Where is 64 bit Opera to download?
-
hucker last edited by
If they're both being abandoned, then why hide one of them? Especially as it's the same version number, so has obviously been worked on alongside the 32bit version!
-
blackbird71 last edited by
I think it's a kind of legacy thing. 64-bit Opera development has always lagged somewhat behind developing 32-bit Opera, and in fact, not so long ago didn't even exist. So I think its download was initially made available mainly as an after-thought, for those who wanted to try it out. As time has gone by and greater events have intruded, I suspect the entire subject of Opera Presto-based browsers and their download interfacing have been pushed to a a back burner until the great WebKit push has passed. Probably, a lot of things "Opera" will be re-worked and updated after that... perhaps including the download site. Certainly, there will be major impact to all the Opera reference sites, particularly since there will then be two kinds of Opera (and their particular idiosyncrasies) to document and refer.
-
TripleDude last edited by
Using 64bit is certainly not 'superior' to using 32bit browsers. There's nothing inherently superior about 64bit. You are using twice the amount of RAM in a 64bit program as compared to a 32bit program, so unless you have 10+GB of RAM, it's worthless (32bit can use up to 4GB of RAM, and if you are using 64bit with 8GB of RAM, you are actually not getting any extra RAM because of the fact that the memory registers are double the size, and thus practically, your 8GB under 64bit is the same as 4GB under 32bit).
-
hucker last edited by
Surely not, the extra memory must be used for something, not just blank space.
And if 64bit wasn't superior we wouldn't be using it. It's more stable or something?
What I'd really like though is for Opera to use more than one processor core. Come on, multicore was invented almost a decade ago?
PS, I've got 32GB memory, I always fill the motherboard. It makes everything faster. Win7/8 64bit on only 8GB, you must be mad.
-
A Former User last edited by
If you visit the website using a 64-bit browser it'll automatically give you the 64-bit Opera.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
If you visit the website using a 64-bit browser it'll automatically give you the 64-bit Opera.
I can't confirm. Does it for you?
-
hucker last edited by
It doesn't. I used Internet Explorer 64bit to download it as that was all I had on my new computer. I was given the 32bit version.
Can the website not detect the bits of your OS?
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Opera 12 is now available in 64 bit for all platforms. Note that because 64 bit applications use more memory than their 32 bit equivalent, the default version of Opera for Windows will continue to be 32 bit.
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/06/14/twelve-under-the-hood-improvements-in-opera-12
So it seems that you will always get the 32-bit version by default.
-
hucker last edited by
Originally posted by TripleDude:
Using 64bit is certainly not 'superior' to using 32bit browsers. There's nothing inherently superior about 64bit. You are using twice the amount of RAM in a 64bit program as compared to a 32bit program, so unless you have 10+GB of RAM, it's worthless (32bit can use up to 4GB of RAM, and if you are using 64bit with 8GB of RAM, you are actually not getting any extra RAM because of the fact that the memory registers are double the size, and thus practically, your 8GB under 64bit is the same as 4GB under 32bit).
I thought what you were saying was complete nonsense, so I looked it up, I was correct: http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0069/
Only POINTERS are larger.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by hucker:
It doesn't. I used Internet Explorer 64bit to download it as that was all I had on my new computer. I was given the 32bit version.
Well I've made a test now and discovered opera.com isn't offering the 64-bit version automatically like it did before...
The details: I used IE from desktop of 64-bit Windows 8 and realized the iexplore.exe process in which opera.com was rendered was listed as 32-bit on task manager, so something was affecting it... Then I used the Metro (modern UI) version of IE which doesn't run plug-ins, etc, and it displayed correctly as 64-bit in the task manager. But sadly both gave me the 32-bit installer, and when accessing the site via the Opera 64-bit version it gave me the 32-bit installer too.
Originally posted by hucker:
Can the website detect the bits of your OS?
Yes, the websites can given the browser UA-String contains that info, I think. Both Opera and IE 64-bit contain a part which says "Win64; x64" in the UA-String (you can test t here: http://gs.statcounter.com/detect).
-
hucker last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Then I used the Metro
My Metro is disabled - this is a computer, not a phone
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by hucker:
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Then I used the Metro
My Metro is disabled - this is a computer, not a phone
Not going to enter in a discussion here, but Metro on PCs have a great potential of simplifying, making the interface easier for everyone to use (yet keeping advanced options available for "techies", if needed).
-
hucker last edited by
It's only useful if you use one program at a time. You must have a taskbar if you open more than one program, or it's ridiculous.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by hucker:
It's only useful if you use one program at a time. You must have a taskbar if you open more than one program, or it's ridiculous.
On Windows 8 you have an app-switching bar at the left, I don't get your point...
-
hucker last edited by
It's hidden. I have to use one of those bloomin corner things. I want to see my running programs (with text names) listed on the screen at all times. Like say... a taskbar! The one that's served us well since windows 95.
-
A Former User last edited by
There's no use on seeing the apps list all the time, it's just a waste of screen space and increase of complexity to users (a lot of icons scattered in the screen) it's confusing to first time PC users.
Teaching to reach the corners for some actions is easier than teaching concepts of maximize, restore, minimize hidden in little buttons, just try it with your grandma... -
hucker last edited by
The taskbar is visible all the time, or autohiding. The majority of users prefer it visible all the time. Forget computers for a minute, If you are working on three things on your desk, you don't keep hiding two of them in a drawer, you have them all in front of you. Metro is fine for a mobile phone, where you do one thing at a time. But for multitasking, it's simply increasing the number of actions required, and you can't see what you have available at a glance. It should be OPTIONAL to hide it. Plus we've got in effect two operating systems running here, as most people wil be using desktops programs aswell. I for one will ONLY be using desktop programs. If you search for Windows Metro on Google, you will find countless complaints, thousands of them. And why do you talk about first time PC users? Most people have used a PC before, and they are having to relearn something that they shouldn't have to. It's like forcing everyone to move between Mac and PC. After much messing about, I've got rid off all the silly bits of Windows 8, and it runs like 7, the best OS M$ have made.
-
A Former User last edited by
For multi-tasking I use Alt + TAB...
Thousands are using Windows 8, it already surpassed all of Linux and Mac OS market share.
In the end there's not much to learn on Windows 8, it's just like an auto-hiding taskbar on the left and they got rid of that useless start menu no one I know uses. -
intergalacticninja last edited by
Originally posted by TripleDude:
Using 64bit is certainly not 'superior' to using 32bit browsers. There's nothing inherently superior about 64bit. You are using twice the amount of RAM in a 64bit program as compared to a 32bit program, so unless you have 10+GB of RAM, it's worthless (32bit can use up to 4GB of RAM, and if you are using 64bit with 8GB of RAM, you are actually not getting any extra RAM because of the fact that the memory registers are double the size, and thus practically, your 8GB under 64bit is the same as 4GB under 32bit).
False. From superuser.com post, "32-bit vs. 64-bit systems":
-
Allows individual processes to address more than 4 GB of RAM each (in practice, most but not all 32-bit OSes also limit the total usable system RAM to less than 4 GB, not just the per-application maximum).
-
All pointers take 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes. The effect on RAM usage is minimal (because you're not likely to have an application filled with gigabytes of pointers), but in the worst theoretical case, this can make the CPU cache be able to hold 1/2 as many pointers (making it be effectively 1/2 the size). For most applications, this is not a huge deal.
-
There are many more general-purpose CPU registers in 64-bit mode. Registers are the fastest memory in your entire system. There are only 8 in 32-bit mode and 16 general purpose registers in 64-bit mode. In scientific computing applications I've written, I've seen up to a 30% performance boost by recompiling in 64-bit mode (my application could really use the extra registers).
-
Most 32-bit OSes really only let individual applications use 2 GB of RAM, even if you have 4 GB installed. This is because the other 2 GB of address space is reserved for sharing data between applications, with the OS, and for communicating with drivers. Windows and Linux will let you adjust this tradeoff to be 3 GB for applications and 1 GB shared, but this can cause problems for some applications that don't expect the change. I'm also guessing it might cripple a graphics card that has 1 GB of RAM (but I'm not sure). A 64-bit OS can give individual 32-bit applications closer to the full 4 GB to play with.
From a user's perspective::
-
Application speed is usually faster for a 64-bit application in a 64-bit OS compared to the 32-bit version of the application on a 32-bit OS, but most users won't see this speed-up. Most applications for normal users don't really take advantage of the extra registers or the benefits are balanced out by bigger pointers filling up the cache.
-
If you have any memory hog applications (like photo editors, video processing, scientific computing, etc.), if you have (or can buy) more than 3 GB of RAM, and you can get a 64-bit version of the application, the choice is easy: use the 64-bit OS.
-
Some hardware doesn't have 64-bit drivers. Check your motherboard, all plug-in cards, and all USB devices before making the switch. Note that in the early days of Windows Vista, there were lots of problems with drivers. These days things are generally better.
-
If you run so many applications at a time that you're running out of RAM (usually you can tell this because your computer starts getting really slow and you hear the hard disk drive crunching), then you'll want a 64-bit OS (and sufficient RAM).
-
You can run 32-bit applications (but not drivers) in 64-bit Windows with no problems. The worst slowdown I've measured for a 32-bit application in 64-bit Windows is about 5% (meaning that if it took 60 seconds to do something in 32-bit Windows, it took at most 60/0.95 = 63 seconds with the same 32-bit application in 64-bit Windows).
-
-
hucker last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
For multi-tasking I use Alt + TAB...
Thousands are using Windows 8, it already surpassed all of Linux and Mac OS market share.
In the end there's not much to learn on Windows 8, it's just like an auto-hiding taskbar on the left and they got rid of that useless start menu no one I know uses.Alt-tab is slow and clumsy when you're running several programs. Odd, almost EVERYONE I know uses the start menu. A few have icons on the desktop for common programs, but the start menu was a brilliant invention, especially with the most recently used programs list, which is no longer available in 8. And I still use it. I made the metro interface into a huge start menu, operated by clicking where the button used to be, or pressing the windows key. I've deleted all the totally useless Metro programs. Any program I download or buy is a desktop application, and I hope it stays that way. Metro just doesn't work for anyone running more than one program, my computer is not a telephone. The Metro interface works fora little handheld device, but what's the big idea with making a desktop look like a phone? My microwave doesn't look like my car!