Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Chrome for Mac Gains 64-Bit Support in Latest Chrome 39 Update

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,541
30,850



chrome.jpg
Back in August, Google launched a beta build of 64-bit Chrome for Mac, following the public release of 64-bit Chrome for Windows. After several months of testing, Google today launched Chrome 39, its first stable-release 64-bit browser for OS X.

As Google said when it launched a beta version of 64-bit Chrome for Mac, 64-bit support will bring several speed and security improvements to the browser, in addition to decreasing the amount of memory that it uses.
Chrome 64-bit Chrome has become faster as a result of having access to a superior instruction set, more registers, and a more efficient function calling convention. Improved opportunities for ASLR enhance this version's security. Another major benefit of this change comes from the fact that most programs on a modern Mac are already 64-bit apps.

In cases where Chrome was the last remaining 32-bit app, there were launch-time and memory-footprint penalties as 32-bit copies of all of the system libraries needed to be loaded to support Chrome. Now that Chrome's a 64-bit app too, we expect you'll find that it launches more quickly and that overall system memory use decreases.
Click to expand...
With the release of Chrome 39, the 32-bit version of Chrome will be retired, left on Chrome 38, which means that some users of older Macs will not be able to use the new Chrome 39.

Along with 64-bit support, the new Chrome update includes new apps and extension APIs, plus improvements to stability and performance. There are also 42 security fixes for various vulnerabilities, which resulted in $41,500 in bounties that Google paid out to the individuals that reported the issues.

Chrome 39 can be downloaded from Google's Chrome website or installed using the Chrome browser's built-in update functionality.

Article Link: Chrome for Mac Gains 64-Bit Support in Latest Chrome 39 Update
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/18/chrome-mac-64-bit-support/
bpeeps

bpeeps

Suspended
May 6, 2011
3,678
4,629
One of the reasons I stopped using Chrome altogether and went to Safari primarily. Too little, too late. 32bit was a memory pig.
 
johnnnw

johnnnw

macrumors 65816
Feb 7, 2013
1,214
21
bpeeps said:
One of the reasons I stopped using Chrome altogether and went to Safari primarily. Too little, too late. 32bit was a memory pig.
Click to expand...

Safari is bad though. Looks good, but still one of the slower browsers. And huge lack of extensions for people who like that. And Adblock is bad on Safari because of API restrictions (can't block a lot of pre-roll type ads).
 
Traverse

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,688
4,400
Here
bpeeps said:
One of the reasons I stopped using Chrome altogether and went to Safari primarily. Too little, too late. 32bit was a memory pig.
Click to expand...

I know little about programing at this point, but doesn't 64-bit use more memory?

-----

I've been pretty happy with Safari. Chrome renders Macrumors links kind of strange anyway.
 
P

PoppaKap

macrumors regular
Jun 26, 2010
126
389
Can't be worse than safari. About 25% of the time safari takes 10-20 seconds to open a page.
 
flowsy

flowsy

macrumors 6502
Aug 16, 2009
353
297
Germany
Speedwise Chrome still isn't even in the same league as Safari on my MBA 2011. Maybe it's its flash support, maybe the missing hardware acceleration on my machine for Chrome.

I don't use an adblocker or have flash installed. They only slow Safari down in my experience.
 
Last edited:
A

advancewarsbest

macrumors regular
Mar 28, 2013
120
77
johnnnw said:
Safari is bad though. Looks good, but still one of the slower browsers. And huge lack of extensions for people who like that. And Adblock is bad on Safari because of API restrictions (can't block a lot of pre-roll type ads).
Click to expand...

I don't use many extensions, but the ad blocker works perfect.
The only time I notice a speed difference is when developing large enterprise level applications. Once I got the speed fast enough that you can't tell the difference cross browser my job is one.

Not to mention it has superb security and light weight. I had found some memory issues on V7 that came with Yosemite, but I haven't had enough time to investigate 7.0.6 that came out yesterday to tell. but its generally way better in memory management, since they don't treat each window/tab as a separate entity (V7 may do that but haven't had time to check its structure)
 
Apple_Robert

Apple_Robert

Contributor
Sep 21, 2012
34,329
49,659
In the middle of several books.
johnnnw said:
Safari is bad though. Looks good, but still one of the slower browsers. And huge lack of extensions for people who like that. And Adblock is bad on Safari because of API restrictions (can't block a lot of pre-roll type ads).
Click to expand...

In my experience, Safari 8 has been very fast, even with Adblock Plus loaded. In fact, I tested Safari yesterday without Adblock Plus loaded and could not tell any appreciable difference.
 
P

proline

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2012
630
1
Hilarious

They were coding 32 bit apps in 2014?! Can't believe a product so backwards existed! Guess Google sucks at writing software. Good thing this isn't one of their flagship products. Oh wait...
 
Traverse

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,688
4,400
Here
Still lags while scrolling, which may not be Google's fault. That is the number one reason why I don't use it. THe lack of Reading List is a close second.

Honestly, Safari is a smooth and well integrated browser on OS X. One thing Chrome has over it is pre-fetching searches, not just addresses, so that when you do a google search from the Omnibar it is almost instant. Also, Apple never seems to be able to solve the issue where Safari will randomly hang for no reason when loading a web page.
 
tevion5

tevion5

macrumors 68000
Jul 12, 2011
1,966
1,600
Ireland
johnnnw said:
Safari is bad though. Looks good, but still one of the slower browsers. And huge lack of extensions for people who like that. And Adblock is bad on Safari because of API restrictions (can't block a lot of pre-roll type ads).
Click to expand...

Extension lacking? Sure. Adblock inconsistencies? Sometime.

But slow? What universe is this you're living in exactly? Say hello to president Bob Dole for me.
 
poiihy

poiihy

macrumors 68020
Aug 22, 2014
2,301
62
YAAY FINALLY
It's so ironic... Chrome is the pioneer in everything else... but not architecture. It's been lagging so far behind! Why did they stick with 32 bit for so long?! The biggest problem with that is that Java didn't work in Chrome
 
GIZBUG

GIZBUG

macrumors 68020
Oct 28, 2006
2,425
1,541
Chicago, IL
Safari is great and all, but does no good when people use a mac AND Windows PC. If they had a valid Safari for windows that was continually updated, that would be a different story. At least with chrome, you can sync bookmarks/profiles over different devices AND platforms
 
2

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,327
3,015
I bought a iMac. I bought an iPad. I bought an iPhone. I don't see any reason to ruin that with Chrome. Now with handoff integration there really isn't any reason to allow Google and the NSA onto my Apple hardware.
 
Glassed Silver

Glassed Silver

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2007
2,096
2,567
Kassel, Germany
It really is quite a lot quicker in terms of starting up.

Hmm, well there are still some offenders in my activity monitor, probably the most embarrassing one being Dropbox.
Come on guys... The 64bit architecture arrived on the first home computers before you founded your company!
Especially so with Macs.

Glassed Silver:mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom