ViperAFK Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Didn't adobe say that they weren't gonna make a 64-bit flash client...? They've already made one for linux... http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/000/6b3af6c9.html Adobe is working on Flash Player support for 64-bit platforms as part of our ongoing commitment to the cross-platform compatibility of Flash Player. We expect to provide native support for 64-bit platforms in an upcoming release of Flash Player following Flash Player 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 They've already made one for linux...http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/000/6b3af6c9.html meh , they should at least release some eta for windows version :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentthief Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 they made an eta of within 18 months, this was around 6 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buio Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 All we need is 64 bit plugins (Flash, Silverlight, etc) and we'd be set!mmm 64 bit browsing :p Personally I would rather see a web without Flash/Silverlight. The only thing they are good for are streaming video, and that should have been standard in HTML5, but corporate greed screwed it up. Almost all sites using Flash for web features suck. (That is my personal opinion). Looking forward to test 64-bit Chrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 When we refer to "64-bit" in this context we're actually referring to more than just 64-bit memory addressing. We're actually referring to use of the AMD64 instruction set and CPU architecture versus the x86 / i386 architecture. AMD64 provides several improvements over x86, including additional registers. These can result in faster processing speeds, for example, when running tight loops (lots of UI drawing falls into this category) with a good compiler. I said quantify. Show me some numbers that demonstrate measurable benefits for a browser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted August 29, 2009 Veteran Share Posted August 29, 2009 I said quantify. Show me some numbers that demonstrate measurable benefits for a browser. On a 2.2ghz C2D, 9400m, 10.6. Sunspider. ~30% increase. 64-bit Safari: 490ms. 32-bit Safari: 681ms. Peacekeeper. ~15% increase. 64-bit Safari: 3630 points. 32-bit Safari: 3100 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 On a 2.2ghz C2D, 9400m, 10.6. Sunspider. ~30% increase. 64-bit Safari: 490ms. 32-bit Safari: 681ms. Peacekeeper. ~15% increase. 64-bit Safari: 3630 points. 32-bit Safari: 3100 points. So what is that test, a page render? Yeah, I can see how saving 191 milliseconds makes it worthwhile for everybody to immediately switch to 64-bit browsers... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Hopefully this will inspire Adobe to get a 64-bit version of Flash out there. There's a reason the 64-bit version of IE is tucked away, out of sight for casual users. What I don't get is that Safari is able to run in 64-bit just fine on Mac OS X Snow Leopard, yet it uses a 32-bit Flash Plugin. Why isn't Internet Explorer capable of doing the same on Windows Vista / 7? Where Activity Monitor says just "Intel" under the "Kind" header it means the application is still running in 32-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+dave164 Subscriber¹ Posted September 7, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted September 7, 2009 So what is that test, a page render?Yeah, I can see how saving 191 milliseconds makes it worthwhile for everybody to immediately switch to 64-bit browsers... :huh: Isn't it a bit daft if you aren't saving yourself 0.2 seconds for free? All you have to do is load 5 pages and you save a second. Imagine all the web pages over a day you may open. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted September 7, 2009 Veteran Share Posted September 7, 2009 So what is that test, a page render?Yeah, I can see how saving 191 milliseconds makes it worthwhile for everybody to immediately switch to 64-bit browsers... :huh: http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html I?m confused?did you ask if 191ms was worthwhile or if there was a measurable difference in numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasondefaoite Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Flash using 111.4% of the CPU?? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorph Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Flash using 111.4% of the CPU?? :blink: Yeah, that sounds just about right for Flash. There have been around 3,000 updates to Flash, and none have been speed improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.actionhttp://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html I?m confused?did you ask if 191ms was worthwhile or if there was a measurable difference in numbers? I'm sorry if my feeling underwhelmed by the response confuses you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperOfThePizza Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Yeah, that sounds just about right for Flash.There have been around 3,000 updates to Flash, and none have been speed improvements. They need to just get rid of flash.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtrftw Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The Mountain View approves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Yeah, that sounds just about right for Flash.There have been around 3,000 updates to Flash, and none have been speed improvements. I just watched a flash DDR music anim in WMPC - it used about 3% cpu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentthief Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 google sure are taking a long time with the 64bit version of google chrome, they said it would be out soon and that was said in august:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
master2k27 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 i know ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Wouldn't 32 bit plugins like Flash and Silverlight work with it? They are anyways hosted in a different process. What's stopping them (the plug-ins) to be hosted in a 32 bit process separate from the 64 bit browser process? Nothing. It would work just fine. Whether they'll actually do it is a different matter. Edit: sorry, just noticed the thread was old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Wagyu Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 64-bit Google Chome last for Windows, 64-bit Handbrake last for Windows, it's a growing trend! Must be a bitch coding for 64-bit on a Windows platform or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 64-bit Google Chome last for Windows, 64-bit Handbrake last for Windows, it's a growing trend! Must be a bitch coding for 64-bit on a Windows platform or something. dont forget flash,sliverlight and all those fun :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Jolt Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Personally I would rather see a web without Flash/Silverlight. The only thing they are good for are streaming video, and that should have been standard in HTML5, but corporate greed screwed it up.Almost all sites using Flash for web features suck. (That is my personal opinion). Looking forward to test 64-bit Chrome. Silverlight is incredible, especially the smooth streaming. I think HTML is going in a good direction, but it's just not that exciting. Flash is old, it needs to die, it isn't going anywhere. But Silverlight has a concept, the same one as WPF, and it's exciting seeing that 3D stuff coming alive. Silverlight is already going on Silverlight 4, and it's a small plugin for what it's worth. Silverlight is worth it, and if developers would pay attention to The New Efficency and took advantage of WPF, we might have some neat programs around that really are useful, but we don't have people like that on the Internet anymore. Everybody just has a social website made on HTML and ASP.NET. So much for software...it all went to the phones! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentthief Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 64bit chrome is taking forever :( They announced in august saying it will be done "soon", its nearly february now :( 64bit chrome4 pls google! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckeratlarge Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I second the motion Also can Mozilla do 64bit firefox although there is no point until Adobe bring out 64bit flash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkgoat Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Yeah google give us chrome 64 on windows, what are we paying you for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts