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.

26 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Re:But Google will get a free pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it's not necessarily good how is a switch from 32 to 64bit of browser worse than an entire operating system?

  2. Re:But Google will get a free pass by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

    what a load of crap.

    Chrome is Chrome is Chrome. Moving to 64 bit makes sense simply because of memory management issue. My current Chrome usage of RAM is well over 4 GB (lots of windows open), and I suspect that most people are using way more RAM than they think.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Also... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

    1. Re:Also... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Why would I want new shoes? I'm not depressed.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Also... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I just wish they'd at least make it smart enough that if over 90% of the time a user is clicking the link to really search for what they typed, then it would default to searching what they really typed and offering the correction in the link.

      In the old days there was a sort of technical search language that I could use to search for specific things, and then they got rid of it. Bastards!

    3. Re:Also... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      What you can do is put the key search terms in quotes. Then Google will show the exact same list of search results, but write the key search term crossed out underneath each one so you know that particular result is useless.

      At least your PC doesn't freeze any more when you accidentally drift your mouse over a search result so that Google can show you a preview of the color scheme of the website on the right. But how long did it take for them to disable that "feature"?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Re:But Google will get a free pass by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and I suspect that most people are using way more RAM than they think.

    I agree, but I think you mean that Chrome is using way more RAM than a sane person would expect.
    I just opened a tab listing folders on a web server (5 files and 5 directories, no index.html). According to Chrome task manager, this tab is taking 18.94 MB! That's for 10 lines of text and white background all around.

  5. Re:But Google will get a free pass by WarJolt · · Score: 2

    While it's not necessarily good

    No change in user experience. That's good.

  6. Re:As if it doesn't use enough memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not loading 32 bit shared objects to support Chrome could result in less memory use.

  7. Re:But Google will get a free pass by Wootery · · Score: 2

    There's more to 64 bit than just the bigger address space. Annoyingly Google don't seem to be giving much away here beyond "stability, performance, and security"

    The interwebs seem to support that there's a performance improvement but the difference isn't huge.

    The ZDNet article really adds nothing over Google's blog post. Would've made more sense to have the summary link directly to that.

  8. Re:But Google will get a free pass by dogbert_2001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ACKCHYUALLY,
    Each Chrome tab is limited to 4GB, even in 64-bit. "For security reasons."
    And I've hit the limit before. Scrolling endless webpages is an easy way to hit the limit. Also, some addons like AdBlock use up a lot of memory.

  9. Re:But Google will get a free pass by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    I think you mean that Web pages are using way more RAM than a sane person would expect. Both Chrome and the user are the victims here.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  10. Re:CItrix fix after autoupdate by ledow · · Score: 2

    I thought enable NPAPI doesn't do anything any more? NPAPI plugins have been dead since last year at least, and the forcible override options were deprecated.

    Popup blocking? Okay, I can see that might be annoying.

    Default browser check, I can see that interfering with thing.

    Disable GPU, sure for non-GPU machines.

    But no sandbox just sounds dangerous,

    And I can't see how half the stuff on there would work by default in 32 but not 64-bit versions.

  11. Re:But Google will get a free pass by ledow · · Score: 2

    Try the login page for Tumblr.

    It loads more than 20Mb of scripts and images.

  12. Security? by hackel · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Security? by gman003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Address space layout randomization. To make it harder for buffer-related exploits to actually start executing arbitrary code, the memory pages get shuffled around at startup so all the memory addresses are different each time. This still works with a 32-bit address space but there's less total space to use, so with some brute force (eg. really long NOP slides) you can overcome ASLR. With a 64-bit address space, odds are a random jump won't even hit a valid memory address.

    2. Re:Security? by swillden · · Score: 2

      With a 64-bit address space, odds are a random jump won't even hit a valid memory address.

      People often don't get just how big 2^64 is. It's on the order of the number of grains of sand in all the beaches and all the deserts on Earth. More importantly it's vastly larger than the addressable RAM in your computer... and a 32-bit address space is actually smaller than the amount of RAM in many (most?) computers today, since 32 bits can only address 4 GiB.

      If you have 16 GiB of RAM, and if all of it is mapped into a single process space, that's 2^34 bytes of RAM. So, picking an address at random gives you a 1/2^30 chance of hitting a valid address. That's one in 1,073,741,824; one in a billion. An attacker who can try a million random addresses still only has a roughly one in one thousand chance of hitting something at all... and the odds of finding something *useful* are quite a bit lower, since most of the mapped memory is non-executable.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  13. This is why I don't use spyware by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:This is why I don't use spyware by partiallynothing · · Score: 2

      I'm sure if your car dealer would randomly change things on your car you wouldn't have a problem with it either, right?

      If they were upgrading a component of my car, I would not have a problem with it, which is what Google is doing here. Aside from the additional memory address space, this change also brings:

      - Additional address space layout randomization means brute force attacks won't overcome your ASLR
      - Additional architectural security features such as NX as well as others
      - Twice the number of CPU registers means less writing to the memory stack
      - Additional features I haven't thought of results in this action upgrading their users

      With browser software in peticular, many of these features will result in an improved and more secure experience for Google Chrome users. The real question is: Is there any valid reason you wouldn't want them to do this? I can't think of one.

      This is nothing like the Windows 7/8 to 10 forced upgrade, where the user-facing interface and feature-set changed; with this upgrade only the implementation details change. From the user perspective, everything remains exactly the same. So why the outrage?

      --
      Regards, Rob
  14. Re:But Google will get a free pass by magarity · · Score: 2

    Will people who depend on a 32 bit plug-in be able to use it seamlessly with the 64 bit Chrome? That may not be the case.

  15. Re:But Google will get a free pass by dj245 · · Score: 2

    Try the login page for Tumblr.

    It loads more than 20Mb of scripts and images.

    Tumblr is one of the few websites that brings my tablet (2GB ram) to its knees. Infinite scrolling of an image-heavy website certainly doesn't help things.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  16. Security? by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 ]
  17. 32 more bits, no magic. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:32 more bits, no magic. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      There are a number of benefits to 64-bit support on Intel-compatible hardware besides the extra available memory:

      1. More effective ASLR = better security

      2. More and larger registers = better performance, although this does depend on what the compiler can do with your code

      3. Guaranteed NX support = better security and/or less platform segmentation (depending on whether or not you used it in 32-bit code)

      4. Guaranteed RIP and SSE/SSE2 support = greater performance and/or fewer code branches due to modern features always being present (aka, finally dump some of that legacy crap)

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    2. Re:32 more bits, no magic. by slew · · Score: 2

      There are a number of benefits to 64-bit support on Intel-compatible hardware besides the extra available memory:

      1. More effective ASLR = better security

      2. More and larger registers = better performance, although this does depend on what the compiler can do with your code

      3. Guaranteed NX support = better security and/or less platform segmentation (depending on whether or not you used it in 32-bit code)

      4. Guaranteed RIP and SSE/SSE2 support = greater performance and/or fewer code branches due to modern features always being present (aka, finally dump some of that legacy crap)

      Hmm, we are talking about upgrading a 32-bit app already running on a 64-bit OS (which has all the goodness you mention). The only issue would be helped by ASLR would be something exploiting a JIT bug or a bug in a 32-bit browser plug-in.

      The real reason they want to move to 64-bit is that it is easier to do effective heap-partitioning in a 64-bit address space. This technique is used to mitigate heap-grooming/buffer-extension and use-after-free exploits (the most common browser initiated exploits). In a 32-bit address space when web-pages can require 2GB just to render mean you can't afford the overhead to do heap-partitioning, so they don't use this mitigation technique in the 32-bit version of the browser.

      The perf is of course marginally better too for 64-bit executable code (more orthogonal register set, more registers, process more data per instruction, etc..) than legacy 32-bit executable code, but that is secondary to the heap-partitioning issue.

      On the other hand, you might argue that forcing a move to a browser that doesn't support the old risky plug-in architecture is the best security upgrade, but you don't *have* to move to 64-bit to stop supporting that plug-in architecture (use by flash). It was just a choice that Chrome made to continue to support it and it's not inherently a 32/64 bit question.

  18. Re:But Google will get a free pass by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2

    Will people who depend on a 32 bit plug-in be able to use it seamlessly with the 64 bit Chrome? That may not be the case.

    Like what? Chrome stopped supporting NPAPI plugs (e.g., Java applets) a year and a half ago. They have a "built-in" Flash player, as well, and those are probably the most popular plugins. Basically, anything you need that is still a 32-bit plugin probably already stopped working.

    --
    R.Mo