Google seems to have an odd way of deploying their Chrome browser. The first reaction when it appeared was, "Hey! Where’s the Mac and Linux versions? What gives?"
It was nothing short of strange why Google seemed to concentrate on Windows so much concerning their own browser offering. Granted, Windows is the most-used desktop operating system in the world, but hey, there are plenty of Mac and Linux users out there.
So now the 64-bit version of Chrome is available for…
Linux.
And nothing else.
I’m not kidding. Linux people can build it right now if they want to in all its 64-bit glory.
Windows people still get the 32-bit flavor only.
As for Mac OS X? It’s still in development. Sorry, Mac people.
In all seriousness, this is why so many people stick to Firefox. When Mozilla has a release of that browser, it’s worldwide, has almost every conceivable language version available and has versions ready for Windows, Mac and Linux that are ready-to-run.
And yes, there’s 64-bit Firefox just in case you were wondering (as well as several other Mozilla products).
I’m seriously trying to like Chrome.. but.. well.. um.. no.
To our Linux users in the audience, if you’re able to build a 64-bit Chrome and get it to work, please feel free to comment on your experience with it. Many would be interested in your thoughts on it.
Like what you read?
If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:
The 64 bit version works, but lags way behind the 32 bit version in pluging support. Only thing I have that works at this time is flash.
And Flash is another thing that is 64-bit enabled in Linux territory only. Good to know they at least work with each other. It’s a step in the right direction.
I still think Google Chrome beats all its competitors by far… the 64 bit version won’t take much longer te be release, I’m sure. Just be patient…
There is no version of MOZILLA branded 64bit anything.
The 64bit firefox is “minefield” branded, it is made by a third party that does not have the rights to the mozilla brand.
And no, people don’t “stick to firefox” because “it’s worldwide, has almost every conceivable language version available and has versions ready for Windows, Mac and Linux that are ready-to-run.”
it is a matter of functionality.
It all makes sense if you realize that coding for different platforms requires different code, as a result some code coincidently gets implemented first and google is releasing it when available rather then sitting on it waiting for it to work with all platforms.
Minefield is owned by Mozilla. Minefield is the name of the browser before it is branded. Because the browser is open source, Mozilla can’t have other people do custom versions of the browser and still call it “Firefox” – “Firefox” should only be the binary browser distributed by the Mozilla Foundation. Thus, when a distro builds their own version of Firefox it has a different name, typically Minefield. Typically, there are very very easy ways to put the branding “back”, however the different distros are not allowed to do this for you.
I think the fact that Adobe Flash is only available in 64bit Linux is probably the only reason Chrome isn’t available in 64bit on Windows and Mac. And who chooses their browser based on whether it is available on other platforms?
Google seems to be avoiding a half-baked offering (unlike Microsoft’s IE in 64bit).
Who needs more than 4GB of memory just for your browser that a 32-bit version would allow? I would rather have plug-in compatibility than a 5% performance boost that is hardly noticeable.
are you retarded? Minefield is Firefox 4 BETA. hence the name, “Minefield” because it crashes and has several bugs that need to be fine-tuned before full release. you could even find it on their own Firefox Website.
Minefield is by MOZILLA, not a third party, it is just the nightly build of Firefox. The common third party 64 bit version is Namoroka, which I am using right now, and works AMAZINGLY well.
Also, I’m sure many know this by now, but the 64 bit version of flash was just released as beta, and that I am also using right now, and works fine, I have not had a single problem viewing anything in flash with it.
Also, the most important thing to browsers to start supporting right now is HTML 5, because that has the power to completely replace flash. Anyone that doesn’t know about HTML 5 should start to look it up, it makes embedding videos easier than ever, and the canvas tag enables you to use java script to create everything from a complex 3D animation, to a first person shooter, to a simple mario game (I’ve seen them all already, and HTML 5 is still mostly in development).
Also, flash is very VERY closed, completely controlled by adobe, while HTML 5 is completely open, and in my opinion everything on the internet should be open (HTML, XML, Java, etc., out of all of these, Flash is the only one to have so much control on it).
Anyways, sorry for going off track a little, I was just pointing out why I personally think basing your browsers off of Flash support is stupid, plus I am just really hoping that more people switch to HTML 5 (youtube already has a beta HTML 5 version). Adobe just has too much control right now (web and graphic design).
And why exactly would you need more than 3 gigs of RAM support in your browser at the moment?
Man, you really give the impression of being a really really dumb person posting stuff like this on the internet.
And I hope you can handle criticism because I’m not saying this to insult you or anything.
Greets
wow, what a great name for you, “Retard”. If Minefield is Firefox 4 Beta, why did I use Minefield in Slackware about 5 years ago? Or do you honestly think Mozilla was working on FF4B *way back when* so to speak?
Before you flame people you ought to get a brain!@
Anytime you compile Firefox yourself, beta or stable, it’s branded Minefield. Of course most people only compile the beta/nightly builds so it makes sense to name it minefield because it may or may not crash, but seriously firefox is reserved for the offical binary releases of stable/beta versions. My precompiled Win32 Firefox 4 Beta 6 binary is not called minefield. If I were to download Firefox 3.6.10 STABLE, for Win32 or any other platform and compile it myself, it would still be minefield!