Where is 64 bit Opera to download?

[A Former User]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

Wait... What?

Opera isn't offering the 64-bit version anymore? Is this a temporary thing, or is it gone forever?

What happens when the "new" Opera (with the new rendering engine) is released - will I be upgraded to the 64-bit version of this browser, or will I be forced to replace it with a 32-bit version?

Geez, one step forward... Three steps backwards.

Anyway, can one of the Opera staff members please clarify Opera Software's plans for the 64-bit version going forwards? There seems to be an awful lot of assumptions here, and no cold-hard facts...

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

Originally posted by gregoryopera:

Opera isn't offering the 64-bit version anymore?

I am still using 32-bit Opera 11.64, but the 64-bit version seems to be available here.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

Yeah, that's the page that was accessible under the old home page...But there doesn't appear to be a way to access it outside of the direct link.

It'd still be nice to get an official answer as to what Opera's plans for the 64-bit version are - I changed over the day the 64-bit version was made available, and it'd be heartbreaking to see them take three steps backwards by withdrawing support for it in the "new" Opera...

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

Originally posted by hucker:

The main Opera page has been over-simplified. I tried to download the 64 bit Opera for my new (Windows computer, but it only gives me the 32 bit version. There are no options. Help! Where has it gone?

Why has opera next 64 bit change the icon back to red? Its use to be white

[leocg]

leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by

Originally posted by dave8539:

Why has opera next 64 bit change the icon back to red? Its use to be white

Does Help > About Opera says thta you are using Next? It seems that you have installed the regular version.

opera:config#Opera Product change it to 1.

[mmcl26554]

mmcl26554 last edited by

So, after reading through the above posts I am left with one question: Since Opera seems to be down playing the 64bit version and based on some posts the 64 bit may be of no particular value and may in fact eat ram. Then, Should I switch back to 32 bit?
I am not an absolute beginner nor an expert, kind of an in between user so please keep this in mind when responding.
Michael

[intergalacticninja]

intergalacticninja last edited by

Originally posted by mmcl26554:

the 64 bit may be of no particular value and may in fact eat ram.

That is not true. See my post in this thread here why.

[mmcl26554]

mmcl26554 last edited by

So your recommendation is to stay with Opera 64bit as long as Opera continues to support it, correct? Sounds OK to me!
Michael

[hucker]

hucker last edited by

Doesn't using 64 bit programs offer more stability? Or some kind of performance increase? That's why I take 64 bit versions whenever possible.

[frenzie]

frenzie last edited by

Originally posted by hucker:

Doesn't using 64 bit programs offer more stability?

I'm currently using 3.6GB of RAM which would be about the limit of 32-bit XP, so in that sense perhaps. But except for a movie editor or something that really wouldn't apply on a per-program basis.

Originally posted by hucker:

Or some kind of performance increase?

Yes, usually it's faster. But occasionally it can result in a slight performance decrease.

[hucker]

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!