REALTIME IT NEWS
REALTIME IT NEWS
Newsletters Select newsletters below and click the button to sign up!
Internetnews BloggersRecent Entries
ArchivesMonthly ArchivesSearch The Blog
« KDE set to be default for openSUSE 11.2 |
Sean Michael Kerner Blog
| Adobe updates open source Flex for XSS security issue »
Google Chrome gets 64-bit version, but only for Linux From the '32-bit Still Rules' files:
A 64-bit version of the Google Chrome browser is now ready, but Windows users will still have some time to wait for their version. In a mailing list posting this week, Chrome developer Dean McNamee wrote that the Google v8 JavaScript team have working on a 64-bit port. There are now full instructions on the Google Code wiki for Chromium on how to build Chrome for 64-bit Linux. Additionally there is now a native 64-bit (amd64) build available to Ubuntu users, by way of an Ubuntu Launchpad PPA (Personal Package Archive). This is good news for 64-bit Linux users. It could also signal a potential direction for Chrome OS as an operating systems that will be 64-bit capable out of the box. Though, I'm not sure that 64-bit is a major issue for Chrome OS, since the way I understand it is that it's initially targeting netbooks which are not known for their 64-bit processors. What about Windows? "V8 does not yet compile in 64-bit mode on Windows," Chrome Developers Mads Sig Ager wrote in a mailing list posting. "We have focused on making the 64-bit version of V8 work on Linux and Mac at first. We are currently working on making the 64-bit version compile on Windows as well. We should hopefully have that done soon."There are a number of differences between the Windows and Linux version of Chrome. For one, there is no stable or even beta version of Chrome for Linux yet publicly available. To date, Chrome for Linux and Mac have been the dev-channel versions, meaning they lack the stability of the Windows version. Additionally, the Linux version does not yet have the basic bookmark sync capability that landed in the recent Chrome 4 version. Over time, I'd expect that Windows, Linux and Mac versions will each gain the same capabilities. The issue is that Google isn't using some kind of abstraction layer, like Java for example to get Chrome to work on each platform. Instead Google engineers are doing the heavy lifting of making sure Chrome is optimized for the specific OS on which it is running. Personally, I think that's a whole lot of work, but perhaps that is truly the best way to actually get the fastest browser for each specific platform. 0 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Google Chrome gets 64-bit version, but only for Linux. TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/8768 13 CommentsLeave a comment |
||
Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
Advertise | Newsletters | Shopping | E-mail Offers | Freelance Jobs 
Digg
Del.icio.us
furl
StumbleUpon
BlinkList
Newsvine
Magnolia
Facebook
Tailrank
Slashdot
Technorati
Google
Bookmarks
Yahoo
Favorites
Windows
Live
Ask
Unfortunately it just seems to load the page, and then immediately flash to the "Aw, Snap!" page on my Ubuntu box. Not entirely sure whats going on as it does seem to render the page, then I get the error page.
This is rediculous. How many people use Linux? 10? And how many of those use 64 bit? 2, maybe 3? Google has lost their mind investing time and resources into a platform that no one uses instead of just doing all their development on OS X and porting to Windows when necessary.
WOOT!... been waiting for a AMD64 version.
Ya know, I spent a lot of time on browsers...then a couple of other browsers and Galeon, and they 'grew up'. And, much like the audio sound systems of Linux, I saw OSS become ESD, ESD give way to ALSA, and now ALSA become PulseAudio.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not dumping on Chrome- I've never seen it. And I don't hate (for example) PulseAudio- in fact it's great. It's just buggy. But "buggy" is ok, when there are powerful abilities in the pipeline.
But new technologies annoy me. Firefox, as supplied by Ubuntu is MORE than capable, doesn't segfault, won't start eating all my memory, or anything else that a whole new family of browsers will, at this early stage.
Guys, we can't even get websites to adhere to standards; we can only do so much with a browser. I really don't see the glory in adding one more, from Google or anyone else, ya know?
It's just too early for me to give up stability and reliability for yet-another-way-to-browse.
@AppleRulez: There are way more than 10 64-bit Linux users in my office alone, so you can take 'em snide remarks and stuff it. You're not alone on this planet.
Chromium has been looking a lot prettier on my 64-bit Kubuntu ever since 64-bit was turned on. Only thing is now this latest development exposes another chink: I have to use 64-bit Flash binaries and it's really not that stable yet.
Makes sense. If I were to guess, a higher proportion of Linux users are running 64-bit operating systems than Windows users. The Windows desktop install base is still very heavily 32-bit.
Good news, but looks like they've only got a .deb package available, now that is annoying.
@AppleRulez: Nice try, fanboy. Now go back to wanking to your poster of Steve Jobs.
@Brian: Are you crazy? Firefox has hundreds of memory leaks, and those are only the ones that have been reported. Google Chrome is much better in that area, and much better with security. Soon its functionality will overtake Firefox and everyone will start switching.
@Brian Fahrlander: Your lack of knowledge really shows.
Galeon uses Gecko. Did you ever search for browsers based on IE? There are many. Did you know that there are other browsers like epiphany, dillo, opera... and that the netscape/mosaic founder is creating yet another browser?
OSS/ESD/ALSA/PulseAudio are not in the same basket! OSS are old drivers, Alsa replaced them in the kernel. ESD and Pulse audio are "audio servers" and not drivers. PulseAudio or ESD need ALSA or OSS. As a note, for backwards compatibility, ALSA has an OSS driver.(Old apps which are designed just for OSS will still work fine)
Whats your problem if someone wants to create more browsers? Did you know that chrome uses webkit(but a diff V8 javascript engine)? In other words, it should render a page just like safari or konqueror?
As far as stability or reliability is concerned, who told you to upgrade? Use whatever you think is good. No one forced you!
AppleRulez said:
This is rediculous. How many people use Linux? 10? And how many of those use 64 bit? 2, maybe 3? Google has lost their mind investing time and resources into a platform that no one uses instead of just doing all their development on OS X and porting to Windows when necessary.
olol Steve Jobs reality distortion field
Linux user 11 then.. or more like 11,000 users 1386/64bit come on switch to linux people rid the nasty M$. Good for google to go with Linux.
Seeing as the Chrome OS will be Linux based, doesn't this make sense?
Actually the problem is they are using platform dependent libraries, this isn't for reasons of optimization or speed, but more nativity. Like they use GTK so you can optionally use your GTK theme with chrome, it just honestly a clean more efficient way of doing things, if they were going for optimization they might go for a lighter toolkit(FLTK).