Holy fuck, firefox stable finally gets 64bit version. Is...is that a good thing?
>>51883907
no, considering its being introduced alongside functionality that will remove support for unsigned extensions, and the fact that we've had 64bit builds for years now.
>>51883933
Wow, that wasn't too hard.
>>51883958
yeah try doing that in 44 soon
Try nightly if you want the multi-process.
Werks just fine here.
>>51883993
>using obscure unsigned add-ons
>>51883907
Stable has had 64 bit since 42, only now they've put it on the website.
16 bit Intel 80286, forever. Anything more is just snakeoil and overkill
>>51884070
good goy! you should only run software that we, a totally benevolent and altruistic group, approve!
>>51883907
>finally gets 64bit version
you mean in windows...
>>51884106
ebin mene!
>>51884103
this
64 bit software/os can't even run 16 bit applications lol what's the point
>>51883907
I've had a 64bit version of stable for years
Is there any advantage of using the 64bit version instead of the 32bit one?
>>51884306
Not for practical use. Unless you're opening 100+ tabs.
>>51883907
I thought it had x64 for years. Only the windows builds are coming out right?
>>51884306
Twice the number of bits
>>51884306
>Is there any advantage of using the 64bit version instead of the 32bit one?
Yes.
> Beyond the additional memory, Mozilla says the 64-bit browser is simply faster, speeding up JavaScript code through new hardware registers and instructions that aren't available with the 32-bit version. In one test of certain JavaScript applications, throughput improved by 8 percent to 17 percent.
>>51884341
You don't know anything about technology. Get out.
>>51883907
too bad im not coming back to use mozilla shit
>>51883907
How much free RAM do you want? Because 64bit can take all of it.
>2016 coming
>no multi-process
Firecuck btfo!
>>51884029
Yeah, can confirm
>>51884390
fart mustard
Depends if you are so desperate for using Firefox that you are willing to stay on board while there is a high chance that Servo will kill of almost all customization features.
If you really would also be able to enjoy a massive dumbed down browser you will enjoy it in the future. If you can't then you are running into a problem.
>>51884511
>Because 64bit can take all of it.
I wish the Firefox RAM leakage meme would end.
>>51884841
>Depends if you are so desperate for using Firefox that you are willing to stay on board while there is a high chance that Servo will kill of almost all customization features.
I don't see a reason to jump ship right just because things *might* go south in the future. If the solution is to switch to Pale Moon or whatever, you might as well just wait until Firefox is actually fucked and make the switch then. That way Pale Moon (or whatever you're switching to) will have matured even more until then.
>>51884880
I wish you would actually use Firefox instead of taking a screenshot with no tabs open or any extensions and only running for 10 seconds.
>>51884880
>53 threads
>only 1 process
A fucking disgrace
TFW waterfox is now obsolete.
>>51884925
For me no option. Moved towards Vivaldi. Guess what, i need no add-on to customize it and it is almost as customizable as Firefox 22.
To hell with that pseudo Open Source morons from Mozilla. Who inserts closed source software parts into their product is not the tiniest bit better than closed source.
Is there a 64 bit build of the beta version?
>>51883907
>firefox stable finally gets 64bit version
wtf are you on about m8?
>>51884930
I have Catalog and this thread open. What else should I open?
>>51884956
Placebofags on suicide watch.
>>51884956
>dat makeup
>dose gross hands
kek.
How do I make Firefox not ugly in less than 15 clicks?
>>51885100
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/
>>51885100
With not supporting a lame company.
>>51884667
Its currently in the nightly build, but might have been bumped up to beta with todays update.
>>51884956
What? Is it kill?
>>51885421
meanwhile chrome has had it for years
sandboxing on firefox when?
>>51884962
>For me no option. Moved towards Vivaldi.
Until Vivaldi improves their password manager with a master password, their cookie manager, and there's an extension similar to save image in folder I won't switch 100%.
God damn I wish I could though. That's just about all that it needs to totally outclass Firecocks.
>>51885461
Meanwhile Firefox has had customization since forever.
Tree Style Tabs (or any sort of customization) on Chrome when?
Never, that's when. At least Firefox is working on its shortcomings…
>>51885547
>muh rice
so useful :^)
>>51885569
Not even talking about ricing. Just customization that improves workflow and such.
Regardless, Chrome can't into either.
>>51885461
Doing something horribly before someone else does it correctly doesn't mean you are better anon.
>>51883907
>still reading patch nodes for depricated shit
>>51885461
e10s is a prerequisite for sandboxing.
>>51885634
nodes :DD
>>51885599
and firefox wont do it in a future release.
firefox is turning into a shittier version of chrome
>>51885602
>says it's horrible
>doesn't say why
0/10
>>51884070
You mean like ublock Origin?
>>51885683
are you this retard? >>51884631
>>51885642
some benefits of sandboxing don't require e10s but i do understand why they want to finish that first and only then implement sandboxing at least it's good to know they have plans for it
>>51883907
i have been using 64bit 2+ years now
>>51884952
nightly/dev has e10s if you want.
also, IPC has some overheads, threading is faster in principle.
>>51885683
uBlock Origin has been signed and fully reviewed on AMO since forever you fucking retard.
>>51883993
mozilla provides unbranded stable builds where turning off extension verification is an option
or you could just use dev edition / nightly
>>51885876
>nightly/dev
No more thanks, i like my software to be considered stable
>>51886011
>more
This wasn't suppose to be here...
>>51886011
dev edition is quite stable. it might get hit by a few more bugs, but it hardly crashes
