Chrome challenges today's standards with a 64-bit version, available in beta

The team at Google recently announced a 64-bit version of the popular Chrome browser, now available for download in a Canary or Developer version. Although currently in beta testing, the latest version has shown promising signs of an increase in speed, stability, and updated security capabilities. The browser has been reported as stable and is aiming to be made available to the masses in the near future.

Chrome has always been a major player in the browser market, and it managed to surpass Internet Explorer in market share back in 2012. Although Microsoft's browser is still very much used today, Chrome has attracted many new faces with its clean and quick interface. Perhaps this could be put to the teams core principles when designing the software. 

Google is all about incredibly sophisticated technology, but wrapped in a simple user experience. We do everything we can to optimize user interactions. The foremost way in which we've done this is by removing distractions from the browser itself, and letting page content speak for itself. "Content, not Chrome" is our mantra.

The beta version of the browser can be downloaded without hassle, and Google encourage users to 'give it a spin' if they have a 64-bit system. If you decide to make the switch, we would recommend considering which version you pick as Canary differs slightly from the Developer edition.

Canary, referred to as "the bleeding edge of the web" features almost daily updates, and is by no means designed to be stable. You do however get an insight into what Google is creating, and if you want to help the company out, automated bug reports allow you to do so. It's worth noting that you can run Canary alongside a stable edition of the browser with no issues.

The Developer version is designed for those who want to see what's happening in the world of Google, yet don't want to be hassled with complete instability. You can still expect to encounter bugs, but not nearly as much as the Canary build. Amidst the developer version is also a toolkit comprising of a JavaScript console, Task manager, among other features.

Browsers have typically lagged behind in native 64-bit support, so it's good to see Google challenging todays standards. We're not sure how long the beta-testing process will take, and whether a Mac version will be made available is unknown.

Source: Chromium  | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Developer creates Flappy Bird clone with Apple's Swift in four hours

Next Story

JDIs new 1920 x 1200 7" display could pave the way for efficient high-res 7in tablets

99 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"Amidst the developer version is also a toolkit comprising of a JavaScript console, Task manager, among other features."

Uh, wha? All that is available in any version of Chrome... or IE, or Firefox... they all have dev tools on F12 :s

Google need to make Chrome more stable.
Many time it crash on Android. and also on desktop (less).
Stable, Fast and secure is needed by user.

I think you need to look at your computer, I get an occasional tab crash but the whole browser has NEVER force-closed on me... and my work machine usually has about 200 tabs across 5-6 windows :s (i5-3330 / 12gb RAM, my home machine is i5-4470 / 16gb)

The Google Hangouts plugin will not work with the 64-bit version. And Google is NOT planning on fixing this, by developing a 64-bit plugin. INSTEAD, they are working on turning on Magic Lantern. And when that is fully deployed, apparently, Hangouts will work. However, it doesn't look like this will happen any time soon.

Sorry, but the article itself smells like Google propaganda and sensationalism. Excuse me if I don't eat it all up.

I bloody hope so they did have a 64bit version when opera still used it's presto engine ( which was the only version I chose to use after the 32bit version) but dropped it in favour of Chromium and blink engines

This article is full of errors and poorly written. Can we get John Callaham back please? I will even fund a Kickstarter.

I've used WaterFox and Pale Moon Browsers and they all fail in the Plugin arena. If the 64bit version cannot support the 32bit plugins, or have a 64bit version, then it's a waste using a 64bit browser. You will always be running back to a 32bit one.

Classic example is Quicktime Plugin

Title is wrong. It is not available in what Google considers "Beta". The Canary or Dev channels are NOT "Beta". They are more like Alpha builds.

The last sentence of the official post even mentions that 64-bit hasn't been brought to the Beta or Stable channel yet:

"We encourage all our users, especially developers, to give the new 64-bit Chrome a spin, and we're looking forward to hearing your feedback so we can make 64-bit Chrome work great and bring its benefits to our Beta and Stable channel users."

Tested it against 32 bit chrome in peacekeeper, was about 800 points off (5900 vs 5100), leads me to believe that it's not fully optimised just yet.

WTF, "challenges today's standards"? 64-bit version of IE has been out for years, we use it as standard at my work. I'm pretty sure other browsers have 64-bit versions too

The whole article is a love fest for Chrome that ignores reality and focuses on trying to make it look better than it actually is. Whether it be ignoring all history with regards to how late it is to the party, then trying to skew it as though it's revolutionarily late, to the grossly incorrect claim that it has had more market share than Internet Explorer since 2012, when it's never surpassed Internet Explorer at all.

Using a dodgy statistic counting method does not make the claims valid at all. That'd be like me surveying the usage at our house or workplace and finding 100% Internet Explorer usage, therefore, IE wins hands down. Pathetic at best.

james.faction said,
No, 32-bit browsers are not the norm. As I just said. Read before posting.

The average consumer that uses IE doesn't go hunting for the 64 bit version on the system. Those same average consumers don't go looking for 64 bit versions of other browsers either.

Average consumers makes up majority of computer usage in the world...so yes, I'd say 32 bit browsers are the norm.

Been running 64-bit Chromium on Windows for a good while now. Glad to see it's finally coming to fruition! Hopefully Mozilla officially releases 64-bit Firefox on Windows, we'll see.

Exciting times (finally) ahead.

Running as smooth as silk for me. To think I used to be a firefox fanboy - I never imagined I'd ever try another browser.

Addons that aren't seriously gimped compared to their Firefox counterparts, just for example look at ABP, no comparison. Flexibility is letting you customize the browser how you want, Chrome has near zero there, even the basics like relocating stuff.. don't want a row of icons in the top right corner? Too bad.

Note that I'm not bashing the browser itself, it is pretty decent if you can live with it.. if I could get Firefox's interface, extendability and flexibility with Chrome's rendering engine, that would probably be the perfect browser right there.

Max Norris said,
Addons that aren't seriously gimped compared to their Firefox counterparts, just for example look at ABP, no comparison. Flexibility is letting you customize the browser how you want, Chrome has near zero there, even the basics like relocating stuff.. don't want a row of icons in the top right corner? Too bad.

Note that I'm not bashing the browser itself, it is pretty decent if you can live with it.. if I could get Firefox's interface, extendability and flexibility with Chrome's rendering engine, that would probably be the perfect browser right there.


What doe firefox ABP do that Chrome's ad blockers don't do?

SharpGreen said,
What doe firefox ABP do that Chrome's ad blockers don't do?

Missing a lot of the advanced functionality in the rules manager, no "open blockable items" toolbar at all, has some limitations on what it can do due to API restrictions, etc. And that's just one addon, there's others.

Chrome has always been a major player in the browser market, and it managed to surpass Internet Explorer in market share back in 2012.

deceiving. from statcounter

StatCounter measures internet usage trends. We track which browsers are actually used most. To accurately measure browser usage, we base our stats on page views (and not unique visitors).

pre rendering links doesn't make unique users.

Edited by vcfan, Jun 4 2014, 8:50pm :

> it managed to surpass Internet Explorer in market share back in 2012.
Incorrect.

> Browsers have typically lagged behind in native 64-bit support, so it's good to see Google challenging todays standards.
Challenging todays standards?! Have been using 64bit IE since IE10...

and it managed to surpass Internet Explorer in market share back in 2012

And in other news, IE has 58% marketshare. More at 11.

NetApps is also the only source that gives Belgium (11 million people) not the same influence on the statistics as China (1.4 billion), so yes, NetApps is a much better source. GS accounts Belgium for the same amount in procent as China, they also double count every time you load a page...

I tried it a bit today. There's a clear speed improvement when loading pages and switching tabs. Unfortunately all the times I tried flash videos, it crashed. You're warned.

Browsers have typically lagged behind in native 64-bit support, so it's good to see Google challenging todays standards.

To think Mac OS X Snow Leopard shipped with full 64-bit Safari in 2009 and was backward compatible with 32-bit plugins. :laugh:

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
And IE had 64-bit before that.

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?

.Neo said,

To think Mac OS X Snow Leopard shipped with full 64-bit Safari in 2009 and was backward compatible with 32-bit plugins. :laugh:

Atari Jaguar was 64-bit in 1993, step it up PC Fanboys. ;)

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
No, it was not.

Safari can keep itself running in 64-bit mode while supporting existing 32-bit plugins at the same time. That's what made it so special back in 2009 and actually practical for the average user.

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?
I think the overall point here is that this is presented as if Google has done something unique and unprecedented here. It hasn't.

.Neo said,

Safari can keep itself running in 64-bit mode while supporting existing 32-bit plugins at the same time. That's what made it so special back in 2009 and actually practical for the average user.
So? I don't get your point in relation to my comment. IE had 64 bit, as did Safari, long before Chrome. IE9 was not the first 64bit version of IE. You're arguing with yourself about plugins - I made no mention of them.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
So? I don't get your point in relation to my comment. IE had 64 bit, as did Safari, long before Chrome. IE9 was not the first 64bit version of IE. You're arguing with yourself about plugins - I made no mention of them.

In general it means a lot, let's not pretent it doesn't. 64-bit browsing pretty much blew up because of lacking plugin support. Safari 64-bit actually addressed that issue. It has yet to be solved on Windows where to this very day the OS has to ship with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the same browser. Purely having a 64-bit browser doesn't say much if it only offers a partial experience.

I take it Google finally found a way too? If not, then never mind. I haven't said anything. :p (in relation to your post at least)

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?

Many mainstream plugins today have 64 bit versions, and IE11 uses a 64 bit 'wrapper' with seperate processes per tab...which can be 32 or 64 bit depending on your settings.

Eh.. there's one, maybe two that most people use. Flash, and mayyyyyybe Java if you like living on the wild side. Both have 64 bit versions of their plugins. Both are pretty much on their way out anyways, kind of a non-issue, supported or not.

Max Norris said,
Eh.. there's one, maybe two that most people use. Flash, and mayyyyyybe Java if you like living on the wild side. Both have 64 bit versions of their plugins. Both are pretty much on their way out anyways, kind of a non-issue, supported or not.

I would consider those all most people use, heh.

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?

Ye and as far as i know by default all generic links to IE (desktop, quick launch, taskbar, ...) after installation of the OS point to the 32 bits version of it. You need to go in All programs to have the link to the 64 bits version.

So most users are still using the 32 bits version. Anyway the 64 bits version is not compatible with 32 bits plugins.

LaP said,

Ye and as far as i know by default all generic links to IE (desktop, quick launch, taskbar, ...) after installation of the OS point to the 32 bits version of it. You need to go in All programs to have the link to the 64 bits version.

So most users are still using the 32 bits version. Anyway the 64 bits version is not compatible with 32 bits plugins.

The WinRT part for sure runs in 64-bit mode. And I think the desktop part now also runs in 64-bit mode. I don't remember ever switching to 64-bit myself, yet the processes are clearly not 32-bit.

If I remember my history correctly, Windows 2003 x64 was released in 2004 and XP x64 shortly after, both had 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer.

So, headline should read "Chrome takes just under 10 years to come out with 64 bit browser"

elenarie said,

Huh, are you serious? Wasn't 9 the first 64-bit version?


There was a 64-bit version with Windows XP x64

elenarie said,

Huh, are you serious? Wasn't 9 the first 64-bit version?

Nop, first major appearance of a IE 64 bit build was in Windows XP 64bit edition.

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?
No, that's not the reason, the reason is simply backwards compatiblity. Also, there are still 32bit versions of Windows out there, so it's Always nice to test. Also, plugins, on Chrome too, will have to be recompiled to work in Chrome, just as much as it is required in IE. Extensions won't, but plugins will have to be recompiled.

Studio384 said,
Also, plugins, on Chrome too, will have to be recompiled to work in Chrome, just as much as it is required in IE.

Aren't they doing away with plugin support anyway? Or did I misread something? I forget.

Max Norris said,

Aren't they doing away with plugin support anyway? Or did I misread something? I forget.

They're doing away with NPAPI plugin support, in favor of their own homegrown Pepper plugins.

Well, it does come down to backwards compatibility with x86 IE versions on x64 installs of Windows (back to IE6 on XP / 2003 x64). ActiveX controls are COM objects, and you can't run a 32bit COM object inside of a 64bit process, so the 32bit browser engine remains for those. It's why the 32bit browser was the default until IE10, when the container IE frame process became 64bit, and the tabs/pages that load are loaded 32 or 64bit, depending on the contents of the site being loaded:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2716529

That was, in fact, precisely the issue - and it's not unique to IE. (The same issue, in fact, plagues all x64 browsers - regardless of how they handle plug-ins; neither Pale Moon or Waterfox - the two largest Mozilla-based x64 browser projects - has completely licked that issue, because it still depends heavily on third parties.)

Joe User said,
If I remember my history correctly, Windows 2003 x64 was released in 2004 and XP x64 shortly after, both had 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer.

So, headline should read "Chrome takes just under 10 years to come out with 64 bit browser"

Or maybe 6 years since Chrome didn't exist before then.

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?

LaP said,

Ye and as far as i know by default all generic links to IE (desktop, quick launch, taskbar, ...) after installation of the OS point to the 32 bits version of it. You need to go in All programs to have the link to the 64 bits version.
Actually this hasn't been the case since IE10 (which comes with Windows 8/8.1 and can be upgraded to on Windows 7) - Enhanced Protection Mode is an option on the Advanced tab of Internet Options and when switched on (and after a restart of IE) IE is automatically 64-bit. There are no separate 32-bit/64-bit shortcuts.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/arc...nhanced-protected-mode.aspx

I switched mine on when I installed IE10 on Windows 7 and 8, now all launches of IE are the 64-bit one.

.Neo said,

What was the issue with 64-bit Internet Explorer again, something about it not being backward compatible with 32-bit plugins preventing mainstream usage? Hell, isn't Windows 8 to this very day still shipping with both 64-bit and 32-bit versions for that very reason?

the biggest issue was Adobe's flash activeX that was still 32-bit at that time. The current version works with both 32-bit and 64-bit, plus flash has lost it's relevance on the web so that helps. Disable all other 32-bit only addons and IE pretty much stays in 64-bit. Metro IE is purely 64-bit because it doesn't do plugins.

testman said,

Actually this hasn't been the case since IE10 (which comes with Windows 8/8.1 and can be upgraded to on Windows 7) - Enhanced Protection Mode is an option on the Advanced tab of Internet Options and when switched on (and after a restart of IE) IE is automatically 64-bit. There are no separate 32-bit/64-bit shortcuts.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/arc...nhanced-protected-mode.aspx

I switched mine on when I installed IE10 on Windows 7 and 8, now all launches of IE are the 64-bit one.

Note that regardless of whether you launch the 32 or 64bit IE icon in IE10 or 11, it launches a 64bit IE. Only tabs can be 32bit, but the frame process and all non-browsing related processes are 64bit regardless. Enabling EPM does force all tabs to be 64bit as well, though, you are correct on that.

torrentthief said,

they are already creating a 64bit version, have patience.


By the time the 64bit Firefox is ready for release, 128bit software would be standard...

Very good question. I've gotten tired of the weak excuses for not coming up with a 64-bit version soon. Witnessed by frequent crashes, and now with their latest version a multiple-second black page before the first white page appears (assumes a "blank" home page). Oh, how I pine for their last solid version--12 on my win-7 64-bit machine.

SierraSonic said,
I wonder what excuse mozilla will have now?

I am trying to figure out how "Chrome Challenges" today's standard with their 64 bit release. I mean we have had 64 bit browsers for quite a while now.

SierraSonic said,
I wonder what excuse mozilla will have now?

They probably have a new CEO in place who many years ago donated to some pro-64-bit cause, and so now there's a big backlash from the 32-bit community, who aren't tolerant of those who are pro-64 bit, and so as a result Mozilla have caved into pressure from the 32-bit community and banished the very notion of a 64-bit version of Firefox! :p lol

GreatMarkO said,

They probably have a new CEO in place who many years ago donated to some pro-64-bit cause, and so now there's a big backlash from the 32-bit community, who aren't tolerant of those who are pro-64 bit, and so as a result Mozilla have caved into pressure from the 32-bit community and banished the very notion of a 64-bit version of Firefox! :p lol

LMAO, seems like something mozilla would do. xD

One of the big issues stopping 64bit build of Firefox for Windows was that the crash reporter didn't function properly, but that recently got fixed.

The reason it got fixed? Google and Mozilla share the code, and Google didn't care about 64bit support.

Windows DOES have an x64 version of IE, and has since Windows 7/Windows Server 2008; the x64 iterations of ALL Windows 7 SKUs (starting with the aforementioned Server 2008, all Windows server-targeted SKUs are x64-only) have included an x64 version of IE. The binaries of all Windows versions of IE update in lockstep - the exceptions are out-of-band updates for specific to a particular bitness (not all flaws are across both IE witnesses).

PGHammer said,
Windows DOES have an x64 version of IE, and has since Windows 7/Windows Server 2008; the x64 iterations of ALL Windows 7 SKUs (starting with the aforementioned Server 2008, all Windows server-targeted SKUs are x64-only) have included an x64 version of IE.
Wrong. There's been a 64-bit version of IE since Windows XP - the x64 Edition had a 64-bit version of IE6.

_Alexander said,
Pretty sure that is because Linux x86_64 has no support fort x86_32 out of the box.

correct. You basically have to do a double installation of the userspace in linux to run both 64bit and 32bit applications...