudn...@mozilla.org... > Interviewed by CNN on 12/09/2012 11:51, Rex told the world: >> I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. While I was able to >> replace Firefox with Waterfox and use my old profile as before, the only >> reference to 64bit Seamonkey I can find is this one - >> >> >> Are there any plans to provide official 64bit builds any time soon? > > I have addressed this in the past. Simply stated, there's no big hurry > to do it, because there's not much to be gained and a lot to be lost -- > Windows 64-bit runs 32-bit applications with hardly any penalty. > > The most important gain would be the ability for the application to be > able to use lots of RAM. 32-bit apps are limited to 4 Gb (or it might be > 2 Gb, I'm not sure). > Whoa! Let's go back there a minute: is there a legitimate use case for > SM using even *half* that amount? We routinely see complaints that > browsers are using several hundred megabytes; if you need more than 2Gb > for Seamonkey, there's something really wrong somewhere. > > > -- > MCBastos Fx is currently using 1.6GB RAM and my motherboard on this 6.5 year old machine limits me to 2GB total. I can't wait for a new computer (about the only reason I want a new one) that will have 16 or 24GB RAM. I plan to use the RAM. I won't be using Sea Monkey much if it has no 64bit build. Why the push anyway to 64bit Windows if all the programs are 32bit? Both Fx and SM are gigantic RAM hogs so, of course, there should be a 64bit version. With Opera, I don't need 64bit version as it properly releases RAM when minimized to the taskbar. Mozilla browsers do not. (The worst RAM hog though is Chrome with that nightmarish sandbox for each tab. I could easily use more than the total RAM I currently have for this machine just on Chrome, but practically speaking that wouldn't happen because I like to be able to use Task Manager and you cannot if you have 100+ tabs open in Chrome as that causes chaotic clutter in Task Manager). I'd be ecstatic to lose Silverlight, Flash and Java ( I have no plugins on Fx or SM), but I would not want to lose my extensions. I wouldn't care though with SM if I lost my extensions because only one of my important extensions works in Seamonkey. I wouldn't want to lose them in Fx though as they are the sole reason I use a Mozilla browser (and the reason Fx is my default browser rather than SM). Anyhow, I think it way past the time for all browsers to have 64 bit versions and for extensions to be 64 bit. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
Interviewed by CNN on 12/09/2012 11:51, Rex told the world: > I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. While I was able to > replace Firefox with Waterfox and use my old profile as before, the only > reference to 64bit Seamonkey I can find is this one - > > http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/SeaMonkey:Download > > This looks like the initial 2.0 build from 2009 and hasn't been updated > since. > > Are there any plans to provide official 64bit builds any time soon? I have addressed this in the past. Simply stated, there's no big hurry to do it, because there's not much to be gained and a lot to be lost -- Windows 64-bit runs 32-bit applications with hardly any penalty. The most important gain would be the ability for the application to be able to use lots of RAM. 32-bit apps are limited to 4 Gb (or it might be 2 Gb, I'm not sure). Whoa! Let's go back there a minute: is there a legitimate use case for SM using even *half* that amount? We routinely see complaints that browsers are using several hundred megabytes; if you need more than 2Gb for Seamonkey, there's something really wrong somewhere. Then, the losses. Generally speaking, you lose all 32-bit add-ons. That includes most plug-ins (although there are 64-bit versions of Silverlight, Flash and Java, there are dozens of other plugins that simply don't have 64-bit versions) and most (all?) extensions with binary parts (like, for instance, Enigmail). Will there ever be an official 64-bit Seamonkey build? Yes, eventually, I think. At some point, the pluses will start to outweight the minuses for a sizeable share of the users. Plugins are becoming less important every day, so people might be more willing to let to of them. There might be some nifty new thing for SM to do that would be much better in 64-bit. Microsoft might deprecate 32-bit support. Upgrading to a new, better compiler might involve dropping support for 32-bit mode, much like recently Mozilla dropped support for Windows 2000. But not right now. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Black Belly. * Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.12.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
On 09/12/2012 07:51 AM, Rex wrote: > I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. While I was able to > replace Firefox with Waterfox and use my old profile as before, the only > reference to 64bit Seamonkey I can find is this one - > > http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/SeaMonkey:Download > > This looks like the initial 2.0 build from 2009 and hasn't been updated > since. > > Are there any plans to provide official 64bit builds any time soon? > No. Check the archives regarding this. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
> Rex wrote: >> I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. Daniel wrote: Rex, have a look at http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/#2.12.1 and, under "Contributed builds (other platforms)" you should find a link to the latest, full, 64 bit, version for your OS. Rex's O/S is Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate; the only build listed under Contributed builds (other platforms) is Linux. Windows 7 <> Linux. Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
Rex wrote: I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. While I was able to replace Firefox with Waterfox and use my old profile as before, the only reference to 64bit Seamonkey I can find is this one - http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/SeaMonkey:Download This looks like the initial 2.0 build from 2009 and hasn't been updated since. Are there any plans to provide official 64bit builds any time soon? Rex, have a look at http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/#2.12.1 and, under "Contributed builds (other platforms)" you should find a link to the latest, full, 64 bit, version for your OS. -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Y U NO MAKE 64bit Windows build?
I recently switched to 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. While I was able to replace Firefox with Waterfox and use my old profile as before, the only reference to 64bit Seamonkey I can find is this one - http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/SeaMonkey:Download This looks like the initial 2.0 build from 2009 and hasn't been updated since. Are there any plans to provide official 64bit builds any time soon? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
