[Mozilla.org] Firefox in 2011 – Firefox plans for 2012 - Page 5

I have no problem against Waterfox personally. Only the ill-informed who seem to think that building Firefox as 64bit is somehow any better. Even the x64 Nightly build is considered highly experimental and has been removed from the Nightly website because of uninformed people like you who think that just because they have a 64bit OS, they need to be using a 64bit browser and/or that there is any benefit to doing so. The proof, is there for you to discover yourself, if you so choose. I've already given a couple links to Bugzilla for people who are interested in educating themselves. The inferior performance and unpatched regresions in the 64bit builds offer no benefit to the end user.

There's no need to throw a tantrum and stomp your feet over this. If you feel the need to use an experimental build, then so be it. Just don't act like you have any valid reason for doing so beyond the naive "64 is twice as big as 32!!!" assumptions or try and tell other people that it's in any way a better version. It uses more memory and performs slower. Your misguided expectation about the benefits of using a 64bit version is the problem here. The few benefits of switching to 64bit are outweighed by the thousands of hours of optimizations put into x86 builds. Chrome doesn't have a 64bit version either for similar reasons. I suggest you educate yourself on some basic level coding before continuing to assume that just because something is 64bit that it is better.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/20/12 at 9:35am

I had a bunch of stuff written and I clicked a link on the same tab erasing it.

I'll sum it up. You have nothing but fallacies all through out your post. You lie about things I never said and make claims without any evidence. For fun I guess you had to throw in an Ad Hominem or 2. I honestly don't know why you even quoted me. Your response doesn't even make sense.

Nightly x64 was a pre-beta test. Linking to its bug reports does not prove x64 itself is faulty, only a pre-beta version of Firefox was (which is normal).

I use Waterfox and like it more than Firefox. Deal with it.
Edited by kennyparker1337 - 3/20/12 at 1:52pm

Reading comprehension fail... There's 3 separate Bugzilla links and 2 of them aren't about Nightly builds but about what's stopping Mozilla from making x64 builds in general. Waterfox is Firefox... How thick are you? Check out about:buildconfig and actually learn something for a change.

No where have I lied about anything nor have you provided a single shred of evidence to support your ill-informed claims. You can't even provide a single reason for anyone to use the 64bit build. You're the exact demographic that Mozilla was referring to as for the reason behind removing the x64 build from the Nightly website. It's not my job to hold your hand and educate you though. If you want information, you're going to have to make an effort to read it on your own.

Next time you want to try and pretend you've passed high school and know what a logical fallacy is, try not to commit fallacies such as ignoring the question and using straw man tactics when attempting to defend your irrational reasoning. Then you end it with a "deal with it" meme. Nice logic, or lack thereof I should say...
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/20/12 at 6:00pm

I think I'll just stop responding to you because you clearly are confused on who you are responding to. Most of your statements don't even relate to my posts.

I'm not even kidding, look at your posts and then mine. They barely even relate...

Ah yes, the pretend I can't remember what I wrote and make up some story about how everyone else is confused but yourself strategy.

You asked for proof of why 64bit is slower and buggier even after the links were already provided. You then retorted back that all three links were only for the nightly x64 build, which is another false statement. Then you claimed I lied without you yourself having any evidence to support that accusation. You purposely ignore having to answer any questions directly by trying to claim everything is a fallacy while committing fallacies yourself. Your question about memory usage was already answered by stating that it uses more memory, which you proceeded to ignore as well. You claimed building Firefox in x86-64 is somehow using newer instruction sets, which is also false and you were told to observe about:buildconfig to see for yourself. Need I go on?

It's funny how kids think they know better than Mozilla devs.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/20/12 at 9:34pm

Hence why the Linux version is there, right? As for benefits, well for Waterfox specific improvements (ie. SSE2 over MMX/x87), look at jpg decoding here, and as for 64bit vs 32bit, look at this series of benchmarks for Firefox 8. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your post, all you've done is make a lot of claims, link to some bug reports that have an at best tenuous connection to 64bit itself being very unstable (As opposed to some users wanting 64bit, so going for 64bit nightly instead of Pale Moon x64, Waterfox, etc, which was why the 64bit version was removed from easy access...Hence why the Linux 64bit version is still there, too) and then just used some ill informed sniping based off your own posts.

Oh Brutuz, the guy who never has any clue what he's talking about in any of his posts... The Linux x64 has been in development for over 4 years. You somehow think that the Linux x64 version being a completely different platform means the Win64 version is stable... Not even going to go into how ignorant that is. OSX also includes both the 32bit and 64bit into the installer for the past year or so. As for SSE2, that's what hardware acceleration is... What do you think OpenGL uses?

You can try and dismiss Mozilla's own comments on the instability and slowdown of Win64, you know, the guys who actually develop the browser but you're just embarrassing yourself. This is 2012, not 2008. If you want to see the blocking bugs for Win64 builds, I'll post the links again since you have a hard time reading and prefer to inject your own non-scientific opinion based facts: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=558448&hide_resolved=1 & https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=471090&hide_resolved=1. With over 40 bugs preventing Win 64 from being officially supported, you might want to try thinking before posting, rather than just assuming that because you use a 64bit OS, that you have to use a 64bit browser and that it's somehow better in any way. Right now, the thousands of hours that have been put into the optimizations of 32bit builds far outweigh any benefit that 64bit has to offer along with the current slowdowns and bug regressions of x64 builds.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/21/12 at 6:54am

this forum is the memory leak and cpu bench, not firefox

Firstly, Windows 64bit Firefox has been in development for 4 years too...Since 2008 with Firefox 3.1. And no, I never said that. I said that they got rid of the Windows one because a lot of people who wanted 64bit for whatever reason were going on the unstable nightly and using it as a 24/7 browser, rather than purely for testing as its meant for, while Linux (Not sure about OS X) has 64bit versions of the stable branch readily available in repositories.

You also originally said (And I quote) "Using newer instruction sets than Firefox? Umm, no... Waterfox has done absolutely nothing to change Firefox. It's simply a x64 build that anyone who downloads the source can do themselves."
Waterfox uses SSE2, SSE2 is faster. Hence, Waterfox will be faster at certain tasks than Firefox assuming Firefox still uses MMX and x87. That was my point.

As for evidence...I linked to one story proving that 64bit Firefox is faster than 32bit, as for bugs..When I was using the 64bit Nightly, (When it was at v8) I had no problems. I've been using Pale Moon 64bit and Waterfox since they practically came out, I'm yet to get any problems. Most of those bugs are more related to building it or installing it than actually using it. How am I meant to prove that Waterfox and Pale Moon 64bit have little to no bugs for users? The lack of results from a google search? You can shout about the bug tracker all you want, but the fact is, that's for the nightly version. It contains code that is not in the build of Waterfox that me, any many others, are using without fault. It is (probably) compiled differently too (Maybe using a different version of Visual C/C++) and definitely with different options.
It's like saying a bug in Gentoo Linux will affect Arch or Ubuntu users, it might..It might not. There's small differences in the compiled code that can make the biggest difference in stability. The developers can say how unstable and unusable it is as much as they want, but at the end of the day..Well, it's worked for me so far? I don't see people up in arms about Waterfox bugs in the corresponding thread, nor do I really see many on the Pale Moon forums. Both releases are fine..Sure, it may be anecdotal evidence but in this case, it works.