Where is 64 bit Opera to download?
-
hucker last edited by
The amount of memory my Opera uses for the phenomenally large email and newsgroup database, it might have to be 64bit!
-
A Former User last edited by
I don't know how it's right now, but the 64-bit version used to have specific improvements for new processors.
Take a look: http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2012/10/02/illegal-instruction -
Deleted User last edited by
This is beyond weird. The other day I got a popup saying there was a new version of opera (I'm currently running 12.14, x64). I was busy at the time, so told it to remind me later. Well, today I needed to reboot the machine after installing a gazillion overdue updates, and at the last second remembered the notification. So, natch, I tell Opera to check for updates, so I can upgrade quickly before doing the reboot. Nothing. "You're using the latest version of Opera." Huh?
So I go and grab it off the website, using 64 bit Opera. Unbeknownst to me it downloaded the 32-bit version and installed it. It also installed it to the x86 directory. Imagine my surprise when Opera opens and I'm looking at a fresh, un-tweeked version with none of the pages I had open, no bookmarks --zilch.
I have the same questions everyone else does, but additionally, I'm wondering what version I'd have gotten had I let Opera "upgrade" itself the other day when I got the notice.
I have mixed feelings about the possibility of a forced change back to 32-bit. I don't know much about the actual differences between 32 and 64 bit, to be honest. Setting the arguments and hype aside I can at least say that, yes, ever since I switched to 64 bit, Opera has been utilizing an absolutely enormous amount of memory as compared to before and frequently displays the "not responding" dialogue. Previously, with 32-bit, I'd see 300-500 MB being used in the task manager. Now, with 64-bit, it's usually 1.5-2.0 GB (plus there's a new, secondary entry for plugins that eats up a few hundred megs by itself, although I don't know if that would now be present with 32-bit as well).
Using the link someone posted above, I now have 12.15, 64-bit, and will install it momentarily. However, I'll be keeping my eye on this thread, and would (as many would, I'm sure) like to know what the final word is going to be. Are we going to be switching or not? Honestly, if I've got to do manual upgrades for every new version, I'll go back to using Opera Portable, which I used for a long time but got tired of for that same reason. (You can indeed upgrade from within it, but will be getting the non-portable version if you do it that way, so manual upgrades are needed, and you're generally always a version behind.)
-
gentlecolts last edited by
honestly though, i have actually had reason to need 64bit:
i am someone who tends to keep many tabs open, like...a lot of tabs...i have actually gotten opera's memory usage to around 3gb (though it is usually between 1 and 2 gb)the current instance i am running probably would be using more than that if i hadnt started putting my laptop in airplane mode before launcing my browsers so that i can keep all my tabs at ready without needing to spend a few mins loading the tabs at startup (and to conserve memory - an unloaded webpage doesnt use nearly as much ram).
(jeeze what will happen when it starts using webkit)
but really
firefox - meh, never had any real appeal: it has extensive extension support, but unlike opera it lacks a solid core feature set (which is fine for some people, but i just dont get it)chrome(ium) - such a memory hog, it was because of this that i realized that i came up with that starting in airplane mode trick
IE - its ie, jeeze it crashes left and right, can barely remain stable with more than 10 tabs, and webpage development is mostly "how do we make this page? ok now how do we force ie to render it?"
safari - its pretty much like ie, but from apple, it is just as unstable and has less opportunity for customization (cannot tell it to ask me where downloads should go...they always go to the downloads folder...why apple why...)
opera is pretty much the only good browser out there, especially for people who push their browsers
but you know what they say about operas and large women
and webkit sure is bloated -
-
-
-
A Former User last edited by
Well the focus at the moment seems to be getting Opera 15.xx to a standard that will appease the Opera Community, such as by integrating Opera Link and addressing some of the issues the Opera Community currently has with 15.xx...
We may see a 64-bit version made available in the future (hopefully!), but I highly doubt we'll see it before Opera 15.xx has been updated/upgraded to an "acceptable standard" in the eyes of Opera Software and the Opera Community.
-
Deleted User last edited by
So apparently Opera moderators don't care to shed any light on the 64 bit issue. None of the current versions of Opera appear to be 64 bit.
-
A Former User last edited by
About Opera
Version information
Version: 12.16
Build 1860
Platform x64
System Windows 7 -
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Originally posted by vterpe:
So apparently Opera moderators don't care to shed any light on the 64 bit issue.
Which issue?
Originally posted by vterpe:
None of the current versions of Opera appear to be 64 bit.
Well, Opera 15+ is 32 bits only and i don't think it will change in a near future.
-
-
A Former User last edited by
The discontinuation of the 64-bit version of Opera is a huge step backwards... I've recently gone back to Opera "classic" (i.e. 12.x) partially because of the lack of a 64-bit version of Opera.
With 64-bit Software becoming more and more common across multiple operating systems (mobile and desktop), it seems bizarre that Opera Software have made the decision to only offer 32-bit software going forwards... Everybody else is rushing to introduce 64-bit software because of the obvious performance and technical benefits.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by gregoryopera:
The discontinuation of the 64-bit version of Opera is a huge step backwards...
What page you used that required more than 4 GB of RAM to itself? Don't talk BS.
When Chromium components become compatible with native 64-bit then we'll see Opera 64-bit again. You're demanding for something that's already in the works, but development takes time, specially when there are zero downsides to the actual 32-bit version so the priority ins't that high.
You can star these two issues on their bug tracker to let them know you're interested and receive updates:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=8606 (Windows)
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=18323 (Mac) -
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by gregoryopera:
The discontinuation of the 64-bit version of Opera is a huge step backwards...
What page you used that required more than 4 GB of RAM to itself? Don't talk BS.
And clearly you know very little about 64-bit software... Not only does Opera "classic" and the "new" Opera" require huge amounts of memory in order to function smoothly (Opera "classic" in particular, though the "new" Opera is not much better), but 64-bit software is typically more stable and far more secure.
Yes there are disadvantages... But there are also pros and cons for 32-bit software too.
Overall though. the pros and cons for 64-bit software far outweigh those of a 32-bit equivalent... I will not however, go into the specifics as the pros/cons of each has been discussed extensively in this and other threads.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by gregoryopera:
You're demanding for something that's already in the works, but development takes time
Firstly, Opera Software have indicated a number of times in various places that they have no intention of implementing a 64-bit version... Secondly, Opera Software apparently contributes to the development of Chromium, so there's technically a lot of developers on-board (Opera Software+Google+any other individual/company contributing to the Open Source project).
As for the development time, well there are teams far smaller than Opera Software that manage to maintain dual versions and Chromium is technically maintained by a large development team, so this is just a cop-out (poor excuse)...
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by gregoryopera:
specially when there are zero downsides to the actual 32-bit version so the priority ins't that high.
Well actually there are downsides to the 32-bit version... Though as I said above, this has been explained elsewhere.
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
Also note, moderators have no more access to the developers than you do.
Whilst I don't doubt that this is the case for some moderators, my understanding is that some of the moderators here are actually on the Opera Software payroll (i.e. they're actual Opera Software staff)... Which would mean that this is highly unlikely "across the board".
-
sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Originally posted by gregoryopera:
Not only does Opera "classic" and the "new" Opera" require huge amounts of memory in order to function smoothly (Opera "classic" in particular, though the "new" Opera is not much better), but 64-bit software is typically more stable and far more secure.
Given that Chrome/Blink uses multiple processes, if each process has its own memory space then total memory used is no argument. Stability ... well. once you have 64-bit plugins. As long as you have 32-bit plugins, it is a waste.
-
-
A Former User last edited by
Well the entire software industry is gradually moving towards 64-bit... More and more programs are made available in 64-bit each day (usually alongside a 32-bit version), and Android - which is rumored to be moving into the computer industry next year - is adding native 64-bit support with their latest "KitKat" release.
-
A Former User last edited by
Android 4.4.0 KitKat isn't 64-bit.
PS. Eww quote mess, notice to anyone reading to double-check what I said and what I didn't.
:love:
