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

[bobtran]

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.

+1 for the spelling error - my spell check let me down (I will correct it).

Perhaps "screwing" is a little strong, would you prefer "failing"?

Adobe has failed to place security very high on their agenda as opposed to the profit margin, while pushing out code that has been shown to be less than stellar where tuning is concerned causing the much debated CPU/GPU hog controversy.
Adobe further has failed, I repeat failed to produce a usable Flash player for x64 despite promises in version after version (We were promised a x64 for windows in version 9, but now at 10.1 and still not available). As a matter of fact after producing a working x64 flash player for Linux x64 OS Adobe has recently announced that they are pulling back from this player and will only provide/support an x86 version from now on.

A lack of an x64 flash player is the single biggest hold up to wider adoption of x64 browsers and OS's. x86 browsers are slower, more prone to virus's and have a higher instance of freezing and crashing due to flash issues than any other plug-in.


I will grant you that flash is the dominant product on the market and that it has been a good tool for web programmers but I will also point out that in version after version the stability and reliability of the flash player has suffered as a result of the need to push out something newer as opposed to better. Not a week goes by that Adobe isn't pushing out a patch to the flash player and the update process is less than stellar.

Adobe is a market leader and as such has a wider responsibility to further the environment that they profit from and this has not been their strong suit for a long time. They complain about Apple all the while they have turned their backs on their own product and are just resting on their laurels instead of leading the way as a market leader should.

I also doubt that "most" people using Photoshop are pirating their copies. I would guess that most people have paid through the nose for this product. But the cost of Adobe products is a different matter for discussion somewhere else.

 

[BCXtreme]

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.

+1 for the spelling error - my spell check let me down (I will correct it).

Perhaps "screwing" is a little strong, would you prefer "failing"?

Adobe has failed to place security very high on their agenda as opposed to the profit margin, while pushing out code that has been shown to be less than stellar where tuning is concerned causing the much debated CPU/GPU hog controversy.
Adobe further has failed, I repeat failed to produce a usable Flash player for x64 despite promises in version after version (We were promised a x64 for windows in version 9, but now at 10.1 and still not available). As a matter of fact after producing a working x64 flash player for Linux x64 OS Adobe has recently announced that they are pulling back from this player and will only provide/support an x86 version from now on.

A lack of an x64 flash player is the single biggest hold up to wider adoption of x64 browsers and OS's. x86 browsers are slower, more prone to virus's and have a higher instance of freezing and crashing due to flash issues than any other plug-in.


I will grant you that flash is the dominant product on the market and that it has been a good tool for web programmers but I will also point out that in version after version the stability and reliability of the flash player has suffered as a result of the need to push out something newer as opposed to better. Not a week goes by that Adobe isn't pushing out a patch to the flash player and the update process is less than stellar.

Adobe is a market leader and as such has a wider responsibility to further the environment that they profit from and this has not been their strong suit for a long time. They complain about Apple all the while they have turned their backs on their own product and are just resting on their laurels instead of leading the way as a market leader should.

I also doubt that "most" people using Photoshop are pirating their copies. I would guess that most people have paid through the nose for this product. But the cost of Adobe products is a different matter for discussion somewhere else.

The reason they're resting on their laurels is because they have no realistic competition. Despite Silverlight's superiority, and HTML5's fanboy following, Adobe just laughs at them because they're not even coming close. If someone actually comes along with a viable alternative to Flash that becomes widely adopted, you'll be surprised how fast Adobe steps up their game. It's a basic principle of a free market economy. Another basic principle says that if Flash did have a major competitor, the prices of both would drop somewhat.

In short, what we need is competition for Flash, not for Flash to die. Flash's death would merely cause another giant to raise up with no competition, and the cycle would start ALL over again...

 

[Klaw117]

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.

+1 for the spelling error - my spell check let me down (I will correct it).

Perhaps "screwing" is a little strong, would you prefer "failing"?

Adobe has failed to place security very high on their agenda as opposed to the profit margin, while pushing out code that has been shown to be less than stellar where tuning is concerned causing the much debated CPU/GPU hog controversy.
Adobe further has failed, I repeat failed to produce a usable Flash player for x64 despite promises in version after version (We were promised a x64 for windows in version 9, but now at 10.1 and still not available). As a matter of fact after producing a working x64 flash player for Linux x64 OS Adobe has recently announced that they are pulling back from this player and will only provide/support an x86 version from now on.

A lack of an x64 flash player is the single biggest hold up to wider adoption of x64 browsers and OS's. x86 browsers are slower, more prone to virus's and have a higher instance of freezing and crashing due to flash issues than any other plug-in.


I will grant you that flash is the dominant product on the market and that it has been a good tool for web programmers but I will also point out that in version after version the stability and reliability of the flash player has suffered as a result of the need to push out something newer as opposed to better. Not a week goes by that Adobe isn't pushing out a patch to the flash player and the update process is less than stellar.

Adobe is a market leader and as such has a wider responsibility to further the environment that they profit from and this has not been their strong suit for a long time. They complain about Apple all the while they have turned their backs on their own product and are just resting on their laurels instead of leading the way as a market leader should.

I also doubt that "most" people using Photoshop are pirating their copies. I would guess that most people have paid through the nose for this product. But the cost of Adobe products is a different matter for discussion somewhere else.

The reason they're resting on their laurels is because they have no realistic competition. Despite Silverlight's superiority, and HTML5's fanboy following, Adobe just laughs at them because they're not even coming close. If someone actually comes along with a viable alternative to Flash that becomes widely adopted, you'll be surprised how fast Adobe steps up their game. It's a basic principle of a free market economy. Another basic principle says that if Flash did have a major competitor, the prices of both would drop somewhat.

In short, what we need is competition for Flash, not for Flash to die. Flash's death would merely cause another giant to raise up with no competition, and the cycle would start ALL over again...

HTML5 isn't that big at the moment, but in a few years, it will gain immense popularity, especially with YouTube and several top browsers offering HTML5 support. Now that I really think about it, Flash probably will not be 64-bit for another few years. With a new version of Flash coming out approximately every year, I would not expect Flash x64 until version 12 or 13.

 

[yowanvista]

Does not matter if no x64 is delivered, The new JS engine blows out IE9 previews:
Firefox 4 preview knocks back Jäger shot • The Register

 

[Win7User512]

Adobe has resumed Flash dev for iPhone. Adobe Resumes Work on iPhone Flash Tool After Apple Reversal | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

 

[Lemur]

I don't doubt Adobe will provide a 64-bit client. I'd rather wait for them to get it right, then to put out a buggy product with security issues.
Adobe Labs - Flash Player 10 for 64-bit Linux

 

[CreepinJesus]

...wait for them to get it right, then to put out a buggy product with security issues.

That didn't slow them down with the 32-bit version!

 

[si8mon]

Though once HTML5 properly takes off, there will be no point to 64-bit Flash.

Completely agree, hope this helps with the uptake of HTML5. So we don't have to be stuck with flash.

 

[kronckew]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

 

[kpo6969]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

Using since yesterday, updated today in nightly update option:

Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-central-win64

 

[Zidane24]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

TBH I doubt Mozilla will do so. To the public x64 flash was a surprise but I am sure that Microsoft and the other "big dogs" knew what Adobe was about to release

 

[mikedl]

OK, dumb question but to paraphrase the sig of one of our wonderful posters, the only dumb question is the one not asked, right?

...no, that's not the question...it's a long one...

If there is no 64 bit version of Firefox in the works then why does my 4.0b7pre show up in Task manager as a 64 bit process and why is the 64 bit Flash shown as a 64 bit process under the plugin-container item (note the absence of the "*32" designation on both)?:


I've installed the 32 bit 4.07bpre and it, along with the Flash plugin-container, will show as a "*32" process in task manager.

 

[stormy13]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

Using since yesterday, updated today in nightly update option:

Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-central-win64

Easier than wading through the ftp list,

Firefox Nightly Builds

 

[kpo6969]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

Using since yesterday, updated today in nightly update option:

Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-central-win64

OK, dumb question but to paraphrase the sig of one of our wonderful posters, the only dumb question is the one not asked, right?

...no, that's not the question...it's a long one...

If there is no 64 bit version of Firefox in the works then why does my 4.0b7pre show up in Task manager as a 64 bit process and why is the 64 bit Flash shown as a 64 bit process under the plugin-container item (note the absence of the "*32" designation on both)?:
View attachment 98213

I've installed the 32 bit 4.07bpre and it, along with the Flash plugin-container, will show as a "*32" process in task manager.

Minefield listed in programs, not x86 programs on my Windows C drive.

 

[mikedl]

Minefield listed in programs, not x86 programs on my Windows C drive.

Same here. When I had the 32 bit 4.07bpre it installed in the Programs(x86) folder whereas now, as you mentioned, the 64 bit(?) is installed in the Programs folder. Isn't this an indication that Mozilla is definitely working on a 64 bit browser for release 4?

Additionally, through the Resource Monitor, modules are indicated as being 64 bit based. There are a number of modules from the System32 folder but, then, 64 bit IE9 is the same way.

Some FF(x64?) modules (very partial listing):


Some IE9x64 modules (very partial listing):

 

[stormy13]

Minefield listed in programs, not x86 programs on my Windows C drive.

That's because they finally updated the installer to 64 bit. Before that while Firefox/Minefield (or Deer Park if you want to go back a bit further) were 64 bit, they still used a 32 bit installer and that is why it ended up in the Program Files (x86) folder. It still runs as a 64 bit process though.

The current 64 bit version of Thunderbird (code name Lanikai) still uses a 32 bit installer and installs to the x86 folder, but runs as a 64 bit process.

There are a number of modules from the System32 folder

Don't forget that despite its name that is where the 64 bit files go, the 32 bit versions go in the SysWOW64 folder (or at least they are supposed too).

 

[mikedl]

Thank you, Stormy. I appreciate that information. I thought the SysWOW folder was the 64 bit folder.

One quick note: Minefield, in and of itself, is not indicative of a 64 bit platform. Minefield is also available for 32 bit windows.

Many have already linked to here: Firefox Nightly Builds. All of the Windows versions are Minefield..

 

[bobtran]

So much for the meat of this thread, Flash x64 is still a little bit unstable but it is a FACT, which, I wasn't sure I would live to see. I have to take back all my rants about ADOBE (Tastes bad, but, I deserve it).

ATTABOY Adobe, I was wrong.......you done GOOOOOOOOOOOOD. Keep up the good work.

 

[Klaw117]

x64 flash now available, firefox, please give us a proper x64 version. x64 flash seems to work fine with ie9 and the plugin for firefox is available and works.

Using since yesterday, updated today in nightly update option:

Index of /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-central-win64

Easier than wading through the ftp list,

Firefox Nightly Builds

Will these builds update themselves or will I have to do it manually?

 

[mikedl]

They update themselves - nightly.