Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 39 Launches With 64-bit Version For Mac OS X and New Developer Features

Posted by Soulskill on from the almost-over-the-hill dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome 39 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The biggest addition in this release is 64-bit support for OS X, which first arrived in Chrome 38 beta. Unlike on Windows, where 32-bit and 64-bit versions will both continue to be available (users currently have to opt-in to use the 64-bit release), Chrome for Mac is now only available in 64-bit. There are also a number of security fixes and developer features. Here's the full changelog.

67 comments

  1. Any reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I choose Chrome?

    1. Re:Any reason? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      Each web tab runs in its own process; you can see the CPU, Memory, per tab. Use: More tools > Task Manager

      Looks like Chrome removed the FPS column

    2. Re:Any reason? by ModernGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Safari now does this in Mac OS X Yosemite 10.01, each website has it's down process named after it that shows up in the Operating System's activity monitor.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    3. Re:Any reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Fock! Ask a simple question, and this is what I get? Gee, thanks, guys. You're all heart.

    4. Re:Any reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're a proud American who has nothing to hide and would surrender all his private and intimate information to Obama voluntarily?

    5. Re:Any reason? by Cley+Faye · · Score: 1

      Why should you rely on others opinion when it's free on every major system for you to test it out, and install almost instantly given you don't have an internet connection from the third-world?

    6. Re:Any reason? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      IE is a complete disaster. I use Windows 8.1 and that's the case there.

      So yeah, vs that it's fucking obivous. IE is slow, unstable, nasty.

      VS Firefox - Firefox is single threaded and mine bugs out completely with the Graphics sometimes or it run some loop where it switches around between the tabs forever. I don't know why and maybe that's due to some add-on but regardless of why it does that and it completely suck.

      Chrome is more reliable.

      The question is why one should use 64 bit Chrome though. They claim it's faster and maybe it is when it have enough Resources but too me it seemed to use up my Resources quicker and as it did so it's definitely not faster.

      Oh, and this is a problem with IE too. For whatever retarded reason it make some Words have a large letter in the beginning.. I've fixed some in this text block but haven't fixed some others.

      I have no fucking clue why and it's hard to find out but it's completely retarded of course.

  2. link is wrong? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    points to the stable channel release notes, last update October 7 and says nothing about 64 bit.

  3. What took them so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, what takes so long for Google?

    Webkit is 32/64 bits for a while and Apple IDE can generate 32/64 multiple arch binary ever since Apple switched to Intel processor nearly 10 years ago.

    1. Re:What took them so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly inertia.

      Google devs, are obviously windows developers. Since 32-bit binaries work on Windows, screw 64-bit right? Right? RIGHT?

      Honestly I've been using Firefox Nightly since 64-bit was introduced (in 2009) and the only thing that was ever a problem was plugins. Specificly flash and Java.

      I don't know what world the Chrome people live in, but we should be moving to phase out 32-bit binaries. The next version of windows should mark 32-bit binaries as unsafe by default.

    2. Re:What took them so long? by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Google devs, are obviously windows developers.

      You couldn't be farther from the truth.

  4. So the only people that are hurt by armanox · · Score: 1

    Are the people running unsupported versions of OS X. I guess it's back to firefox on my MBP 1,1 (running OS X 10.6).

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    1. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 2

      Mainline Firefox will drop support for your OS at some point too. There'll probably be a project like TenFourFox for older Intel-powered Macs, though.

    2. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just downloaded it and it said 10.6 was supported. "For Mac OS X 10.6 or later" It's the 64bit version 39 too. It would not auto update the older copy though. I needed to reinstall and replace it.

      Matt

    3. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Macbook Pro 1,1 has a 32-bit CPU.

    4. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then update your 9 year old computer.

    5. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not my computer. Are you illiterate?

    6. Re:So the only people that are hurt by bigtrike · · Score: 2

      What about those of us that are still running Mac OS 7?

    7. Re:So the only people that are hurt by armanox · · Score: 2

      I think you've got bigger issues....Very few things still support Mac OS. I don't think Firefox or Chrome ever ran on even on OS 9.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    8. Re:So the only people that are hurt by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      Then you're yelling at the kids "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    9. Re:So the only people that are hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still grab Netscape tho..

  5. Correct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/11/stable-channel-update_18.html

  6. All software is opt-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [On Windows] users currently have to opt-in to use the 64-bit release

    WTF does this mean? The release you have is the one you installed. Any software that didn't come preinstalled is opt-in.

    1. Re:All software is opt-in by Wing_Zero · · Score: 2

      When you go to google.com/chrome , it will detect your OS and provide you with a appropriate link. however, if you want the 64-bit version of Chrome, you have to click the link below the download link to manually switch it to the 64-bit. Also, very little changes to the page, so it doesn't look like it changed anything when you select it

  7. For me: Videos by mha · · Score: 3, Informative

    First, HTML5 videos. I watch a lot of lectures on Youtube, and HTML5 videos have a speed option that most lectures benefit from (30min instead of 1 hour lecture). Sure, Firefox plays HTML5 too - but not as many. Some options are not available.

    Second, Flash on Firefox has been *horrible* at least for me lately (I have the latest version of everything, Windows 7 system). After the latest Flash update all I have to do to crash the Flash plugin is right-click over a Flash area. And it's been crashing a lot for me for a long time.

    On the other hand, (from a user point of view, not web developer) I often run across bugs in Chrome while the same doesn't happen (to me) with Firefox. So if I could I'd stay with Firefox.

    I think as a web developer, especially when you develop modern apps and not just intranet enterprise apps (that are very conservative in what functions they use) Chrome may be more tempting at this point. I'm guessing - I only develop those "boring" apps where the intelligence is in the business logic and on the server and I don't need to do as much in the browser.

    1. Re:For me: Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox video has been worse because Google decided to stop supporting streams that weren't in a newer format, so Firefox had to scramble to support them. They're now getting there; the nightly builds are much better, and so by version 36 we should be good aside from DRM protected video.

      As for Flash, it has always been pretty mediocre outside of Explorer. And ever since Adobe got in bed with Google and created that Chrome-specific version of Flash they stopped caring about Firefox at all. It took them an insanely long time to fix a bug with high-DPI mice, and general stability has deteriorated so much that Mozilla is even making their own version of Flash called Shumway to address issues Adobe doesn't seem to care about anymore.

      Frankly I can't wait for Google to redefine web video again so that Firefox has to implement something else, just as Chrome removes NPAPI plugins entirely from Chrome and leaves Firefox in a position where they'll have to adopt their PPAPI plugins just to have a shitty Flash fallback for video.

    2. Re:For me: Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, cool, I didn't know Chrome could change the playback speed of videos. The other way to do that is to use VLC which also has an easy playback speed control. You can get YouTube videos into VLC by using youtube-dl (or some other YouTube downloader).

    3. Re:For me: Videos by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Flash on linux and firefox might suck, old version, but at least it stays the same over time (security fixes only)

      So it's reasonably good. Wait, get firefox x+1 and flash 11.2 updates through the package manager, no need to care much about the videos (if the vid is html5 only, it appears to work. everything is unaccelerated on that PC save for linux/windows games and buggy/slow WebGL).

    4. Re:For me: Videos by mha · · Score: 1

      > I didn't know Chrome could change the playback speed of videos.

      It is not limited to Chrome though. It is a feature of Youtube's HTML5 player. So it works on Firefox and other browsers too, only that Chrome supports all HTML5 video features that Youtube needs while Firefox does not (yet) - check with https://www.youtube.com/html5).

      > The other way to do that is to use VLC

      Sure, as always there are many ways. Chrome is the most convenient way to view Youtube though, that's all.

  8. Must be a slow news day by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    Must be a slow news day. Didn't anyone ask BH what he thinks of the number "39"?

    1. Re:Must be a slow news day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't anyone ask BH what he thinks of the number "39"?

      Don't worry, there's sure to be a 10,000 word essay on that very topic on next week's installment of "Slashdot Presents Bennet's Playhouse".

  9. Sidetabs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are they back?

    Nope.

    Thus, not worth bothering with.

  10. NPAPI hanging on by Turmoyl · · Score: 2

    While us Linux folks got shafted with the loss of NPAPI support earlier this year, it appears that the Windows and Mac folks still have it.

    I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop for them Maybe then we'll see PPAPI versions of common browser plugins.

    1. Re:NPAPI hanging on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather skip that whole plugin thing altogether. It's basically obsolete already; just give users an EME-like API to feed video to the browser, and let them use localhost websocket apps to feed data into and out of the browser. Just help Mozilla with Shumway, and stop trying to pretend we really need PPAPI.

    2. Re:NPAPI hanging on by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      You can install the PPAPI version of Flash on Chromium pretty easily, and it's obviously included in Chrome by default. So the only NPAPI plugin that's truly missing is Java, and good fucking riddance, I say.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  11. 1.5GIG for facebook? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Fing stupendous.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:1.5GIG for facebook? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      This shouldn't surprise anyone who's actually used Facebook. It's a case study in JS abuse.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re:1.5GIG for facebook? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Although it is hard to justify where an use of JS _isn't_ abuse. ;-) /me ducks

  12. Any chance they implemented the 'let' keyword? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I've always been a little bugged by how much trouble it is to write JavaScript in Chrome, particularily in an extension ( like my sig says, I write Firefox extensions, and I've been playing with Chrome lately). I woulda thought Chrome would be up on all the new JavaScript hotness...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Any chance they implemented the 'let' keyword? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. They want to prioritize their own tech, so they're more busy upselling Dart while only implementing a few token future JS features like Object.observe which will improve their performance in Angular. Google's web strategy is all about what will benefit their services first, while making them look like the saviors of web programmers.

  13. Should have been 64-bit from the start... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If only Apple had postponed the Intel transition for about 6 months, their machines and software could have been 64-bit across the line, and this mess would have been avoided completely. Instead, we are eight years into yet another transition, with plenty of legacy 32-bit software out there, any of which require an entire duplicate set of shared libraries to be loaded.

    1. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 2

      Maybe. Plenty of older Macs with 64-bit CPUs and 32-bit firmware, though, which at least prevents newer OS X from booting a 64-bit kernel, and it's been more recently that computers have had enough RAM to make 64-bit truly worthwhile.

    2. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple would've been asking developers to make the leap to Intel and the leap to 64-bit simultaneously.

      The first ask was already a big ask, but at least x86 was the status quo beyond Macs. The industry simply wasn't ready for OS X to be 64-bit only in 2006.

    3. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      More recently.. 6-7 years ago.

      Whatever.

    4. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      Apple had already for three whole years been asking developers to make the leap to 64-bit at the time they made the Intel transition.

      The industry should have been able to cope just fine with OS X being shipped only on 64-bit Intel processors.

      Those that hadn't already adapted, well, their 32-bit PowerPC code would have run just fine using the Rosetta code translation layer.

      The real issue was though that Apple needed to ship new laptops that were competitive with PCs. They couldn't afford to wait around another 6 months for Core2Duo chips to arrive.

    5. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 1

      Some Mac lines didn't get upgraded with 64-bit EFI until early 2009. Arguably you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to really use 64-bit due to the ~30% tariff long pointers impose, and maybe you want 6GB for really good performance depending on what you run; further, the early '09 Mini topped out at 4GB officially.

      Anyway, point is that even if Apple had waited for the Core 2 Duo to switch to Intel the early Intel Macs would probably still not run 64-bit-only programs today.

    6. Re:Should have been 64-bit from the start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relatively little code is highly pointer-heavy; the "tariff" was mostly paid for in alignment anyway.

  14. Chrome Soon? FireFox on the other-hand... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    It looks like the Chrome team is working on the "let keyword", whereas according to Mozilla's own MDN, they plan to remove the "let" keyword? or they let anyone edit MDN resources.

    1. Re:Chrome Soon? FireFox on the other-hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox has already had "let" for ages, they just haven't started exposing it to web content outside of their alpha/beta/nightly versions. That Bugzilla ticket is talking about them removing unofficial extensions to the "let" keyword that might cause confusion. By contrast see http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ to know just how far behind Chrome is on ES6 (they have half-implemented stuff they haven't turned on yet, but the same is true for everyone else except Safari/WebKit, which is frankly an utter embarrassment as far as web standards support is concerned). Even Microsoft are putting Google to shame with their ES6 efforts.

    2. Re:Chrome Soon? FireFox on the other-hand... by BZ · · Score: 1

      The "let" keyword is not the same thing as "let blocks" and "let expressions".

      The keyword looks like this:

          let x = 5;

      and is in ES6. A let block or let expression (neither of which is in ES6) looks like this:

          let (x = 5) alert(x);

      so that "x" is only in scope for the duration of the let block. It's syntactic sugar for:

      {
          let x = 5;
          alert(x);
      }

  15. Why is 64bit such as issue ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really get it, is it not just a compiler switch to generate 64bit code ?

    1. Re:Why is 64bit such as issue ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Chrome, like most browsers today compiles javascript to assembler, to work on for example 64-bit, you have to be able to write 64-bit assembler. You also have to check for non-64bit-proof casting (integer to pointer/pointer to integer) and such.

  16. Java in Chrome on Mac? by Aspherical+Cow · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that Java will work in Chrome on a Mac now?

  17. Just a few years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What has it been since 07 or so since OS X has been 64-bit? Little late to the game! I'll stick with Safari!

    1. Re: Just a few years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X went 64-bit with the release of the Power Mac G5 in 2003.

  18. As long as it fully supports Flash by kriston · · Score: 1

    As long as the 64-bit version fully supports Flash on all platforms, I'm all for it. Like it or not, you need to support Flash, 64-bit or not.

    I guess Red Hat and CentOS 6.x users are left in the lurch on this one.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:As long as it fully supports Flash by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Do I?

      For ads?

      I don't know about the game sites I'm watching (what about Steam and PC gamer?) but by now I assume most of the YouTube content plays through HTML 5 if one want to?

      Firefox even have H.264 support now.

    2. Re:As long as it fully supports Flash by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, you need to support Flash, 64-bit or not.

      Sad to see a 4-digit-ID post this kind of drivel. How the mighty have fallen.

    3. Re:As long as it fully supports Flash by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      As long as the 64-bit version fully supports Flash on all platforms, I'm all for it. Like it or not, you need to support Flash, 64-bit or not.

      Umm...Chrome comes always with the integrated PPAPI Flash plugin. Actually it's the only way to use a modern Flash plugin under Linux. As far as I know, the crusty NPAPI Flash plugin on Linux (package flashplugin-installer in Ubuntu, for example) still gets security updates, but is otherwise stuck on some ancient version number.

    4. Re:As long as it fully supports Flash by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      but by now I assume most of the YouTube content plays through HTML 5 if one want to?

      True. All clips can be watched in HTML5 now in YouTube, including live broadcasts.

      I think there's still many local TV broadcast services which require Flash. For example in Finland I still need Flash to use YLE Areena, the public TV/radio broadcaster's online clip hive.

    5. Re:As long as it fully supports Flash by kriston · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem attack much? How's that debate strategy working out for you, there?

      --

      Kriston

  19. Hope google and China can cooperate by Ilovemachinery · · Score: 1

    Hope Google can open the unlock the searching function in China. Chinese really want to view the world by google.....

  20. Chrome not so great either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I finally gave up on Chrome on Windows 7 64 bit. Flash ran terrible and stuttered all the time. Tried all kinds of stuff like disabling Pepper Flash, re installing Chrome
    and turning off hardware rendering. It really should not be that hard to get basic stuff to work. Especially when browsers like IE and Firefox seem to play nice.
    You would think Google could get Chrome right on a Mac. Considering that much of Google requires Mac's to work there. Unless everyone is using Safari?
    I have noticed that While IE has not suffered from performance issues of late. Chrome seems to be hungry for more and more hardware speed. It really needs a lot of RAM and its sandboxing is probably to blame.

    1. Re:Chrome not so great either by lippydude · · Score: 1

      @AC: "I finally gave up on Chrome on Windows 7 64 bit. Flash ran terrible and stuttered all the time"

      Chrome works fine here on Ubuntu 64 bit.

  21. Another version, still can't do gradients... by Ark42 · · Score: 1

    Time and time again, they just refuse to properly implement CSS3 gradients.
    Version after version, no progress on https://code.google.com/p/chro... at all
    See http://slashdot.org/comments.p... from version 38.

    It's pretty clear at this point, use Firefox or IE10+ if you want good HTML5/CSS3 support. Chrome only cares about what benefits Google and their ability to advertise to you.

    --
    Morphing Software
  22. chrome://chrome/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Version 34.0.1847.116 m

    Google Chrome is up to date.