On 2015-08-15 3:02 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding?
Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again.
I have nothing to add to this except to say that this is a pure and
noble goal, and I
On 8/12/15 3:32 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Relatedly, why does Tenfourfox use a different branding?
Because I didn't want to get into the whole Ice* thing again. While most
of it is the same, there's quite a lot of value-added stuff (JIT,
AltiVec) and some things I turned off (plugins, webapprt),
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 06:57:22AM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.
If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.
If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users,
then also drop the 32–bit Windows users
and the 32–bit Linux users
etc etc etc etc etc.
I bet you’d hear a HUGE CRY from these
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 03:56 AM, SciFi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
I need to give my 2–coins–worth on this topic, please.
If Mozilla decides to drop the 32–bit Mac users,
then also drop the 32–bit Windows users
and the 32–bit Linux users
Just got number from Brendan Colloran. On 2/15/15, there were 14772800 active
users using x86_64 on Mac for FF, and 224400 using x86. x86 then is 1.5% of the
active users. Seems like a safe bet to drop 32-bit support.
Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk
On Aug 6, 2015,
On 2015-08-06 10:10 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Hubert Figuière wrote:
But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
build of
I believe the blocklist ping also has it and I know metrics used the
blocklist ping instead of the update ping in the past.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ben Hearsum bhear...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2015-08-06 10:10 AM, Eric Shepherd wrote:
Hubert Figuière wrote:
But Only 10.7 and later can
On 06/08/15 09:31 PM, Syd Polk wrote:
If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no.
But these system aren't supported by MacOS X 10.7 or later.
Also the 32-bits kernel is used for older machine that have a 64-bits
CPU but not 64-bits UEFI firmware and gets
If the chip is a Core 2 Duo, yes. If the chip is a Core Duo (32-bit chip), no.
Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk
On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:53, Kearwood Kip Gilbert kgilb...@mozilla.com wrote:
32-bit OSX kernels can indeed run 64-bit applications on 64-bit
hardware.
Hubert Figuière wrote:
But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
unless we require 10.7, there is still a possibility the users run a
machine that is not 64-bits capable, hence not able to run a 64-bits
build of Firefox.
Yes, this is the point here -- some
On 06/08/15 01:34 AM, Matthew N. wrote:
On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote:
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
relevant
unless I'm missing something.
My understanding is that OS
BTW, 10.7 also had a 32-bit version, and ran on 32-bit machines.
Syd Polk
sp...@mozilla.com
+1-512-905-9904
irc: sydpolk
On Aug 6, 2015, at 09:10, Eric Shepherd esheph...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hubert Figuière wrote:
But Only 10.7 and later can NOT run on 32-bits hardware. Which mean that
Is this the data for people who are running only the latest release or some
arbitrary Firefox releases where FHR/data collection is enabled? I ask
because this data doesn't include any 10.4 and 10.5 usage so it's not an
overall population snapshot. Sampling the crash data (very noisy I know)
puts
On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek t...@mielczarek.org wrote:
Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work,
being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much
machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each
Gregory Szorc wrote:
These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've
already decided that #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can proceed as
soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't come soon enough
given the impact to build system complexity and
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:22:10AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek t...@mielczarek.org wrote:
Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system
work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as
much machine time
I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time
we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that
very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as
well, but it is a very small percentage of users.
Syd Polk
So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats:
32.20% 10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite)
27.98% 10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks)
19.22% 10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard)
11.06% 10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion)
9.53% 10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion)
I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote:
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant
unless I'm missing something.
My understanding is that OS version is all that matters. 64-bit apps
require a 64-bit OS. (Such an OS requires a
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote:
On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote:
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
relevant unless I'm missing something.
My
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 07:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. ma...@mozilla.com wrote:
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant
unless I'm missing something.
My understanding is that OS version is all that matters.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Syd Polk wrote:
I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last
time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t
think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has
that problem as well, but
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 06:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote:
Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data:
1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard
I'm looking at)
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
relevant unless I'm missing
Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data:
1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard
I'm looking at)
If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is
relevant unless I'm missing something.
Matthew N. (:MattN)
On 2015-08-05 3:02 PM, Syd
25 matches
Mail list logo
