OS and a Browser, Two Bits
January 14, 2011 12:05 PM Subscribe
Will Chrome or Firefox play nicer with my Win-7 64 bit computer than IE 8 is?
Here's the stats:
* Brand-new Dell Inspiron, Windows 7 64-Bit.
* IE8 32-bit AND IE8 64-bit are both installed.
* I have updated all other software (Adobe, Flash, etc.) and use AVG free for my virus protector.
Here's the symptoms:
For the first couple weeks, it would periodically just...freeze, and the only way to wake it up would be to power down and start it up again. I updated all third-party software and ran some registry fixes (the one on Microsoft's site) and that helped some; narrowing the freezing episodes down to when I was using my browser. I poked around in some Windows help fora, and found a number of people reporting that the 64-bit version of IE8 was giving them problems. So I've tried taking the extra step of specifially calling up the 32-bit version, and that has been helping a lot.
But -- this seems like a cumbersome solution. So I wanted to try either Firefox or Chrome. However -- I've been seeing mixed reviews when it comes to how well Firefox or Chrome work with the 64-bit version of Windows 7; most reports I've seen have stated that Chrome and Firefox work okay with the 32-bit version of Windows 7, but less so with the 64-bit.
Should I try either of them anyway? Or stick with what seems to be working? (Let me also issue the caveat that while it sounds like I know what I mean by "64-bit", I really don't; I'm just repeating what other sites have said.)
Here's the stats:
* Brand-new Dell Inspiron, Windows 7 64-Bit.
* IE8 32-bit AND IE8 64-bit are both installed.
* I have updated all other software (Adobe, Flash, etc.) and use AVG free for my virus protector.
Here's the symptoms:
For the first couple weeks, it would periodically just...freeze, and the only way to wake it up would be to power down and start it up again. I updated all third-party software and ran some registry fixes (the one on Microsoft's site) and that helped some; narrowing the freezing episodes down to when I was using my browser. I poked around in some Windows help fora, and found a number of people reporting that the 64-bit version of IE8 was giving them problems. So I've tried taking the extra step of specifially calling up the 32-bit version, and that has been helping a lot.
But -- this seems like a cumbersome solution. So I wanted to try either Firefox or Chrome. However -- I've been seeing mixed reviews when it comes to how well Firefox or Chrome work with the 64-bit version of Windows 7; most reports I've seen have stated that Chrome and Firefox work okay with the 32-bit version of Windows 7, but less so with the 64-bit.
Should I try either of them anyway? Or stick with what seems to be working? (Let me also issue the caveat that while it sounds like I know what I mean by "64-bit", I really don't; I'm just repeating what other sites have said.)
I would just ignore the 64bit version if IE. There's no reason for it, and it doesn't do anything the 32bit version doesn't do, and whatever it does do, it does worse.
Firefox and Chrome are both 32bit (although there are 64bit versions if you look hard).
posted by blue_beetle at 12:12 PM on January 14, 2011
Firefox and Chrome are both 32bit (although there are 64bit versions if you look hard).
posted by blue_beetle at 12:12 PM on January 14, 2011
You should avoid IE anyhow. Switch to something not that.
As for the freezing, I've never heard of a computer these days that would completely give up on you when the browser would have a fit. But I'm not a heavy Windows user (just XP in some offices I deal with) and use OS X and Linux personally, so who knows if Windows is back to completely locking up when an application misbehaves.
posted by Brian Puccio at 12:14 PM on January 14, 2011
As for the freezing, I've never heard of a computer these days that would completely give up on you when the browser would have a fit. But I'm not a heavy Windows user (just XP in some offices I deal with) and use OS X and Linux personally, so who knows if Windows is back to completely locking up when an application misbehaves.
posted by Brian Puccio at 12:14 PM on January 14, 2011
The 64bit version of IE is really, really pointless. No plugins work with it (flash, etc) and it's horrid at what it does. Stick with FF or Chrome, or at minimum 32bit IE.
posted by msbutah at 12:15 PM on January 14, 2011
posted by msbutah at 12:15 PM on January 14, 2011
Response by poster: I would just ignore the 64bit version if IE. There's no reason for it, and it doesn't do anything the 32bit version doesn't do, and whatever it does do, it does worse.
I actually looked into how to uninstall it, but the forums I've looked at all say that Windows7 will just re-install it when I boot up next time. It's also the default browser no matter what I select, they say, so I have to specifically pull up IE 32-bit each time. Which is doable, just...clunky.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:16 PM on January 14, 2011
I actually looked into how to uninstall it, but the forums I've looked at all say that Windows7 will just re-install it when I boot up next time. It's also the default browser no matter what I select, they say, so I have to specifically pull up IE 32-bit each time. Which is doable, just...clunky.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:16 PM on January 14, 2011
Best answer: IE is considered a key component of windows, so getting rid of it is a right pain. Just swap the shortcut on the desktop for the 32-bit version ("C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe")
I suspect you've probably got a dodgy plugin or toolbar - possibly from antivirus software. Or maybe it's just flash. You could always give the IE9 beta a try.
That all said, IE is teh suck, and chrome and firefox (32 bit) work just merrily on all the windows 7 x64 PCs I have - about 7 of them - and they have a bunch of nice plugins like adblock, flashblock and ghostery. Firefox 4 beta has been good and solid for me, or there's 3.6, the current 'stable' release.
I tend to switch between chrome and firefox as both put out new updates. I tend to gravitate back to chrome though - but they're free, so give 'em both a try!
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:25 PM on January 14, 2011
I suspect you've probably got a dodgy plugin or toolbar - possibly from antivirus software. Or maybe it's just flash. You could always give the IE9 beta a try.
That all said, IE is teh suck, and chrome and firefox (32 bit) work just merrily on all the windows 7 x64 PCs I have - about 7 of them - and they have a bunch of nice plugins like adblock, flashblock and ghostery. Firefox 4 beta has been good and solid for me, or there's 3.6, the current 'stable' release.
I tend to switch between chrome and firefox as both put out new updates. I tend to gravitate back to chrome though - but they're free, so give 'em both a try!
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:25 PM on January 14, 2011
Chrome runs like a dream on my 64bit Win 7 machine at home. I've also revisted Firefox 3.6. of late and it's still superior to IE. Firefox 4 is reportedly expected in February.
posted by Verdant at 1:04 PM on January 14, 2011
posted by Verdant at 1:04 PM on January 14, 2011
Chrome also does a great job of sandboxing scripts/flash, so if something isn't behaving properly, your whole browser/computer isn't going to freeze up.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:32 PM on January 14, 2011
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:32 PM on January 14, 2011
nthing Chrome. Chrome plays very friendly in Win 7 64-bit. Works a lot faster than IE, and the default browser holds up vs IE.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:47 PM on January 14, 2011
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:47 PM on January 14, 2011
Everyone's already made the smart suggestion (Chrome), particularly as it sandboxes Javascript and Adobe Flash instances. However, for anyone who ever wondered "Wait, if there's no difference between 32 bit and 64 bit Microsoft Internet Explorer, why is the latter around?" the answer, according to the MSIE developers, is that they had to make it.
tl;dr: Microsoft Internet Explorer is such a core part of Microsoft Windows that if you run a 64 bit version of the latter than a 64 bit version of the former must be offered. There are no other tangible benefits. This is probably the main reason why the 32 bit version is the default.
posted by asymptotic at 4:43 PM on January 14, 2011
tl;dr: Microsoft Internet Explorer is such a core part of Microsoft Windows that if you run a 64 bit version of the latter than a 64 bit version of the former must be offered. There are no other tangible benefits. This is probably the main reason why the 32 bit version is the default.
posted by asymptotic at 4:43 PM on January 14, 2011
is that they had to make it.
I just read that. It boggles my mind.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 8:13 PM on January 14, 2011
I just read that. It boggles my mind.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 8:13 PM on January 14, 2011
Best answer: Given the 'what' part is pretty well covered, I'll cover the 'why' a bit, i.e. why 64 bit, in a hopefully simplified manner.
At their heart, computer processors are just really, really fast calculators. 32-bit vs 64-bit just says how long a number you can put in the calculator. There are other advantages, but I won't go into that.
As memory sizes have grown, CPUs more powerful, and software has grown more complex, the need to use numbers bigger than 32-bit has grown. For example, the maximum memory you can use on a 32-bit system is 4GB, without dirty hacks. Many desktop computers now come with 6 or 8GB, or higher for workstations. So to use all that memory properly - and allow other programs to use it - operating systems and CPUs have had to switch to 64-bit. This is useful for programs like photoshop, that work on really big files. Office 2010 has a 64-bit version, for the same reason.
Current desktop processors from intel and AMD allow both 64-bit and 32-bit code to run at the same time. The operating system, i.e. windows, is just like any other code. Code can be either 64 bit or 32 bit - not both.
So windows 64 is built (compiled) for 64-bit. The most important bit from a user perspective is that the drivers also need to be 64-bit, or they don't work. Which is why a bunch of hardware is obsolete, as the makers won't issue new drivers for old gear - they want you to buy the new products that do have drivers.
So programs, software that run on windows needs to be 64-bit to talk to windows 7. Wait! There's a whole bunch of programs out there that are only 32-bit, and don't need all that extra memory for switching to 64-bit! How do we run those?
Well, Windows 7 64-bit has a little mini version of windows 32-bit inside, called windows on windows (WoW64) that allows it to run 32-bit programs, without them knowing they're in a 64-bit world. Included in that collection of libraries is Internet Explorer 32 bit. Given Internet Explorer is such a key internal part of windows these days, that other programs use to render HTML, you get it whether you want it to or not. IE, the browser, is actually just a shortcut to core windows software, both in 32-bit and 64-bit. Getting rid of it kills quite a bit of internal functionality.
Thus 64-bit windows has to have a 64-bit internet explorer, regardless of whether it's actually any use to users or not. Browsers don't use enough resources to be worth the shift to 64-bit yet, which is why all the default browsers (IE, firefox, chrome, safari) are all offered as 32-bit programs - that run in 32-bit mode on WoW64 in Windows 7 64-bit.
64-bit versions of them do exist, but the problem is all the plugins are 32-bit - they need to be converted to 64-bit to work with a 64-bit browser. The big gorilla is adobe flash. Adobe have be flirting with a 64-bit flash, but killed it, so if you want to use flash, you need a 32-bit browser.
We've actually been through all this before in the desktop world - when processors switched from 16-bit to 32-bit. Windows 3.1 was 16-bit. Windows 95/95 was a hybrid of 16-bit and 32-bit, and windows 2000 and XP are 32-bit native with a similar Windows on Windows set of libraries that allow them to run 16-bit code.
Windows 7 disposed of that 16-bit WoW, which is why it won't run windows 3.1 programs, and some windows 95 software.
Theoretically, 64-bit software will be faster than 32-bit code on current processors, but it depends on various factors, so 64-bit can actually be slower. In practise, the speed difference is virtually nil right now. So when installing windows 7, it makes more sense to go with 64-bit (assuming your processor can handle it - not all can, such as netbooks) and be able to use more RAM.
Windows 8 will probably be 64-bit only (but still with windows-on-windows to run 32-bit code) so it's worth getting used to it!
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:57 AM on January 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
At their heart, computer processors are just really, really fast calculators. 32-bit vs 64-bit just says how long a number you can put in the calculator. There are other advantages, but I won't go into that.
As memory sizes have grown, CPUs more powerful, and software has grown more complex, the need to use numbers bigger than 32-bit has grown. For example, the maximum memory you can use on a 32-bit system is 4GB, without dirty hacks. Many desktop computers now come with 6 or 8GB, or higher for workstations. So to use all that memory properly - and allow other programs to use it - operating systems and CPUs have had to switch to 64-bit. This is useful for programs like photoshop, that work on really big files. Office 2010 has a 64-bit version, for the same reason.
Current desktop processors from intel and AMD allow both 64-bit and 32-bit code to run at the same time. The operating system, i.e. windows, is just like any other code. Code can be either 64 bit or 32 bit - not both.
So windows 64 is built (compiled) for 64-bit. The most important bit from a user perspective is that the drivers also need to be 64-bit, or they don't work. Which is why a bunch of hardware is obsolete, as the makers won't issue new drivers for old gear - they want you to buy the new products that do have drivers.
So programs, software that run on windows needs to be 64-bit to talk to windows 7. Wait! There's a whole bunch of programs out there that are only 32-bit, and don't need all that extra memory for switching to 64-bit! How do we run those?
Well, Windows 7 64-bit has a little mini version of windows 32-bit inside, called windows on windows (WoW64) that allows it to run 32-bit programs, without them knowing they're in a 64-bit world. Included in that collection of libraries is Internet Explorer 32 bit. Given Internet Explorer is such a key internal part of windows these days, that other programs use to render HTML, you get it whether you want it to or not. IE, the browser, is actually just a shortcut to core windows software, both in 32-bit and 64-bit. Getting rid of it kills quite a bit of internal functionality.
Thus 64-bit windows has to have a 64-bit internet explorer, regardless of whether it's actually any use to users or not. Browsers don't use enough resources to be worth the shift to 64-bit yet, which is why all the default browsers (IE, firefox, chrome, safari) are all offered as 32-bit programs - that run in 32-bit mode on WoW64 in Windows 7 64-bit.
64-bit versions of them do exist, but the problem is all the plugins are 32-bit - they need to be converted to 64-bit to work with a 64-bit browser. The big gorilla is adobe flash. Adobe have be flirting with a 64-bit flash, but killed it, so if you want to use flash, you need a 32-bit browser.
We've actually been through all this before in the desktop world - when processors switched from 16-bit to 32-bit. Windows 3.1 was 16-bit. Windows 95/95 was a hybrid of 16-bit and 32-bit, and windows 2000 and XP are 32-bit native with a similar Windows on Windows set of libraries that allow them to run 16-bit code.
Windows 7 disposed of that 16-bit WoW, which is why it won't run windows 3.1 programs, and some windows 95 software.
Theoretically, 64-bit software will be faster than 32-bit code on current processors, but it depends on various factors, so 64-bit can actually be slower. In practise, the speed difference is virtually nil right now. So when installing windows 7, it makes more sense to go with 64-bit (assuming your processor can handle it - not all can, such as netbooks) and be able to use more RAM.
Windows 8 will probably be 64-bit only (but still with windows-on-windows to run 32-bit code) so it's worth getting used to it!
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:57 AM on January 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Incidentally, switching to 64-bit is not a trivial thing from a coding perspective, which is why it is a gradual process. Windows XP had a 64-bit version that was absolutely dire, and how virtually no driver support. Vista 64-bit was pretty bad. Windows 7 64-bit, they've finally ironed most of the bugs out. Office 2010 64-bit is buggy as hell though, so I recommend sticking to the 32-bit version of that for now.
Still, given 32-bit software has to run in the emulator, WoW64, there's some old 32-bit software that does not run well, mainly because they're relying on hacks and workarounds that don't exit in the emulator. Compability mode (where you right click on an app and tell it it's running on an XP machine, for example) actually turns some of those bugs back on so the software feels more at home!
posted by ArkhanJG at 2:14 AM on January 15, 2011
Still, given 32-bit software has to run in the emulator, WoW64, there's some old 32-bit software that does not run well, mainly because they're relying on hacks and workarounds that don't exit in the emulator. Compability mode (where you right click on an app and tell it it's running on an XP machine, for example) actually turns some of those bugs back on so the software feels more at home!
posted by ArkhanJG at 2:14 AM on January 15, 2011
Response by poster: Marking Arkhan as best for not only saying the magic words ("I have seven computers running Windows 7 64-bit and this works on all of them") but also being able to explain "what does 64-bit mean in the first place" in a way I could comprehend it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:13 AM on January 15, 2011
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:13 AM on January 15, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Perplexity at 12:07 PM on January 14, 2011