Register Clicky

Good news, a port is being made
I had a go on Chrome the other day, it was very nice and felt quite fast on the relatively old PC I was using, faster than IE7 at least...

It depends on what you are doing, IE8 is allegedly faster than Chrome at loading pages, but Chrome will beat it on JavaScript execution. I think Safari is still supposed to be faster than Chrome at JavaScript. Firefox falls a way behind Chrome and Safari in JS performance and way ahead of IE (all versions).

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you need from the browser. I use Safari and Firefox on OS X and Firefox on Windows (with IE for accessing Microsoft.com).

My biggest problem with Chrome (and Safari) is the lack of add-ins, currently. It really need a script blocker and a flash blocker before I would consider it as my standard browser.

For JS heavy sites I trust, I use Safari, for sites I don't trust, or haven't visited before, I'll visit them with Firefox, with NoScript and FlashBlock enabled...

There are plugins available for Safari on Mac. I don't know about Windows.

Last time I checked there were no plugins for these features.

Couldn't agree more.

As there isn’t a Mac version of Chrome to shout about yet, I call *shrug*

There is a Mac version of Chrome, but it is still a developer version, not a release version.

Do you really need a 64bit browser? You would have a larger memory footprint for the start due to more memory needed for addressing memory with pointers etc.

Yes, we need to draw a line under 32bit and move on. With a 32bit OS you have to try and make everything work with 4gb, but with the likes of Windows and Office gradually becoming more overweight, this is getting harder and harder. Switching to 64bit will increase the size of most apps compared to 32bit ones, but with a theoretical RAM limit listed in terabytes, this isn't an issue. Besides Vista x64 with 8gb RAM is just awesome - it would be nice to have a few more 64bit apps to run on it. Microsoft's biggest mistake was releasing a 32bit version of Vista. It was a great opportunity to draw a line under 32bit and push things forward, but alas it was not to be.

I disagree

We need to draw a line under 32bit OSs but not software, you don't need 4gb in a browser, I can appreciate other software needing it (I have 8gb and win7 64bit myself for development work) but browsers don't really cut it as memory intensive apps, especially when the most have seen mine with LOTS of windows open (youtube etc,) is under 1gb of RAM using Opera

I think the push should be to a 64bit OS, then the software will follow suit as naturally competitive companies will try to release a better product, and with limitations on 32bit software on a 64bit OS that will lead to more 64bit software

It is the same question people asked when we moved from 8 to 16 bit and from 16 to 32 bits!

The questions remain the same, now matter the "progress".

With more and more stuff happening in the browser, and a lot of this happening client side, it could be worth having more memory...Perhaps Google are looking into the future of their own products and can see the potential for more memory.

As Dave said, ten years ago my web browser used less than a few tens of megabytes and served pretty static content. But even the earliest netbooks were more powerful than that computer...

Absolutely, with google looking at Chrome being the centre of it's upcoming OS, a 64bit version will only strengthen their case.

Besides, a 64 bit OS or application doesn't have to use more RAM, but it can improve performance.

A 64 bit app WILL use more memory unless it is rewritten, its a fact due to the way the pointers to locations of memory are 64bit integers instead of 32bit integers, and these take more memory. It is a simple fact that every single memory allocation pointer, ever single integer etc will take up more memory as more bits are allocated.