Google kicks off 64-bit Chrome for Linux

Stephen Shankland CNET News | August 21, 2009 4:46 AM PDT

Summary

The search giant has started work on a 64-bit version of Chrome, though it is Linux-only for now.

Topics

Google Inc., Linux, Chrome, Chromium Linux, V8, 64-Bit, Network Technology, Processors, Semiconductors, Hardware, Components, Networking, Google, Stephen Shankland CNET News

Vendor HotSpot

Here to help you with your Document Management Needs

Read the DocuMentor blog now

Learn More »

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.

This article was originally posted on CNET News.

Talkback Most Recent of 16 Talkback(s)

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Linux distro - Appliance/Devices = future!

The future is Linux derived Appliances/Devices in which it performs a function with plug_in modules.

The days of MS Windows Operating Systems that take 20G on a server will end. Many companies are going appliance based solutions for DNS/DHCP/EMAIL and the list goes on and on. Just like Barracuda SPAM/Firewall's Linux based devices that WORK without reboots, viruses, worms, hackers picking it to pieces.
Christian_<><
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: Google kicks off 64-bit Chrome for Linux

And nobody cares! Why? Because there are two major problems with this. 1. Its Google. 2. Its linux.
Loverock Davidson
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flagged
Somewhat agree, but it's a first step

Google is a big name in the industry. Hopefully
they'll spur not just the browser market, but
all software vendors to ready their 64-bit
versions to market. If they ever release a 64-
bit Chrome browser on Windows, you can get the
race will be on.

In general, I'd like to see all software make
far better use of 64-bit chips and OS's and
effective use of multiple cores. Where today we
might not see a speed improvement, today's
platform already holds the promise of
performance improvements for tomorrow.
Spats30
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
You cared

enough to follow the link to the story and, I suspect, to read it.

Every journey starts with a first step and from that first step only a fool would declare the journey a success or a failure.
Viva la crank dodo
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Who's nobody

Who's "nobody" and why do you feel compelled to tell us that he cares?
zak89
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Its loverock

and its nice to know he cares.
Viva la crank dodo
21st Aug 2009
- Flag
hear hear!

there are ten major problems with this. 0. it wouldn't be, except that it is 1. 1. Its Google.
pgit
25th Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: Google kicks off 64-bit Chrome for Linux

32 bit still sucks on Linux. Why would they bother for 64 bit?
znetlol
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
perhaps

Perhaps it's for their Chrome OS they plan to
release.
Spats30
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Where is why.

It's simple. Think of what a 64-bit Chrome
browser running on the 64-bit Chrome OS. I'm sure
a 64-bit Chrome browser would be a killer
application on Google's own Linux based OS.
TJGodel
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Doesn't matter

there are still FAR more Windows 64 bit users than any other OS in use, total. The real difference is Linux users are more egotistical than your average user and want a 64 bit browser for bragging rights. The funny thing is we hear how much more efficient Linux is with memory yet for some reason they need their browsers and Flash to support more than 2GB.
LiquidLearner
23rd Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag
Wrong again

In you remarks, do you mean that numbers equal quality? I take offense to your assertion that we Linux users are egotistical. While that may be true in a few cases, it is not the norm. Could the charge of egotism be also leveled at some Windows users? You were correct in recognizing the greater memory registers present in 64bit OS/CPUs. As for myself, I began with Win 3.1 and went through the upgrades through WinXP. The Win2k was the last version I really liked. I now prefer Linux, and I am pleased to see the apps for that OS being refined and extended.
Sagax-
23rd Aug 2009
- Flag
Put your toys back in the pram, please

there are still FAR more Windows 64 bit users than any other OS in use, total.

Really? Do you have any evidence of that? You certainly haven't provided any. And I'd be interested in how you measured the number of 64 bit Linux machines in use any way.

The real difference is Linux users are more egotistical than your average user and want a 64 bit browser for bragging rights.

This just sounds like sour grapes to me. People with 64 bit machines want a native 64 bit browser - it's that simple.

I won't bother quoting your final rant; suffice to say that machines with > 2 GB RAM are commonplace these days, and so naturally Linux will support them. Of course.
Zogg
24th Aug 2009
- Flag
It's not just the memory

Agreed, though I'd like to add that 64 bit isn't just about using >2GB ram. 64bit is about having a 64-bit wide data bath for the processor. It can thus transfer twice as much data per transfer, so the performance boost of using 64bit is probably somewhere in the ballpark of using DDR memory.

I've been using 64bit since I got Vista 64bit in 2007. Back then I somewhat regretted the choice, as 64bit wasn't really ready. That was 2 years ago, however. Now, 64bit is ready. I say this having used various 64bit machines, with 64 bit versions of various OSes including OSX, Linux, and Windows (XP, Vista, and 7).
Li1t
25th Aug 2009
- Flag
Most users will not notice a difference.

For most people, the advantages of 64-bit will be unnoticed. There is a security advantage to using 64-bit Windows, so it would be the way to go in buying a new computer.
jorjitop
21st Aug 2009
- Reply to
- Flag