«

Hello!

Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html

If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.

http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695

Cheers, Roman

You left out the exciting part:

Feature List:

* Windows 2008 Support : Java 6 Update 12 will now
support Windows 2008.
* 64-bit Java Plug-In (4802695): Java Plug-In now
supports 64-bit browsers.

roman modic wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html
>

> If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
> need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.
>

>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695
>
> Cheers, Roman

Thanks, roman!
Downloaded
(http://www.java.net/download/jdk6/6u..._dec_2008.exe),
installed and tested
(http://www.upshot.com/login/javatest...vavmtest.html).
Working!

Carlos

"roman modic" wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html
>

> If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
> need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.
>

>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695
>
> Cheers, Roman
>

Thanks, Roman. Installed and works (so far) on Windows 7, IE8-64-bit.

"roman modic" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello!
>
> Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html
>

> If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
> need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.
>

>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695
>
> Cheers, Roman

Thks Roman, great news!!!


"roman modic" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello!
>
> Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html
>

> If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
> need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.
>

>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695
>
> Cheers, Roman

Thanks, Carlos. It's a bit exciting to have a Java console
that works in both I.E.7 64-bit and Minefield - the 64-bit
Firefox.


Carlos wrote:
> Thanks, roman!
> Downloaded
> (http://www.java.net/download/jdk6/6u..._dec_2008.exe),
> installed and tested
> (http://www.upshot.com/login/javatest...vavmtest.html).
> Working!
>
> Carlos
>
> "roman modic" wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Early access: https://jdk6.dev.java.net/6uNea.html
>>

>> If you plan to use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangably, you will
>> need to install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the Java Platform.
>>

>>
>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view...bug_id=4802695
>>
>> Cheers, Roman
>>

Hello!

"Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message news:...
> Thanks, Carlos. It's a bit exciting to have a Java console that works in both I.E.7 64-bit and Minefield - the 64-bit Firefox.

Unfortunately there will be no 64-bit version of Chromium / Google Chrome soon ?
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/d...64-bit-support

= Many binary-only plugins are only available as 32-bit libraries, which means the plugin processes must remain 32-bit. On Linux
this is already addressed by nspluginwrapper.
= Most importantly, the benefits and costs of a 64-bit build are non-trivial and should be analyzed and measured thoroughly.
- Our multi-process model negates the benefit of a 64-bit address space. A 32-bit address space should always be sufficient.
- Some performance gain may be possible with the 64-bit instruction set, but this can come with a cost of increased code size,
cache usage, etc.
- There will be a significant increase in memory usage, as all object pointers (DOM nodes, V8 objects, etc) would double in size.

Issues that can more easily be fixed - In descending order of difficulty:
= V8 generates x86 code; it needs to be taught a new architecture. Workaround could be using JSC, but that negates a large benefit
of Chromium.
= The Windows Sandbox is very "hardcoded" on the OS structure and native function prototypes. It would require significant work to
make 64-bit safe.
= Chromium hasn't been made 64-bit safe. Though it probably isn't too much work, it's not worth doing until the other pieces are in
place. This includes making the IPC system cross 64-bit/32-bit compatible for communication with plugins.
= Changing the installer to include both 64- and 32-bit binaries.
= Perhaps other third-party libraries don't work? But most of them are open-source and already work fine on 64-bit Linux.

Regards, Roman

Please enlighten me. I am baffled as to what the
relationship is of this post. I must have missed it when
someone mentioned Google Chrome.

Personally I have been totally unimpressed with Chrome
because it is so rudimentary and significantly lacks the
options to personalize it! So, until Google produces a REAL
browser, I will continue with Firefox. Opera it better than
Chrome!


roman modic wrote:
> Hello!
>
> "Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Thanks, Carlos. It's a bit exciting to have a Java console that works
>> in both I.E.7 64-bit and Minefield - the 64-bit Firefox.
>
> Unfortunately there will be no 64-bit version of Chromium / Google
> Chrome soon ?
> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/d...64-bit-support
>

> = Many binary-only plugins are only available as 32-bit libraries, which
> means the plugin processes must remain 32-bit. On Linux this is already
> addressed by nspluginwrapper.
> = Most importantly, the benefits and costs of a 64-bit build are
> non-trivial and should be analyzed and measured thoroughly.
> - Our multi-process model negates the benefit of a 64-bit address
> space. A 32-bit address space should always be sufficient.
> - Some performance gain may be possible with the 64-bit instruction
> set, but this can come with a cost of increased code size, cache usage,
> etc.
> - There will be a significant increase in memory usage, as all object
> pointers (DOM nodes, V8 objects, etc) would double in size.
>
> Issues that can more easily be fixed - In descending order of difficulty:
> = V8 generates x86 code; it needs to be taught a new architecture.
> Workaround could be using JSC, but that negates a large benefit of
> Chromium.
> = The Windows Sandbox is very "hardcoded" on the OS structure and native
> function prototypes. It would require significant work to make 64-bit safe.
> = Chromium hasn't been made 64-bit safe. Though it probably isn't too
> much work, it's not worth doing until the other pieces are in place.
> This includes making the IPC system cross 64-bit/32-bit compatible for
> communication with plugins.
> = Changing the installer to include both 64- and 32-bit binaries.
> = Perhaps other third-party libraries don't work? But most of them are
> open-source and already work fine on 64-bit Linux.
>

>
> Regards, Roman
>

Hello!

"Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message news:%...
> Please enlighten me. I am baffled as to what the
> relationship is of this post. I must have missed it when
> someone mentioned Google Chrome.



> Personally I have been totally unimpressed with Chrome
> because it is so rudimentary and significantly lacks the
> options to personalize it! So, until Google produces a REAL
> browser, I will continue with Firefox. Opera it better than
> Chrome!

I agree. Unfortunately there is no official 64-bit version of Opera for Windows
http://www.javakb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx...indows-x64-bit
http://www.xsi-blog.com/archives/251

There is a 64-bit Native version of firefox out there, though I wish 64-bit Opera existed for Windows 64 bit.

Cheers, Roman

If you want the 64-bit Firefox you can download it here:
http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Download

It works on both XP x64 and Vista x64.


roman modic wrote:
> There is a 64-bit Native version of firefox out there, though I wish
> 64-bit Opera existed for Windows 64 bit.
>
>
> Cheers, Roman
>
>