<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Considering that I consistently hit around 2 gigs mem usage on my win 7 x64 machine while using nightly 32a, what data is this that substantiates that no user has enough tabs open to hit the 32 bit mem usage limit? </div><div><br></div><div>Sid<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<div><br></div><div><a href="http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com">http://brownianmotionofthoughts.wordpress.com</a></div></div><div><br>On 04-Jun-2014, at 1:40, Judah Richardson <<a href="mailto:judahrichardson@gmail.com">judahrichardson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Alex Jordan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander3223098@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexander3223098@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">On May 12, 2014 2:46 PM, "Łukasz Tomczak" <<a href="mailto:tomczak.luk@gmail.com" target="_blank">tomczak.luk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I don't know why Mozilla keeps forgetting about x64 build of Fx. Time, when x86 was ruling passed. x64 is the future of IT, soon we won't have x86 systems and I don't know why x86 is a priority for them.<br>
Because, shocking as it may be, Mozilla is a very resource-constrained organization. Which would you rather do: keep going with x86, which is well-established in the marketplace and in mozilla-central, well-tested, and future-compatible, or spend a huge amount of effort on x64 for a very questionable[1] benefit? And remember that because x64 isn't backwards-compatible, Mozilla would have to maintain both (or drop x86, and lose the large portion of users who don't have x64 yet - cutting into Firefox's already relatively small market share).<br>
Think about all that for a minute. That's why Mozilla doesn't focus on, as you label it, "the future of IT".</p>
<p dir="ltr"> [1]: x64 binaries are larger, slower, and IIRC provide no security benefits. </p></blockquote><div>FWIW, Chrome x64 builds for Windows just <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows-canary-and.html">dropped</a>, and Google is claiming <i>speed, security, AND stability</i> advantages over the 32-bit builds. Clearly Chrome != Firefox, but hey.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">And data shows that basically no one has enough tabs and windows to actually hit the x86 memory limit.</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Nightly-testers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Nightly-testers@mozilla.org">Nightly-testers@mozilla.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/nightly-testers</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>