Lunascape Support Forum

I know it's too late for 6, but when you get round to bringing out 7 it would be nice to have the option.

Hi Nexus,

We'll keep in mind for future enhancement.

Thanks,

I don't have 64 bit, but it looks awesome, and I think it should be out there for everyone who has 64 bit to enjoy.
P.S.
IE 64 Bit works in my dad's 32 bit cpu, would Lunascape 64 bit work on my 32 bit? Even though its not built for it, it looks better

Hello from Germany. My question here should be a link to a 64bit-version, but I have to recognize there isn't any. So why? The problem can be nor the hardware (processors support this architecture since five years), neither the OS - most installations of Windows 7 are 64bit in the meantime). Perhaps the urge to create a 64bit-version isn't strong enough under Windows, because the old 32bit-Versions are running as well. Opposite to Linux - a 64bit-Linux requires mandatory 64bit-software as well. And it's remarkable - all software is available for Linux in 64bit as well. Somehow strange. The developers of Lunascape have to put up with the question what they did in the last three years.

To bring it to the point - an 32bit-version of a browser is useless for my purposes in the near future. So sorry - but farewell to Lunascape. The problem is the matter with the plugins. A 64bit-browser requires plugins in 64bit as well and contrary. Flash is a good example. A 64bit-version of flash is available for a long time (Project "Square"), but this requires first the removal of the 32bit-version - both together won't work. So the consequence is flash under Lunascape or flash under Firefox / Internet Explorer 9 ( As I don't have a 32bit-version any more, Microsoft has removed it with the upgrade to the new version, though I don't use it) / Google Chrome and so on.

There is no 64-bit Firefox version for Linux nor is there such for any other os. Read here.

I am not affiliated with Lunascape, but I appreciate its work. The Lunascape browser is an excellent product and the service is unbeatable. And it's all free!

You know, Mozilla's Gecko engine is based on XUL. And as long as there is no 64-bit XULRunner there won't be any 64-bit Gecko rendering engine. If there is one in the (far) future, I am quite sure Lunascape will use it in its browser.
The only 64-bit Webkit browser is Safari for Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Apple's business weapon. For all the others Webkit is distributed as 32-bit framework.

To sum up:
Browser and plugin vendors are working more or less (like Firefox) actively on 64-bit versions.
The Flash player 64-bit you mentioned is just a preview version as well as Microsoft's IE9. Any 64-bit version of Firefox is unofficial and just about 20% faster than the official 32-bit version. But speed is not the most important thing, because you can't read a page faster than it is rendered.
And all that tells me, time's still not ripe for 64-bit.

From Firefox for Linux, there is not only a 64bit-preview of Firefox 4, also the version 3 is in 64bit. The project is called Namorka, ubuntu used it since version 10.04. to build a native 64bit-version. Up to this very moment there is only no 64bit-version of Firefox 4 RC1, but this can only be a question of a few days. And hopefully the 64bit-version of Microsft Internet Explorer 9 is not only a phantom on my computer: . As told I don't use it normally, but starting the IE runs this version. Concerning flash, since five weeks there is a newer version available in 64 bit (10.2.), and until today I didn't remark any problem when using it.

What you forgot to mention, using a 64bit-browser means a high level of security, because at the very moment there is no suitable malsoftware for this architecture (under windows).

There is no 64-bit-Firefox project called "Namorka". But "Namoroka" is the code name for Firefox version 3.6 as "Shiretoko" was the code name for FF 3.5 and as "Tumucumaque" is for the upcoming FF 4.0.

Not detecting any problem does not mean there are no bugs. Thats the same as when you're coming back to your home after work, saying the door is still locked, therefore nobody was in. -- Wrong! Even when you unlock and open the door you can't be sure that there wasn't anybody in.

PC security is one of my main concerns. I already wrote that in some of my posts here.
A 64-bit os does not guarantee higher security because most 32-bit applications will also work on it; not just on Windows but also on other os's.

Increased security can be reached by driver or software signing, the step MS is doing with its 64-bit os's. But this does not just have pros but also a lot of cons: You can't install any driver/software that is not signed by the os vendor. If you release a driver or an application that runs on a only-signed-sw-allowed-os you have to pay expensive recurrent licence fees to the os vendor for letting sign your product.
Signing software on open source systems is useless because everyone knows how to sign, therefore everyone is able to sign: You can create your own SSL certificate thanks to the openSSL library, but that's no guarantee that it will not misused once by someone.

How did this stray from a simple 64 bit request to a discussion on specs and arguments?

Because of the false insertions in the comments above.