64bit OPERA Petition !

64bit OPERA Petition !

If you are one of the people who would like to see a 64bit version of mine and yours favorite browser please sign below. Let's see how big is a "minority" of 64bit users.
Win Linux and all others... come on.

moved to wishlist

The main problem is the 64-bit browser cannot use 32-bit plug-ins, including Flash, Adobe Reader, QuickTime etc. Unless these plug-in vendors provide 64-bit version of their plug-ins, a bare 64-bit browser is quite useless.

Mozilla doesn't have their browser shipped in 64-bit officially, either.

Originally posted by Alica:

The main problem is the 64-bit browser cannot use 32-bit plug-ins, including Flash, Adobe Reader, QuickTime etc. Unless these plug-in vendors provide 64-bit version of their plug-ins, a bare 64-bit browser is quite useless.

Good point. We better get a 64bit version so vendors have a reason to provide 64bit plugins.

Well I really can't remember when I needed some flash or any other plugin. I use Opera mostly for everyday browsing and mail ... really like mouse gestures and speed is great compared to others. But now when I upgrade my machine to amd64 and installed Ubuntu 64bit Linux I can't continue using Opera because there is no 64bit version. (I don't want to use chroot and other stick and rope methods). So, as far as I'm concerned I would really like to see 64bit OPERA even without any 64bit plugins.

Mozilla doesn't have their browser shipped in 64-bit officially, either

Well that sure is no reason that Opera don't have 64bit version... after all.. Opera is in my subjective opinion best browser out there so why compare to someone that isn't good as you.

Originally posted by freedom4all:

But now when I upgrade my machine to amd64 and installed Ubuntu 64bit Linux I can't continue using Opera because there is no 64bit version.

It's your Linux distribution's design to not be able to support both 32 and 64 bit applications in one installation. Windows XP 64bit does, so if you use Windows XP 64bit, you can still install and use 32-bit Opera in it.

After all, I think Opera Software ASA shall concentrate on their current product line to really make them the best browser family on earth. There are still lots of needed features not available in Opera. Build a 64-bit binary does not make the software even superior; you must agree 64-bit IE does not beat 32-bit Opera.

Originally posted by Alica:

Unless these plug-in vendors provide 64-bit version of their plug-ins, a bare 64-bit browser is quite useless.

That depends on whether or not the user needs or wants those plugins. Not everyone cares about having Flash, so for some people it won't matter if it's not available.

Would having a 64-bit version really help out speed that much? I mean, we're goin' pretty freakin' fast already, you know?

Also, 64bit plugins will not work with 32bit Opera...

^^

Yeh, there should't be much concern about speed yet. It needs to be working out in the wild first so it can be tested and become stable. Then, we can worry about performance.

I've read somewhere that there already is a 64-bit Opera in the labs, but they won't release it until it's necessary due to it's buggy nature.

I would love this, obviously, since I come back every few weeks and post in these threads. We can't prove to Opera that there's demand without these threads, and we can't prove to plugin devs that there's demand without 64 bit browsers.

So it starts with us and the browser devs.

Bring it on. It may not even get endusers many obvious gains (I think they said the encryption code would get the most benefit, though I didn't go look for the post) but it gives Opera even more cred in the techie realm.

I would also like to see a Windows 64bit version.

+1

Add me to 64-bit Opera wishlist

I also would like to see a 64bit Opera!

I use Windows 64 bit, and I wish a 64 bit Opera as well!

Can someone explain to me what real, noticeable benefit 64-bit version gives? Besides being cool, trendy and "OMFG!!11 64bitzz!!!"?

Page rendering doesn't need 64bit arithmetic, doesn't need more than 4GB of ram. It might be tad faster due to few extra registers x86-64 offers, but it may as well be bigger (and bigger means slower, because less fits in cache) because of 64-bit data types and alignment.

Originally posted by porneL:

Can someone explain to me what real, noticeable benefit 64-bit version gives? Besides being cool, trendy and "OMFG!!11 64bitzz!!!"?

Page rendering doesn't need 64bit arithmetic, doesn't need more than 4GB of ram. It might be tad faster due to few extra registers x86-64 offers, but it may as well be bigger (and bigger means slower, because less fits in cache) because of 64-bit data types and alignment.

Generally everything will be executed faster, not that nowadays computers wouldn't had plenty of "extra" power alreadty, but why NOT do it?

64-bit application doesn't mean it will be any bigger in size, nono... But are we really in that point where "anyone" can made any application and not optimize it in any way, just because "it will still run, you got the MHz"?! THAT is most lame exuse... Anyone remember transition in 16-bit to 32-bit? Back then applications became 32-bit blazingly fast because back then all speed improvement was welcome... It will be similar improvement from 32-bit-->64-bit applications, if developers just starts actually DO 64-bit stuff...

I know doing it good will take lot of resources etc, but I am totally satisfied when I get the answer "we will do it X time ahead".

Originally posted by porneL:

Can someone explain to me what real, noticeable benefit 64-bit version gives? Besides being cool, trendy and "OMFG!!11 64bitzz!!!"?

Page rendering doesn't need 64bit arithmetic, doesn't need more than 4GB of ram. It might be tad faster due to few extra registers x86-64 offers, but it may as well be bigger (and bigger means slower, because less fits in cache) because of 64-bit data types and alignment.

This is not true! my blog scrolls better in the 64bit version of Firefox and MSIE (I have Windows XP 64Bit, too!) and smooth. It does not so in the 32bit browsers!

I've compared 32-bit G3/G4 optimized Firefox with G5 64-bit optimized build using bench js site. The funny thing is that 64-bit version wasn't faster at all - actually it was marginally slower than 32-bit version. I can't notice any performance difference on regular sites.

Originally posted by porneL:

I've compared 32-bit G3/G4 optimized Firefox with G5 64-bit optimized build using bench js site. The funny thing is that 64-bit version wasn't faster at all - actually it was marginally slower than 32-bit version. I can't notice any performance difference on regular sites.

So it just HAS TO be totally useless because javascript isn't faster? Is FF's "64-bit optimized" build just (almost) same source and builded just using 64-bit builder? Or is FF 64-bit made 64-bit in mind? All these things affects much how well any code works... Again I ask is it really 'correct' to NOT have 64-bit (really made for 64-bit in mind) just because "your machine can do it anyways".

Originally posted by olmari:

So it just HAS TO be totally useless because javascript isn't faster?

Javascript benchmark was just most precise test I could find. I don't notice any difference in CSS/HTML speed either.

Again I ask is it really 'correct' to NOT have 64-bit (really made for 64-bit in mind) just because "your machine can do it anyways".

There is cost of developing 64-bit version (and if you want more than just recompile, this cost may be huge). There is cost of distribution and lots of problems with confused users (99% of population doesn't know what a bit is and how many of them a "Dell" needs).

And the advantages are minimal. Coolness and correctness are any noticeable I can think of. As far as I know web technologies like HTML/CSS/JS don't use any features that 64-bit CPUs provide (big numbers math, several gigs of ram) and won't take advantage of them. Things like smooth scrolling aren't maxing out CPU, but rather RAM bandwidth. Pages won't load faster, because network speed is the bottleneck and even if you had infinitely fast CPU it couldn't save you more than a microsecond.

So why wont we just use 1-bit systems then? it would be the same performance anyways...

Like I already mentioned, there are bits of browsing that would get a definite enhancement, such as authenticated sites (good encryption is often 128 bit or better.)

The executable would be bigger, since it would use 64 bit pointers instead of 32, but there wouldn't be any less fitting in cache, since there are MORE cache registers in AMD64/EM64T and ALL OF THEM are 64 bit.

Although the initial port possibly wouldn't show any improvement on general browsing outside of that, you never know what the future would hold in that direction.

I would want to have a 64 bit version of the browser because I want to be able to run my browsert without any compatibility mode hassles like chroot. The plugins will follow when there are browsers out there to use them. And if one really needs those plugins, they can install the 32bit version. And, in a relatively short time, the majority of customer desktops will be 64 bit.

Originally posted by porneL:

Can someone explain to me what real, noticeable benefit 64-bit version gives? Besides being cool, trendy and "OMFG!!11 64bitzz!!!"?

Computers are used for more than just web browsing. 64-bit architectures will replace 32-bit, and I for one prefer a clean 64 bit setup over compability layer sub-systems that replaces interoperability with overhead. Do you run many 16-bit applications on your computer? I bet they execute damn fast, but how well do they interact with the rest of your 32-bit system?

Originally posted by porneL:

Can someone explain to me what real, noticeable benefit 64-bit version gives? Besides being cool, trendy and "OMFG!!11 64bitzz!!!"?

Compatibility. (with the 64bit OS, 64bit plug-ins etc. and ease of installing/setup because you don't have to *make* a 32bit version work.)

The theme in general of all these 64bit threads seems to be requirement-based.

1.) If you are using a 64bit OS, you must be doing so because you gain direct performance over a 32bit OS. If you don't gain any performance, your reason for using a 64bit OS is not valid.

2.) If you have a 64bit OS that can run 32bit programs and you use a 64bit version of a program instead of a 32bit version, you must be doing so because you gain performance over the 32bit version. If you don't gain any performance, your reason for using a 64bit program is not valid.

The reason for a 64bit OS might not be for performance. The ability to address more memory and have apps use it, but not necessarily be faster at doing it, could be one motivation. Getting a 64bit OS just so you can use 64bit programs might be another. A program may only be available in a 64bit version. Planning for the future compatibility, might be another.

For Opera, it shouldn't matter why people use 64bit operating systems; only that people do. For Opera, there is a great reason to have a 64bit version and that's compatibility.

Opera has a 2^15 - 1 column limit on preformatted text (Actually a 2^15 - 1 window width limit). There are ways around this in 32bit programs (as seen in Firefox and IE and lots of text editors), but the problem in Opera *might* be fixed easier with a 64bit version. This, I don't know, but maybe. There are lots of things to consider besides performance.

I'm a bit late on this response, but hey...

Originally posted by porneL:

There is cost of developing 64-bit version (and if you want more than just recompile, this cost may be huge). There is cost of distribution and lots of problems with confused users (99% of population doesn't know what a bit is and how many of them a "Dell" needs).

It's pretty much the same ISA...if they really wanted to put the effort into it, it wouldn't be a very difficult port. True you have to change your pointers, your optimizations, and make sure your third party code is 64 bit safe as well, but in the grand scheme of things, that isn't a very big change. (The third party code bit I could see easily tripping people up.)

As to confused users, that's why you have warnings like 'Only for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows 2003 Server x64 Edition.' and 'If you don't know what those are, you don't have them.' and classy stuff like that (or actually classy stuff that I don't care enough to think up.) I doubt there'd be any confusion with a simple warning. Honestly, how many versions of Opera do we have already? Do people accidentally download the FreeBSD version and try to run it on Windows? (I pity them if they do.)

Well, OK, I'm convinced. I can let Opera make 64bit version now ;D

+1

I have just emerged gplflash on my 64 bit gentoo system, and got rid of macromedia's proprietary flash plugin - and now I have no working plugins in opera. Flash plugin - 64 bit, mplayer - 64 bit, totem - 64 bit, java - 64 bit, dejavu - 64 bit. I definately need 64 bit opera to handle that

Now try to tell me, that there are no 64 bit plugins

+1

A 64 bit version is essential for Opera's success in the next 2 years. I am currently testing out 64 bit builds of FireFox and Thunderbird for Win XP x64. They are already out there and are working relatively well. Opera has already fallen behind. Symantec has gone 64 bit, O&O defrag has gone 64 bit, and Office is supposed to drop the 64 bit v.12 this year. And let's not forget all the 64 bit goodness rolling out on Linux and Apple platforms.

I SIGN THIS PETITION TOO.
I WANT OPERA FOR FREEBSD AND LINUX AMD64.

OPERA ROX!

Originally posted by algorithm0:

Symantec has gone 64 bit, O&O defrag has gone 64 bit, and Office is supposed to drop the 64 bit v.12 this year.

Perfectdisk, Diskeeper, O&O (beta,) Symantec (bleh,) Avast, AVG, Java (without plugin,) several games...many .NET 2.0 apps...

The mainstay of apps that have been ported are those that can't be used at all in x64. I know several groups I've spoken to are working on x64 support though (Headlight Software, the paint.net devs, PGware for a few examples) and one of the devs had to abandon their normal development suite for it (as he was apparently still using an older one.) Most of those seem to be smaller companies or groups though...coincidence...probably not.

Add me too. Ubuntu! Is Epiphany 64bit?

Hmmm....I bet IE7 will have a 64 bit build...and from what I've seen so far on my XP HD, I like it.

Security bug already finded in IE7 beta2 by Tom Ferris

http://www.security-protocols.com/advisory/sp-x23-advisory.txt

Maybe Firefox will takeover the browser scene sooner than we think.
Anyhow Foxy have 64bit version for linux which I desperately need.

Nothing security about it. By the way it isn't beta 2. It's a beta 2 PREVIEW. Beta 2 is set to come in April.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/default.aspx
More specifically, http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/01/522682.aspx

We received reports this morning that a security researcher had found a bug in the IE7 Beta 2 Preview release. This issue reportedly crashes IE and is exploitable to execute arbitrary code on the user’s computer. Naturally, we take the security of IE and our users’ safety very seriously, so we investigated immediately. We did confirm that the bug crashes IE. However, we did not find that the bug was exploitable by default to elevate privilege and run arbitrary code.

This bug had already been found during our code review and analysis that is a mandatory part of our development process; it was scheduled to be fixed before our next public release. We do not believe this bug is easily exploitable, and as an extra defense, the /GS flag also catches the overrun. This is a compiler flag that tells Windows to watch for some classes of buffer overflows. If Windows sees a problem, it kills the application, in this case IE, instead of running the exploit code. While this is certainly not our primary line of protection, it does offer defense-in-depth to help keep our customers secure.

At this time, we are not aware of any active exploits taking advantage of this bug. We will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate our response.

Finally, I’d like to reiterate the importance of the responsible disclosure of security issues. We firmly believe that privately disclosing security issues to software vendors is the best way to keep the users of the world secure. To report a security issue against any Microsoft product, please contact secure@microsoft.com. For other feedback on IE7, please use the methods Jason mentioned yesterday.

ugh... this '64bit-ness' is playing out like the current enthusiasm in the hifi world for HDTV,
HDDVD, Bluray, and gold cables....

I think we need to take a step back, and wait for it to 'actually happen' and seperate PR
from whether it makes sense in reality..

Is it really worth pushing two products, both effectively the same, but with different plugin
requirements, to run on the same OS, especially when one market is barely mature yet??

It is the same with HDTV - it is being pushed like crazy, yet there is nothing 'real' to show on it yet...

or to go back to when PCI was very new, it performance was equal or less than the old bus slot
- it took time, and processor enhancements, to show it was actually far better...

I dunno about that, I see a lot on HD. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is another story entirely. I'm an early adopter, at least as far as I have the cash, and there's no way I'm bothering with either for a while. It's just companies being incredibly stupid.

We've already said why it makes sense in reality. Hell, Opera did too.

So I think your analogies are wayyyy too far reaching to be meaningful.

I'm with you on that.. but time will tell... The release of HD by SKY will start making it more serious, like (when and if) vista is a 'proper' 64-bit will tell...

-if you dont remember VESA, I can see why you might be confused..

I remember VESA, though I'm not old enough know what exactly it was.

I get most of my HD content over the air, ignoring DVDs for now...Fox, NBC, and all that. Some good stuff.

Another thing I wanted to mention was that I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible to make a unified plugin arch for 32 and 64 bit. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someone did, at any rate.

I've posted about this before, but I'll add it here to join the petition. I would love to have a version of opera for my 64 bit linux machine. It has nothing to do with speed. On linux, it's not trivial to mix & match 32 programs with a 64 bit kernel & dynamic libraries. You have to set up a whole seperate 32-bit environment for the app to run in. This is just something that I haven't had the time to do. So for the last 6 months I've had to use galleon instead. Chalk it up to laziness...

+1 My 64 bit processor hungers to crunch some numbers like it was born too.

Hi together, I would be happy to have an 64bit Opera Browser. And by the way, In the meantime there is a 64 bit Firefox Browser out !!

I read that they can't justify 64bit Opera because in web browsing you dont really see any real performance gains over a 32bit browser. Or something like that.

+1

I want Opera 64bits too (for Windows and PC-BSD) because 64 bits is the future, and it's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by shassouneh:

I admit I do not have a 64 bit machine, I only have a 32 bit athlon machine. But When the day comes that I want to upgrade, it WILL be to an AMD 64.

i have plans to buy an AMD 64 in the next two months. i had like an opera for my machine as well.

Originally posted by freedom4all:

If you are one of the people who would like to see a 64bit version of mine and yours favorite browser please sign below. Let's see how big is a "minority" of 64bit users.
Win Linux and all others... come on.

I'm with you=) My signature under petition too)

for a *real* test of how good or indifferent 64-bitness is, TGdaily has an article...