Slashdot Mirror
Google To Auto-Migrate Some Users To 64-bit Chrome
Google says it will automatically upgrade the version of Chrome that some Windows users are running, in what it describes as a bet to improve stability, performance, and security. From a report on ZDNet: In a blog post on Tuesday, the search engine giant explained that Chrome users running 64-bit Windows with 4GB or more of memory will be automatically migrated to the 64-bit version of Chrome if they are running the 32-bit version.
This is worse than Microsoft forcibly migrating users to Windows 10, yet Google will get a free pass from Slashdot readers. Why is that? Please do tell.
Since Chrome doesn't support plugins anymore, what's the point in keeping it 32-bit on 64-bit systems? I don't see any features that break in 64-bit.
Google says it will automatically upgrade the version of Chrome that some Windows users are running, in what it describes as a bet to improve stability, performance, and security.
In other news, Google will automatically search for results that it considers relevant, regardless of what you type in the search bar, in what it describes as a bet to improve quality of searches.
(I know on average they are right and users can't spell, but I find it really annoying when my perfectly correct search term is changed to something more common automatically)
> ...Chrome users running 64-bit Windows with 4GB or more of memory....
As if it doesn't use enough memory.
Google is a good company (for example leader in fish transportation systems). So I think the move to 64 bit is good.
This auto update may break your Chrome in Citrix Xenapp 6.5, I was running the 32 bit version in the Citrix farm for a reason and it auto updated on me and I had to add the following switches to the Chrome shortcuts to resolve the issue --no-sandbox --disable-infobars --disable-gpu --no-default-browser-check --disable-popup-blocking --enable-npapi
What does 32 vs 64 bit have to do with security? I'm genuinely curious... It seems as if they are claiming their 32-bit users, or those without 4GB of RAM are somehow inherently less secure. That seems like marketing nonsense to me.
Of course this wouldn't even be an issue if Windows wasn't such a giant piece of garbage that it's taken this long to get a mainstream 64-bit operating system and applications. I've been running a 64-bit build of Firefox on Linux since, what, 2004?
How anyone can think a company manipulating software on your machine, without your permission, is acceptable is beyond me. It's bad enough Microsoft does it with their forced updates, but now Google is intruding as well?
The only reason I have Chrome on my system at work is so I can tell Adobe, "No, I still can't log into our VIP account because your site doesn't work correctly. It doesn't matter if I use IE, Firefox or Chrome, the problem is on your end."
In days past people would be railing against any company which pulled this stunt. Now they shrug and accept the illegal intrusion, making excuses for why this is good. I'm sure if your car dealer would randomly change things on your car you wouldn't have a problem with it either, right?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What does 32 vs 64 bit have to do with security? I'm genuinely curious...
What is has to do is that the architecture that brought 64bits (AMD64), also brought several security features (like NX bit) among others.
32bits software might be targeting architecture that predate the NX bit (e.g.: if you still have an old 32bits .EXE that dates back from the Pentium 4 era, it might be writing to and executing from the same memory area), and perhaps Windows could theoretically not enable NX for 32bits legacy software on these grounds? (to avoid to break old 32bits software ?)
By accelerating the deprecation of 32bits software, they might try to deprecate the non-NX software ?
(That is pure speculation on my part. I have not enough experience with Windows)
(register vs. stack pressure is also different between the 2 architecture. AMD64, in addition to 64bits, also brought twice the number of registers. meaning that more things can be kept on CPU and less needs to be written to the stack. Which could mean less potential candidate in case of stack smashing exploit. But I'm really going on a limb here. Return address is way more interesting to abuse in this case than register value.
It's definitely less probable reason than NX).
I doubt that software would be affected easily by any other difference between the two
(e.g.: warp around at different values, 0x7fffffff vs. 0x7fffffffffffffff
That is highly unlikely : win64 is a LLP64 platform - all integers are still 32bits (both int and long), unless explicitely required (long long, hence the LL) and thus all value still wrap similarily between same source code software compiled for 32bits and 64bits.
only pointers are promoted to 64bits (hence the P) and thus only point math would wrap differently)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Google earth is only Google application I ever wanted a 64-bit version for because I'm tired of seeing it hit 2GB process limit and promptly crash. Apparently checking memory is too hard.
Unless an app actually legitimately requires more than the 32-bit process limit I prefer 32-bit apps for the following reasons:
1. Slightly less memory overhead /w 32-bit address space.
2. No matter what a user process won't go haywire and run your system out of memory leaving your entire system in virtual memory swap hell.
On windows 64-bit for 64-bit's sake in the absence of a legitimate need to address more memory (A web browser does not constitute a legitimate need) simply because 64 is a higher number than 32 is a fruitless enterprise. All of the technobabble differences are a wash with no tangible benefit to the end user.
Now let us install Chrome (windows) on whatever drive we want instead of C:\ without having to resort to the portable version.
We've only been asking for 6 years.
I read the headline this morning. On a lark, I went to look at my about page to see what I was running. Well, that prompted an update check. Sure enough, I now have 64 bit Chrome on that machine. It could be a coincidence....
That explains a lot. Yesterday, all the extensions in Chrome disappeared. I re-added them, and it was fine. It would have been nice to have some sort of warning, or even a message saying what was done.
The article says they're doing it with the update to 58.0.3029.96 , and I just verified that's what mine is.
Next time, just ask, m'kay?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Where are the nanny states decriers when the nanny is called Google or facebook?
and the developers who have to track down 32bit-only Chrome bugs :/