No 64-bit (x64) Firefox 4.0, 32-bit (x86) Only – List of Supported....

[Win7User512]

I'm happy to see all software headed to x64 land. This is a mistake IMO.

As far as Flash goes, it's dying a very slow, painful death.

 

[BCXtreme]

I think Flash is going to last longer than you think. Tons of websites still use Flash content over Silverlight and HTML5. I don't think HTML5 is ever going to replace Flash, as some (looking at you, Jobs) claim. I think HTML5 will just take away Flash's "basic" appeal for things like video, etc. High-end, professional, interactive stuff will still be on Flash and Silverlight, methinks, because I haven't seen anything in HTML5 that can accomplish that level of web development.

I believe Minefield users can still get "Firefox x64". Personally, if Mozilla is not confident that Firefox x64 could perform as expected in a general public release, then I think they're right to wait.

 

[Win7User512]

I think Flash is going to last longer than you think. Tons of websites still use Flash content over Silverlight and HTML5. I don't think HTML5 is ever going to replace Flash, as some (looking at you, Jobs) claim. I think HTML5 will just take away Flash's "basic" appeal for things like video, etc. High-end, professional, interactive stuff will still be on Flash and Silverlight, methinks, because I haven't seen anything in HTML5 that can accomplish that level of web development.

I believe Minefield users can still get "Firefox x64". Personally, if Mozilla is not confident that Firefox x64 could perform as expected in a general public release, then I think they're right to wait.

Even if Silverlight or HTML 5 doesn't kill flash, something will come along in the not-too-distant future. I never claimed either would. But perhaps something we cannot presently envision will.

As a side note, it appears Google could be playing with HTML 5 again.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/204923/whats_up_with_googles_bouncy_ball_logo.html?tk=hp_new

 

[BCXtreme]

I think Flash is going to last longer than you think. Tons of websites still use Flash content over Silverlight and HTML5. I don't think HTML5 is ever going to replace Flash, as some (looking at you, Jobs) claim. I think HTML5 will just take away Flash's "basic" appeal for things like video, etc. High-end, professional, interactive stuff will still be on Flash and Silverlight, methinks, because I haven't seen anything in HTML5 that can accomplish that level of web development.

I believe Minefield users can still get "Firefox x64". Personally, if Mozilla is not confident that Firefox x64 could perform as expected in a general public release, then I think they're right to wait.

Even if Silverlight or HTML 5 doesn't kill flash, something will come along in the not-too-distant future. I never claimed either would. But perhaps something we cannot presently envision will.

As a side note, it appears Google could be playing with HTML 5 again.

What’s Up With Google's Bouncy Ball Logo? - PCWorld

I'm not aware of any development that is that promising. Remember, a lot of people have predicted the "death" of a lot of things over the years, and many times they are wrong. Apple and their supporters have been predicting the death of Windows since Windows 1.0 came out, and it hasn't happened. Every new touchscreen phone is put through an "iPhone-killer" litmus test. And how many office suites are billed by their developers and users as the death of Microsoft Office?

Currently, Flash is #1 for professional interactive web development. Even if a new framework could compete with Flash on a significant level, you would still have the issue of many, many companies and developers not wanting to learn a whole new scripting language after spending their entire careers reaching fluency in ActionScript. A lot of the Flash developers I've come across are die-hards that will never go in for a whole new system.

Although that new Google logo is cool!

 

[Win7User512]

I've been thinking about today's Google.com logo. People are trying to figure out what it represents. I think they maybe be testing out having an animated logo every day. Seems a bit much, but Bing has a new photo every day. And while Google allows you to change the background of Google.com, they may be looking to differentiate itself from Bing.

 

[Lemur]

When it comes down to it, how many of us are using IE 64-bit? Again, for the same reason that Flash does not have 64-bit as of yet (they eventually will). I have minefield installed on a virtual pc, but have not really found a reason to run that as well.
As an example, I am interested in Second Life development for education. They have thus far refused to develop a 64-bit client. Other clients are integrating with the browser for SL. I'd love to see this go 64-bit, along with the client.

 

[Lemur]

As far as Flash goes, it's dying a very slow, painful death.

Apple is really sticking it to Flash. They (IMHO) really screwed Adobe over.

 

[Win7User512]

As far as Flash goes, it's dying a very slow, painful death.

Apple is really sticking it to Flash. They (IMHO) really screwed Adobe over.

Meh, I don't think Adobe has to be that worried about Apple. It's when Android and other mobile platforms find a new technology to use. Heck, Google may come up with a new rival that finally kills Flash. Not like Google will jump in with Silverlight LOL.

 

[bobtran]

As far as Flash goes, it's dying a very slow, painful death.

Apple is really sticking it to Flash. They (IMHO) really screwed Adobe over.

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Karma, plain and simple.

As for x64 firefox:
If in doubt about living without flash try "Flash-block" add-on for firefox and find out.

Link to the nightly x64 Firefox (as of 9/7/2010 Version 4.0b 6pre) build: http://nightly.mozilla.org/

 

[WindowsStar]

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Carma, plain and simple.

+1

 

[BCXtreme]

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Carma, plain and simple.

Plain and simple, besides the fact that you misspelled it, of course.

I still don't understand all this. Last time I checked, Flash is still at the top. Everyone is speaking as though it's already dead, which is definitely not the case. Every new iPhone that comes out is still attacked for lack of Flash support, Android supports Flash, that really doesn't sound like a "dead" software to me.

No one thinks that, even if HTML5 comes to compete with Flash, Adobe won't simply make Flash more advanced to counter it? Flash is an industry standard, plain and simple. No different than Windows, MS Office, and Photoshop. Until people stop using it completely, that's the way it's going to stay. I can think of several major websites that only stopped using Flash (or used it less) because Apple iOS, a massive market, doesn't support it. I'm not saying this is all Apple's fault, but you can't deny they've played a huge role here, despite the fact that their customers WANT Flash.

I can't even remember why we're talking about Flash instead of Firefox now. But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

 

[Lemur]

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Carma, plain and simple.

Plain and simple, besides the fact that you misspelled it, of course.

I still don't understand all this. Last time I checked, Flash is still at the top. Everyone is speaking as though it's already dead, which is definitely not the case. Every new iPhone that comes out is still attacked for lack of Flash support, Android supports Flash, that really doesn't sound like a "dead" software to me.

No one thinks that, even if HTML5 comes to compete with Flash, Adobe won't simply make Flash more advanced to counter it? Flash is an industry standard, plain and simple. No different than Windows, MS Office, and Photoshop. Until people stop using it completely, that's the way it's going to stay. I can think of several major websites that only stopped using Flash (or used it less) because Apple iOS, a massive market, doesn't support it. I'm not saying this is all Apple's fault, but you can't deny they've played a huge role here, despite the fact that their customers WANT Flash.

I can't even remember why we're talking about Flash instead of Firefox now. But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

+1 for the spelling of Karma.
+1 for saying Flash is alive and well

We're talking about FF and Flash in the same breath b/c it's prevalent on the Internet, yet not supported by the 64-bit version of FF (or IE).

In all fairness, here is an interesting article discussing Flash and HTML5
Flash Player: CPU Hog or Hot Tamale? It Depends.

 

[pparks1]

But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

I'm curious about this comment as well. I think most people screw Adobe as they often pirate Photoshop and don't pay for it....but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

I'm curious about this comment as well. I think most people screw Adobe as they often pirate Photoshop and don't pay for it....but that's a different matter altogether.

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

 

[pparks1]

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

 

[BCXtreme]

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

Because they do intend to at some point in the future. It's just that it won't be 4.0

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

Because they do intend to at some point in the future. It's just that it won't be 4.0

I figured that was the case, though I thought I'd ask just in case I was wrong. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[bigcitycat]

Hopefully Adobe's disinterest in producing 64bit flash will hasten the arrival of html5. That would be a nice way to bite them in the ass.

 

[Klaw117]

Flash is also used in a lot of Facebook apps and Flash games (hence the name). Would HTML5 be able to do that?