Chrome is 32bit only?

[kj]

I've been having trouble with a particular web site, and while looking for solutions found that problems with chrome seem to be on the increase due to its still being 32bit? I'm not sure that's the problem with this website (although it could be a java issue), but I was amazed there's no 64bit version. I guess the excuse is "plug-ins", but Holy Cow, how could that really be an issue after 10yrs. of 64bit? kj.

[Chakravartin]

Yes. Chrome is waaay behind.

[gabester]

What benefit is there to a web browser being 64-bit beyond a modest boost to ASLR security...?

[Chakravartin]

gabester wrote:
What benefit is there to a web browser being 64-bit beyond a modest boost to ASLR security...?

It needs to be 64-bit to use the latest (more secure) 64-bit plugins and it needs 64-bit memory management so that it plays well with the 64-bit Mac OS because the 32-bit version is clunky, crash-prone and tends to gobble system resources like a hamster with a roll of toilet paper.

[kj]

Speed, compatibility/security (chrome can't use the latest java), and I've been having things lock up pretty regularly for the first time ever (also with adobe reader), and I think this might be the reason. I'm not having the same problems with firefox (which I don't like). I don't know what to think, but I can't see a good reason for them to continue with 32bit when 64bit is the norm now. kj.

[tortoise]

going against the grain on this one, I dumped the Safari browser a couple of years ago due to the unresolved memory leak issue when using multiple pages with multiple tabs in them. Did an update over the weekend for a business client (who stays out of date owing to problems with his many business applications that have been broken in the past by frequent updates), moved him from Leopard to Snow Leopard, all went well except Safari, which was broken by the update and refused to open after the update. Did considerable research on the web and found this particular combination produced similar results for thousands of users, tried to repair on my own using combination of uninstalling flash, trashing Safari app and preferences and reinstalling from stand alone installer all to no avail. Monday morning was on the phone with AppleCare for almost two hours, first level tech was very good and he repeated all my steps and a few of his own but no joy. Transferred me to Senior level tech who spent another hour with me trying all sorts of esoteric stuff but again Safari merely opened to blank page and spinning beach ball. He was about to start a full reinstall of the operating system but client balked and could not afford to have his business shut down for the many additional hours that would entail, so I politely ended the call. Downloaded and installed Chrome, imported his favorites and his browsing history and had him back in business in ten minutes flat. He loves the speed of Chrome and will likely never look at Safari again as he said it never was very reliable or stable. Average users care little about 32 or 64 bit all they want is for the bloody thing to work. OH GEE is that not a familiar claim that Steve and Apple used to strive for? "It just works" as I remember?

[Chakravartin]

tortoise wrote: Average users care little about 32 or 64 bit all they want is for the bloody thing to work.

That's why people use Safari. It simply works.

Complaining about it because your client hosed his OS and you couldn't fix it after a big and ill-advised OS upgrade doesn't put the browser in a bad light at all.

(BTW: I use Firefox. 'Can't stand Safari.)

[decay]

Try Multi-Safari

http://michelf.ca/projects/multi-safari/

Safari normally uses the Web Kit framework found inside Mac OS X to render web pages and execute javascript. This means that if you preserve an old version of Safari to run it on a newer version of Mac OS, it will use the newer Web Kit found in the system and you will get the same results as with the newer version. Thus, you would normally need a separate installation of Mac OS X for each version of Safari you want to test a website into.

These special versions of Safari use the original Web Kit framework that came with them, bundled inside the application. They will mimic original Safari rendering and javascript behaviours. HTTP requests and cookies however are still handled by the system and may not work exactly the same.

[tortoise]

Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=tortoise]Average users care little about 32 or 64 bit all they want is for the bloody thing to work.

That's why people use Safari. It simply works.

Complaining about it because your client hosed his OS and you couldn't fix it after a big and ill-advised OS upgrade doesn't put the browser in a bad light at all.

(BTW: I use Firefox. 'Can't stand Safari.)
If you did the research I have done on the two items I mentioned, memory leaks that bogs Safari even on my healthy MacPro running Lion with 16GB of RAM as well as the problems I encountered with the clients system you would discover that it simply does NOT work for many thousands of users and they have been complaining about it for years with no resolution. This particular thread on the Apple support communities discussion forum dates back to July 2011 and people keep coming back looking for a solution, I visited there myself many times but finally gave up and switched to Chrome and FireFox have never looked back. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3190569?start=0&tstart=0

As to the "ill advised OS upgrade" it was a healthy system in all other respects and still is with the singular exception of Safari. I could not move him up any further owing to business applications that are yet to be compatible with Lion or later. And Safari is part of the upgrade so one is left with few choices.

[Chakravartin]

"Ill advised" because you didn't fix the underlying problem before the upgrade.

OS upgrades tend to exacerbate problems rather than fixing them.

...And people sounding off in Apple's forums are by definition not the people with solutions.