You are here

64-Bit Google Chrome Canary Build

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
PRHL
PRHL's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 2013-07-28 11:04
64-Bit Google Chrome Canary Build

Apparently the last entry about the 64-Bit Chrome was made months ago.
New tests suggest that the 64-Bit version of Google Chrome (Canary Build) is better than the 32-Bit version in several aspects (speed, stability).
While the 64 Firefox seems to be disappointing, the 64 Chrome could be a welcome addition.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Probably Not

The PA.c Installer only supports downloading a single installer. To properly support this, we'd need both the 32-bit and 64-bit Chrome installers downloaded to support this as a dual mode app. We won't be releasing 64-bit only apps for the forseeable future due to the horrible user experience: users have an app they carry around and no idea whether it'll work on a given PC until they try it, since they can't tell if Windows is 32 or 64 bit. Eventually, it'll matter less. For now, we only do 32-bit or 32/64-bit dual mode apps. And the latter only when truly warranted (a big performance increase to offset the much larger install size). Google Chrome Portable is already huge, weighing in at 150MB. For comparison, Firefox Portable is 68MB. A dual mode Google Chrome Portable would be 300MB, larger than LibreOffice Portable.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Drazick
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 2010-09-06 06:36
The size of the files isn't a

The size of the files isn't a factor anymore.
Moreover, you can always assume Win64.

IT's about time to drop Win XP and the majority of Windows 7 and above use 64 Bit.

It's about time to bring Portable Apps forward.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Incorrect, User-Unfriendly

About 75% of Vista installs are 32-bit. Nearly all XP installs are 32-bit and Google is purposely still supporting XP in Chrome. Windows 7 didn't hit the "1/2 of Windows 7 installs are 64-bit" until 2010. And Windows 8 is still available in 32-bit.

Doing a 64-bit-only portable app as mainstream would be a horrendous user experience. Chrome Portable 64-bit wouldn't run on XP (32 or 64), Vista (32 or 64), Windows 7 32-bit, or Windows 8 32-bit. So, users would be left with a portable browser that wouldn't run on their parent's PC that's still running Vista, on the coffee shop's XP machine in the corner, on their work PC which is Windows 7 32-bit, etc. And, as with any 64-bit only app, the user wouldn't know whether it would run or not on a given machine they weren't already familiar with until they tried it. Overall, an incredibly user-unfriendly if not downright user-hostile setup.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Drazick
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 2010-09-06 06:36
You are missing the point who

You are missing the point who uses Portable Apps.
Power Users use portable apps.
Some of use it mainly to keep the clutter installation makes out of our system.

We mostly run it on 64 Bit systems.

Moreover, where d you get the statistics from?
I think the ratio in Windows 7 is something like 80% / 20% for the 64 Bit version.

It is really time to put Vista and XP behind us :-).

Ken Herbert
Ken Herbert's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 11 min ago
DeveloperModerator
Joined: 2010-05-25 18:19
You are missing a large

You are missing a large portion of our user base.

It is not only "power users" as you say that use PortableApps - there are a lot of normal everyday users who visit the site and utilize our software as well.

Concerning OS support Vista is still under extended support by Microsoft, so we won't be dropping support for it anytime before April 11 2017.

For XP, despite Microsoft dropping support it still accounts for anywhere between 5% to 25% of desktop operating systems depending upon which stats you look at.

You have to realize that we aren't about trying to support the fastest/flashest/newest, while leaving everyone else in the dust. PortableApp's plan is to try and support as much as possible to allow as many people as possible to utilize our software, with as few people as possible experiencing compatibility issues that we could otherwise not force on them.

Drazick
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 2010-09-06 06:36
The only real statistics I

The only real statistics I could found is here (Steam):

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

They have a power user base, I guess something similar to Portable Apps.

As I guessed, the ration in Windows 7 between 32 and 64 is 1:4 (20%bs 80%).

On Windows 8 it goes 1:20.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Dissimilar to Steam

Steam is gamers with gaming rigs which is not the same as our userbase. As an example, Steam has under 5% of their userbase on XP. We have 17% of our userbase on XP. That's a huge difference. If we switched Chrome to 64-bit only, about 1/3 of our users would be unable to use it.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

gbrao
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 2013-03-21 10:16
Mr Haller, you do realise

Mr Haller, you do realise that if this is not available here we will just have to go elsewhere ? At least one other site seems to have portable 64-bit Chrome. Why be so rigid ? Chrome is not 'just another app'.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Performance vs Size, Chrome 64-bit Isn't Yet Ready, Test Version

As explained above, it's a performance vs size tradeoff. A 64-bit browser doesn't actually gain you much real world performance at the moment. But it would double the size of Chrome to make it a dual-mode 32-bit + 64-bit app to over 300MB, larger than a LibreOffice English install. And, yes, it must be dual mode. Otherwise, as you move from PC to PC, it's just going to fail on many PCs. Like a Vista machine at your parents. Or the Windows 7 32-bit machine at work, since the company went with 32-bit because of the slightly lower memory requirements.

Remember, this isn't just an app for you to run locally on your own machine. It's an app for all sorts of people to run on all sorts of machines. And, unlike in the Mac world, 32-bit in the Windows world is going to hang on for years still.

As for other sites, you're free to use illegal packages of Chrome from 3rd party sites that use closed source launchers that do things you don't know about. Remember, we cater to folks who want legal, stable, consistent, updateable apps that will continue to work everywhere they do and not suddenly stop working on a bunch of the machines they use. A lot of our users are in poorer areas of the world where people don't have first-class gaming rigs. Abandoning those users isn't something we're keen on.

The Bigger Point: It's Not Ready

When we do a dual mode 32-bit and 64-bit version of Chrome, it will be after it's fully baked and once the size difference means a little less (flash drives, hard drives, cloud storage limits all increase with time). Chrome 64-bit was just released as "stable" in the last week, but Google still isn't pushing it out to users. If you're an existing Windows Chrome user, you're getting automatically updated to the 32-bit version of Chrome 37... you don't even get an option to go 64-bit. If you go to the Chrome download page and click the download button, you get the 32-bit version of Chrome, even if you visit the page using the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer.

Think about that... even Google doesn't feel it's ready for most people yet. This is the same Google that claimed 64-bit Chrome was "faster" when it hit the beta channel in July, when it was actually 9% slower than the 32-bit version. Another reason to take any publishers' claims of "faster" as marketing speak until you prove it. So, quite simply, it's not ready to be pushed to everyone. And Google is well aware of that. So, we have to take that into consideration as well.

Google Chrome Portable "Stable" 64-bit Test Version

If there's enough interest, I can fire up an advanced channel of GoogleChromePortable64 for people to try out. It will have to be an advanced channel as it will fail on XP, Vista, Windows 7/8 32-bit, Wine, etc... meaning it will work on maybe 1/2 of PCs. As an advanced channel, you can manually tick the "Advanced Apps" box in the platform to get it to show up and be installable. And we'll need to include a warning on install as 32-bit launchers can have some issues with 64-bit apps in terms of registry entries and the like going to different virtual hives. Remember, Chrome is a beast in terms of hooks into the local operating system, it is absolutely not designed to be portable, unlike Firefox. So, there will likely be issues with the 64-bit release, at least initially. What say folks?

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

mwayne
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Developer
Joined: 2012-01-03 09:23
GoogleChromePortable64

I'd like to see a GoogleChromePortable64 for testing purposes.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Google Chrome Portable 37.0.2062.102 64-bit Test Released

I've released it as a test. The announcement is here: https://portableapps.com/news/2014-08-29--google-chrome-portable-37.0.20...

And it's available from the Google Chrome Portable homepage's test section: https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable#test

Note that this release is likely to have issues and should not be used as your primary browser. If/when we make the main Google Chrome Portable into a dual mode app, we'll be retiring this test branch.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Drazick
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 2010-09-06 06:36
This is Great! Thank You.

This is Great!

Thank You.

prius04
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 1 month ago
Joined: 2014-06-05 16:52
Outstanding, John! The 64-bit

Outstanding, John! The 64-bit version is working perfectly for me thus far - no issues here whatsoever.

Thanks so much!

bbbbbb
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2016-10-30 10:54
when will they add portable

when will they add portable version of Chrome Canary?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
No Current Plans For Canary Portable

As stated previously, we currently have no plans to package Canary for portable use. First, Canary is an unstable build of Chrome and likely to have bugs that would mistakenly be reported back to us. Second, the Google Chrome team is uninterested in portable use of their browser (it's designed to prevent it) unlike the Mozilla Firefox team that actively patches bugs that interfere with portable use. As such, it's in our interest to have a Firefox nightly built available to catch bugs but there's no reason to have a Canary build. This is also the reason that Chrome Portable only just barely works and requires you to stay logged into Google to avoid constant data loss while Firefox Portable works flawlessly out of the box. Third, unlike Mozilla Firefox's nightly build, Canary uses a constantly changing download URL as new builds are created. The PortableApps.com Installer does not support such an arrangement at present. One possible way around that would be for the launcher to contain the logic to download the latest build, but the Google Chrome launcher is already our most unwieldy launcher as it is - requiring tons of custom code to shoehorn in portable password abilities and try to counteract some of Chrome's portable-hostile nature.

In short, if the Chrome team were interested in working to ensure portable use - or at the very least stop treating user data as disposable when you move things between PCs - I'd consider it. As it is now, I don't see any value in doing it. It would just be a demand on my time and greatly increase user complaints.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

QQ122
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 2021-01-14 16:45
Добавьте Google Chrome 64bit | Add Google Chrome 64 bit

Русский:
Привет, почему вы до сих пор не добавляете Google Chrome 64bit на сайт, в PortableApp Platform есть а на сайте нет это не правильно потому-что эра 32bit компьютеров давно прошла. Сейчас всё новые компьютеры работают на 64bit, как показывает статистика 96% компьютеров с Windows работает на 64bit и только 3% компьютеров в мире работает на 64bit, и по чему Google Chrome 64bit ещё в тестирование у вас ведь должно было хватить времени, что-бы сделать нормальную не тестовую сборку
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English:
Hi, why do you still not add Google Chrome 64bit to the site, there is a Portableapps Platform and there is no site this is not correct because the era of 32bit computers has long passed. Now all new computers run on 64bit, as statistics show 96% of Windows computers run on 64bit and only 3% of computers in the world run on 64bit, and why Google Chrome 64bit still in testing you should have had enough time, to make a normal non-test build

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 22 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Test in Name Only

The 64-bit package is stable. It's just called test to distinguish it channel wise. It'll eventually be combined into the main one.

Side note: more than 3% of PCs are 32-bit.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

QQ122
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 2021-01-14 16:45
.

Русский:
Статистику я бра с популярного в России форума 4pda, возможно мировая статистика гораздо больше, скоро эпоха 32bit закончится

Форум 4pda: https://4pda.ru/
Microsoft положила конец эпохе 32-битных ПК: https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/2020-05-14_microsoft_polozhila_konets_ere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
English:
I took the statistics from the popular 4pda forum in Russia, perhaps the world statistics are much more, the 32bit era is coming to an end soon

Forum 4pda: https://4pda.ru/
Microsoft has put an end to the era of 32-bit PCs: https://www.cnews.ru/news/top/2020-05-14_microsoft_polozhila_konets_ere

ottosykora
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 2007-10-11 17:48
32bit still needed

It can be, that all new computers are 64bit and all new windows installations are 64bit.
This does not mean all computers run 64bit.
I have currently 5 computers in use, but only one of them is able to run 64bit programs

Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland

Log in or register to post comments