• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
August 20, 2009 2:41 PM PDT

Google's 64-bit Chrome starts emerging--on Linux

by Stephen Shankland
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 33 comments

Google has begun work on a 64-bit version of Chrome for Linux, a move likely to whip Linux loyalists into a lather of excitement.

"The V8 team did some amazing work this quarter building a working 64-bit port. After a handful of changes on the Chromium side, I've had Chromium Linux building on 64-bit for the last few weeks," said Chrome engineer Dean McNamee in a mailing list message Thursday.

V8 is Chrome's engine for running programs written in the JavaScript language common on the Web. Chromium is the open-source project behind Google's branded and supported Chrome browser, and McNamee shared instructions for programmers to build 64-bit Chromium.

Virtually all PCs today come with 64-bit processors from Intel or Advanced Micro Devices, but for desktop computing, 32-bit operating systems and software are common. The transition to 64-bit software is well under way--notably with Linux and Mac OS X--but the change isn't simple. In the browser world, for example, it can be problematic running a 64-bit browser with a 32-bit plug-in such as Adobe Systems' Flash, Microsoft's Silverlight, or Sun Microsystems' Java.

In 64-bit versions, programs can take advantage of larger amounts of memory, performance can benefit from extra storage spaces called registers on processors, and some mathematically intense computing tasks can run faster. But along with issues such as broken plug-ins, 64-bit software can hog more disk space, complicate programmers' testing and support chores, and often doesn't really run appreciably faster, so the transition isn't necessarily a top priority.

For example, Mac OS X already is most of the way through its 64-bit transition, but 64-bit Safari won't arrive until Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, which is due in coming weeks. Apple, by the way, says that JavaScript will run much faster on the 64-bit version of Safari.

But Linux fans, who offset their smaller numbers with higher technical proficiency and a fondness for programming, are champions of 64-bit software. They hammered Adobe until it released a 64-bit version of Flash Player for Linux, and now they're agitating for 64-bit browsers.

Indeed, a discussion emerged on Wednesday about why a 64-bit version of Firefox isn't a higher priority.

"Optimizations such as the Tracemonkey JIT engine (a just-in-time compiler for JavaScript) have yet not been implemented for x86-64, which means that the i686 build will be faster than the x86-64 build," among other reasons, replied Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg.

Windows is another matter altogether for browser makers; although 64-bit Windows is a common option nowadays on new machines, the vast majority of existing ones are still using 32-bit Windows, and there are plenty of late adopters.

A 64-bit version of Internet Explorer ships with Microsoft's 64-bit versions of Windows, but Safari for Windows won't be available alongside the Mac OS X version when it debuts. The work to rebuild JavaScript engines for 64-bit chips applies to multiple operating systems, so producing a version for one operating system does help move a given browser to the others.

So what's standing in the way of 64-bit Chrome for Windows?

"Motivation," according to another message by Google's Marc-Antoine Ruel. Well, not just that. Google or others also need to work on the sandbox security mechanism and gyp programming tools, he said.

Originally posted at Deep Tech
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
Recent posts from The Download Blog
Log in with your face
See what's under McAfee's new interface
Tales2Go: Get on-demand audiobooks for children
Microsoft, Google split over browser bug bounty
Mozilla plans to drop Mac OS X 10.4 support
TweetDeck gets a few tweaks
Adobe promises faster Flash on Macs
Security software maker Vitamin D exits beta
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (33 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
by andrew.mager August 20, 2009 2:50 PM PDT
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by Mike Acker August 21, 2009 5:55 AM PDT
I think the signs point to a 64 bit standard pretty clear by now. I'll be moving to 64-bit -- and dropping any software that is not 64-bit.
by troyoverton August 27, 2009 8:49 AM PDT
Mike, <br />With all due respect, that doesn't make much sense, and at this point, I'd say there's quite a bit of software you'd have to do without. (Like Microsoft Office, until 2010 is released!) <br /> <br />I moved to a 64-bit environment with Ubuntu and Vista both, and I have yet to find issues with applications that are still only available as 32-bit. I have heard that some software issues exist, but fortunately, not for me. The "Program Files (x86)" situation does leave something to be desired, though. <br /> <br />I have also found that Win7 does an excellent job running any app I have tested, and I did use the beta and RC before moving to RTM (as an MVLS/MSDN/TechNetPlus subscriber.) Currently, I'm building images for us to deploy using strictly the 64-bit builds of the Enterprise Edition, and although I really like using other operating systems (besides Windows,) I feel like this is M$'s best offering since my previous favorite, Win2k. I am really excited about the possibilites for both Win7 and any possible Google/Linux offering. As I see it now, there are two things that keep Linux from becoming more mainstream, and those are (1) the support of a major player, one that would be well known to anyone online (like Google) and (2) streamlining the process for things like software management. I appreciate the attempts to make things easier for end users, but there are so many ways to do similar tasks in Linux that its offputting to casual linux newbies. It's imperative that the linux community create processes for things to be done, and make that process the best it can be, in terms of effeciency and flexibility. <br /> <br />We have to make computers (super) easy to use, hard to break, and powerful enough that the power users can retain (and maintain) control of their systems, network and overall infrastructure.
by LinuxRules August 20, 2009 3:12 PM PDT
If Chrome already was available on Google OS and that Google OS is Linux, why the hell is there no Chrome browser on Linux NOW?
Reply to this comment
by Police_States_of_America August 20, 2009 3:19 PM PDT
because linux lacks standards and is harder to program for to cover all distros
by Seaspray0 August 20, 2009 3:25 PM PDT
Google OS is really a stripped version of linux, so it is already available on linux now... just the google os distribution. As police states of america stated, it's harder to program for all distros.
by Sausagebiscuit August 20, 2009 3:27 PM PDT
uhm, linux (among others) uses a standard library called glibc and you can choose GTK+ or QT standard. Choice, it's a wonderful thing. You code how you want, not how you are told.<br /><br />"The GNU C Library, commonly known as glibc, is the C standard library released by the GNU Project. Originally written by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU operating system, the library's development has been overseen by a committee since 2001,[2] with Ulrich Drepper from Red Hat as the lead contributor and maintainer."<br /><br />So which standards are you talking about? Mozilla Firefox runs on any platform with standard libraries installed.
by Shankland August 20, 2009 5:40 PM PDT
Chrome is available in developer preview version for Debian and Ubuntu; it's certainly not done or as mature as the Windows version, but it's moving along. Google plans to make versions of Chrome for other versions of Linux later.<br /><br />http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel#TOC-Linux
by amit_abhishek August 20, 2009 10:04 PM PDT
Not really... concept of binaries (something like .exe) exist in Linux world too. That's how Linux version of Firefox is shipped.
by sensorario August 22, 2009 8:26 AM PDT
What do you mean? You can get chrome dowloading chromiun-browser. I am using chrome in my ubuntu right now!
by kdwinnell August 20, 2009 3:24 PM PDT
Congrats on the new blog. Looking forward to it. <br /><br />Re: 64-bit Firefox, there may be some good technical reasons for not focusing now, but undoubtedly there'll be costs for that decision later. I wonder if it's a penalty of being community driven. There's not the driving voice and vision to move things in a new direction, or to be first in an emerging space. The sway of the small percentage out front just isn't enough to propel the organization where the largest audiences don't yet exist.
Reply to this comment
by Thad Boyd August 20, 2009 3:26 PM PDT
Yes. Because Windows has done so much better at moving toward 64-bit architecture than Linux has.
by contentcreator--2008 August 20, 2009 3:49 PM PDT
+1 to Thad --- Trying to say that Linux and OS X are ahead of Windows in 64-bit is a joke, right? Windows has several years lead in 64-bit ecosystem. Consumer laptops in Best Buy have been 64-bit for a while, and many pro-grade apps have had 64-bit apps for years now, the 64-bit versions are the norm. There are a bare handful of 64-bit Mac apps, Leopard was the first version even capable of usable 64-bit apps, and Snow Leopard WILL be the first 64-bit-internal version of OSX, equivalent to soon-doubly-obsolete XP-64 in how it handles 64 bits. Sure, you can run a 64-bit Linux now, but I don't think that matters a whole lot to the 99.9% majority of people. If you're a vendor and look at revenue curves for 64-bit apps, believe me, 64-bit Win has a huge head start.
by Shankland August 20, 2009 5:54 PM PDT
@contentcreator--2008 There certainly have been 64-bit versions of Windows for some time, but the full ecosystem (notably drivers) and the full customer base has not moved there en masse.<br /><br />Take as an example the area of digital photography, where you can run into a 2GB or 3GB (applications) memory limit a lot sooner. I use 64-bit versions of Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom on Vista 64. But for example codecs for various camera raw image formats generally aren't available from the camera manufacturers yet in 64-bit format.<br /><br />http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/codecs.aspx<br /><br />No Nikon, no Canon, no Pentax, no Sony, but yes Olympus. The transition is under way but it's a big battleship to turn. Fortunately, in my opinion, the advantages of 64-bit software are not so staggering that the world is missing out on huge locked-up performance gains.
by contentcreator--2008 August 20, 2009 7:50 PM PDT
Stephen - Sure, there are things that have not moved, there are islands of latency --- more so where many 3rd parties and legacy code are involved. Quicktime is an even more severe and annoying example. <br /><br />64-bit Win has been a commercially-significant market for several years now (starting in 2006), while 64-bit Mac is only now even possible (and only after significant Apple-required rewrites of apps). Still photography isn't as data intensive as video and animation, where 64-bit has been important for quite some time. The good news for Mac is that after all that delay, as 64-bit OSX apps become available customers are jumping on board immediately --- the ramp-up has been rapid for 64-bit OSX app pickup -- filling previously unfulfilled demand. <br /><br />My claim is that where 64-bit versions are available for substantive apps, they are picked up, that's been for several years now in Win, and starting now in Mac. That's based on measured ground truth in one compute-intensive area.
by Thad Boyd August 20, 2009 3:24 PM PDT
Uh, because ChromeOS is still early alpha?
Reply to this comment
by Thad Boyd August 20, 2009 3:25 PM PDT
Er, that was in reply to LinuxRules's post.
by Sausagebiscuit August 20, 2009 3:30 PM PDT
While there is no need for a 64 bit browser yet, there will be one day. Flash is a big hold back right now... while it sucks, it's needed for alot of the internet. Other plug-ins will need to be recompiled also. Sun's java only recently offered a 64 bit runtime.<br /><br />They are right though, no big rush until you can't buy a 32-BIT os anymore. Just like the move from 16 to 32bit, it takes time.
Reply to this comment
by espeed623 August 20, 2009 3:37 PM PDT
It's pretty sad for Linux when Windows' proprietary browser has a 64-bit version that already exists. Apple is playing catch-up with Snow Leopard, which is including a 64-bit Safari 4, in which, speaking of, will be released in a matter of weeks.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland August 20, 2009 5:43 PM PDT
64-bit Windows Vista has a 64-bit version of IE, but I use the 32-bit version because of plug-in compatibility reasons. Things are gradually moving toward 64-bit, but there are a lot of moving parts and a lot of chicken-and-egg issues.
by dennisheadley August 21, 2009 11:04 AM PDT
I run vista 64 and by default if you click the IE icon on the start menu you get the 32-bit version, and it is also set as the default for the system for any application that launches a browser window, because quite frankly even MS knows that the 64-bit version is not really ready for prime-time. Nor is it up to the level of modern browsers in terms of 3rd party application support. <br /><br />Also to the above posts that 64 bit windows has been a viable OS for a long time. Before running Vista 64 I also ran XP Pro 64 and it was not a consumer useable operating system in any fashion. If you ran a business type computer with a certain type of business oriented components it would do the job ok. But once you deviated far from the mainstream business peripherals you might as well forgotten all about trying to use it. MS has been slowly incrementing over to 64 bit on the desktop and even Vista 64-bit has more than its share of driver issues and unsupported equipment , even some relatively new equipment. <br /><br />I have always run windows and almost always tried to stay with the NT line instead of the 95/98 line. And I cannot begin to describe the number of really good hardware devices I have had to give up over the years in transitioning from one version to the next for no good reason or have had to compromise with partial functionality. I would give any company that transitioned to 64-bit while creating the least amount of impact on the users the +1 for winning the 64 bit transition over the company that gets there first and makes the user scrap perfectly good equipment that should be supported but isn't. And that IS Microsoft's fault just as much as the hardware vendors.
by RompStar_420 August 20, 2009 3:55 PM PDT
I know what I know from using and Linux once setup is ROCK SOLID, Windows is NOT ROCK SOLID. Windows is more like a doughnut with a hole in the middle. But I welcome competition, I would love to use Windows one day that has a robust command line interface and great GUI, I'll look into it then, 10 years from now, when they embrace Linux through the Suse partnership.
Reply to this comment
by jscott418 August 20, 2009 3:56 PM PDT
I still am thinking 64 bit is not really a big deal yet. In fact many Snow Leopard testers say that it installs in 32 bit even on many 64 capable computers? So maybe 64 bit is just not there yet. I compare it to Blue Ray.<br />Yes, technically its better but will anyone really care.
Reply to this comment
by gerrrg August 20, 2009 5:08 PM PDT
As I see it, with Windows7 coming out in October, that's exactly how long Google has to produce a 64 bit browser for Windows, or else it's B4N.
Reply to this comment
by gerrrg August 20, 2009 5:12 PM PDT
I probably should have explained that...<br /><br />What I meant to say is, I've already pre-purchased upgrade to Windows 7 specifically to make use of more than 4GB of RAM on my computer - ideally 16 GB. If Chrome does not play well on 64 bit, I'll have to say goodbye for now, and use IE8 64bit.
by jake3373 August 20, 2009 8:13 PM PDT
I'm running win7 64-bit RC and I use 32-bit browsers, just because of flash and because IE is the only 64-bit browser I know... but I will not go to IE. Ever.
by libertyforall1776 August 20, 2009 8:22 PM PDT
Snow Leopard boots the 32-bit kernel by default on most Macs except XServes for compatibility reasons, but you can force it to boot 64-bit by default, just add under Kernel Flags String add the value arch=x86_64 in this file:<br />/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist<br /><br />or on a boot by boot basis, hold down either 64 or 32
Reply to this comment
by JuggerNaut August 21, 2009 8:14 AM PDT
Linux does not lack standards and if Google was smart, they'd meet the Linux distros halfway via the LSB (Linux Standard Base) project!<br /><br />http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB
Reply to this comment
by gb August 21, 2009 8:19 AM PDT
It feels like 64-bit is to computers as the 240+ Hertz war is to LCD tv's. People are assuming because 64 &gt; 32 therefore their computer will be faster and better. 99% of the computing public does not understand this subject yet are making it a purchase priority.
Reply to this comment
by richard993 August 22, 2009 5:56 AM PDT
Time to move on. 64-bit microprocessors are an outdated technology (more than 18 years old). Even 128-bit processors have been around for a while (PS2 had 128 bit registers) and many graphic processors handle 128 and 256 bit data busses. 16,384 Exabyte?s in terms of storage is a fairly large number in terms of addressable memory for 64-bit processors, but when it comes to precision and floating point calculations as well cryptography, 128-bit is already fading away... Most people aren't aware that most desktops are already 128-bit capable through SSE3... bring in the 256-bit processors and leave 64-bit processors for mobile devices and low end laptops! I'm extremely disappointed with Google's engineering department for taking so long to release a 64-bit version of Chrome. It only shows that they are not really that serious when it comes to open source and desktop strategy (maybe they are too busy chasing advertising $$$). Google?s engineers are not as clever as they had led us to believe... I wouldn't call them engineers if they are still using 32-bits.
Reply to this comment
by kirkpuppy August 26, 2009 5:32 AM PDT
What do you mean there's no 64bit version of Firefox? <br /><br />Mozilla provides their source code. It compiles fine for 64 bit. I built my own disto and have only 64 bit libraries, unlike most distros. The 64bit version of Firefox I compiled runs great with 64 bit Flash. I watch hulu stuff with it all the time.
Reply to this comment
by kirkpuppy August 26, 2009 5:55 AM PDT
Also, If you look at the build instructions for Chrome on 64 bit, they have you install 32 bit libraries before you build it. So Chrome's 64bit version isn't.
Reply to this comment
by Turtle9598 November 29, 2009 2:55 PM PST
I beg to differ sun HAS A OFFICIAL VERSION OF 64-BIT JAVA
Reply to this comment
(33 Comments)
  • prev
  • next

Search Download Blog posts

advertisement
Click Here

About The Download Blog

Download.com editors cover the world of downloadable software and beyond.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Download Blog topics