I see what you mean. The chart is abstract, but I see how the relative
sizes do imply more than intended. I like your suggestion to use up and
down arrows.
chris
On 2017-08-14 7:42 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
Chris,
Do you know who controls this blog post?
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox
Chris,
Do you know who controls this blog post?
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-64-default-64-bit-windows/
The chart is really misleading. What does the vertical bar chart for
"security" even mean? As noted on twitter:
https://twitter.com/kylealden/status/897222041476005888
The bar
On 2017-08-07 1:19 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
I think the 2GB "requirement" from Microsoft should be ignored, because
plenty of our users are ignoring it.
By "ignore the 2GB requirement", are you suggesting we do or don't give
64-bit Firefox to users with less than 2GB?
I am waffling aga
Correction to my earlier claims about our minimum memory requirement.
The stub installer will default to 64-bit for users with >= 1800 MB. So
users with exactly 2 GB should get 64-bit Firefox. Only Win64 users with
strictly less than 2 GB will default to 32-bit Firefox.
Why the magic number 1
On 8/7/2017 3:51 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
Do we test 32-bit Firefox on Win32 or Win64 today?
Our Win32 tests run on 32-bit Windows 7 instances. I don't know offhand
if we're using the /3GB switch or not.
-Ryan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-pla
I think the 2GB "requirement" from Microsoft should be ignored, because
plenty of our users are ignoring it.
Nick
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Chris Peterson
wrote:
> On 2017-08-06 11:26 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Users wit
On 2017-08-06 11:26 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
Users with only 2 GB and 5 minute browser sessions would probably have a
faster user experience with 32-bit Firefox than with 64-bit, but how do we
weigh that experience versus the security bene
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Users with only 2 GB and 5 minute browser sessions would probably have a
> faster user experience with 32-bit Firefox than with 64-bit, but how do we
> weigh that experience versus the security benefits of ASLR?
Not giving users a security
Hi
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit
> Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get
> them automatically on 64-bits and upgrade manually? This is especially
> going to be a problem for
On 2017-07-19 6:58 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
I don't understand why that would be, but if so it should show in
crashstats as fewer small OOMs on these devices. Does the data actually
show that?
I don't know. Can that be filtered?
I'm not sure I'm answering the right question, but searching thro
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:40:12PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2017 8:57 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
> >
> > > What would be the rationale behind this choice?
> >
> > Smaller me
On Jul 19, 2017 8:57 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
>
> > What would be the rationale behind this choice?
>
> Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine
> with (less
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:48:45PM -0400, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
>
> > What would be the rationale behind this choice?
>
> Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine
> with (less than) 2GB RAM, makes a difference.
>
>
> I t
On Jul 19, 2017 6:20 PM, "Mike Hommey" wrote:
> What would be the rationale behind this choice?
Smaller memory footprint, which, you'll admit, when you're on a machine
with (less than) 2GB RAM, makes a difference.
I thought we had data that showed OOM (small) due to VM fragmentation still
outw
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:01:04AM +0200, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit
> > Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get
> > them automatically
On 2017-07-19 10:18 AM, Mike Hoye wrote:
On 2017-07-19 3:58 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit
Firefox?
Outside of our QA team (or others orgs, I guess?) do we have a set of
use cases that w
On 2017-07-19 3:58 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit
Firefox?
Outside of our QA team (or others orgs, I guess?) do we have a set of
use cases that would motivate people to flip that switch?
On 2017-07-19 12:01 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
What's the plan for eligible people that still want to keep 32-bit
Firefox? Are they going to have to stop auto upgrades, which would get
them automatically on 64-bits and upgrade manually? This is especially
going to be a problem for users with less th
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:38:56PM -0700, Chris Peterson wrote:
> We are on track to make 64-bit Firefox the default build for Win64 OS,
> bringing improved ASLR and fewer OOM crashes to the 70% of Windows Firefox
> users running Win64.
>
> PLANS:
>
> * In Firefox 55 (August 8), the Windows stub
We are on track to make 64-bit Firefox the default build for Win64 OS,
bringing improved ASLR and fewer OOM crashes to the 70% of Windows
Firefox users running Win64.
PLANS:
* In Firefox 55 (August 8), the Windows stub installer will default to
64-bit Firefox for eligible users (Win64 and 2+
20 matches
Mail list logo
