New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Merged: issue 8606
Owner: ----
Closed: Nov 2012
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Windows
Pri: 2
Type: Bug

Sign in to add a comment

Issue 160438: 64 Bit Build?

Reported by, Nov 11 2012

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/24.0.1312.5 Safari/537.17

Steps to reproduce the problem:

What is the expected behavior?

What went wrong?

Did this work before? N/A 

Chrome version: 24.0.1312.5  Channel: dev
OS Version: 6.1 (Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2)

When will the build be avaliable?!

Comment 1 by, Nov 11 2012

This is a duplicate of  Issue 8606 

Comment 2 by, Nov 13 2012

Mergedinto: 8606
Status: Duplicate
Thanks NCrouther for finding the dup!

Comment 3 by, Nov 14 2012

Right, so there have been no developments on 64-bit chrome. Whereas Waterfox has been able to make a 64-bit browser as well as IE. Since I'm not having two installations of Java and Flash, I guess I'll only use chrome to test websites. End of Days for Google Chrome?

Comment 4 by, Nov 14 2012

Chrome's days are numbered! :) 

WaterFox all day every day.. gotta laugh at Google Engineers.

Comment 5 by, Nov 14 2012

The issue isn't as much a lack of 64-bit build (you did it on linux, so....) but more on the lack of communication on the issue.

Comment 6 by, Nov 14 2012

Also, I won't laugh at the devs. It's not easy work. But I haven't heard or seen any progress of a 64-bit build for Windows.

Comment 7 by, Nov 14 2012

Well 56% of Windows users are running 64 bit windows. With windows 8 that will rise even more. So i don't know what their argument is really.

WOW64 is emulation it is slower. 32 bit apps run slower on 64 bit OS. Because almost everything is emulated.

Comment 8 by, Nov 14 2012


And since their original goal was to make the fastest browser, running emulated on 64-bit OSes will guarantee they never reach that goal against the next generation of 64-bit browsers.

Comment 9 Deleted

Comment 10 by, Nov 14 2012

This would tell you something..

20 tab's Waterfox of ( ) 362 mb
20 tab's Chrome of ( ) 780 mb

The multiprocess technique that Chrome uses is not efficient at all.

Comment 11 by, Nov 14 2012

It's possible that Chrome is worried about security. They do have a sizable reputation to uphold.

Sign in to add a comment