Thunderbird Windows x64?

[Patrick Brunschwig]

I noticed that there are Windows x64 builds of Thunderbird Daily. What
are the plans for the x64 version? Will Thunderbird 16 be released as
win32 and win64?

Thanks,
Patrick

[Jeff Grossman]

Just like Firefox it is probably not a supported build. They supply
them for testing purposes only but will not release them as a
supported buid yet. I think they started when the Thunderbird build
architecture moved to the same system that is used by Firefox.

Jeff

p.s. Also, any extensions you use would need to be compiled as 64-bit
which I doubt any of them are right now.

[David]

FYI In Windows 7 x86_64 I use, and have used for months, the 64 bit
Firefox Nightly builds and all of the nine extensions that I use work
just fine. Straight from the Mozilla Add-ons site.

I have both the 32 bit and the 64 bit Thunderbird Daily installed and
nine of the ten extensions that I use work with both of them. Straight
from the Mozilla Add-on site.

The *only* Thunderbird extension that I use that *does not appear to
work* is Enigmail. Enigmail used with the 64 bit Thunderbird complains
that it can not find gpg.exe. And I have yet to find a 64 bit Gnupg
package so I do know if the problem is the 32 bit is gpg.exe or Enigmail.
Or a combination of both of them.



--

David

[Michael A. Puls II]

On 6/17/2012 12:00 AM, David wrote:
> The*only* Thunderbird extension that I use that *does not appear to

> work* is Enigmail. Enigmail used with the 64 bit Thunderbird complains
> that it can not find gpg.exe. And I have yet to find a 64 bit Gnupg
> package so I do know if the problem is the 32 bit is gpg.exe or Enigmail.
> Or a combination of both of them.

I recently started using Daily x64 builds.

I also recently (but after I started using the x64 builds) tried out
Enigmail. Not only did I run into the problem of Enigmail not
installing unless I tried the builds from
<http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/nightly.php.html>, I ran into the
same problem as you. There's no x64 build of GPG/Enigmail that I could fine.

It seems the Daily x64 (or Enigmail) needs to implement some type of
wrapper to make things work.

End result is that I'm sticking with x64 and not using Engimail.

--
Michael

[Jonathan Protzenko]

There was a lengthy discussion on m.d.planning about 64-bit builds for
Windows. The tl;dr is:
- they don't bring any significant benefits in terms of performance,
even less so for Thunderbird because I don't think Thunderbird will
ever run over the 3GB memory limit,
- they use more memory,
- less tested,
- the JITs are better in the 32bit builds,
- they make life harder when having to support plugins.

Yet, users insist on usnig 64-bit builds on Windows, because they think
they're better, even though a thorough analysis yields the opposite
conclusion (see the various messages near the end of the thread).


The full thread is
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.planning/Giij-AZfUAM/discussion
and I think the conclusion of the thread is that they are not going to
be supported in the near future. These builds are being produced for
testing purposes only: please, everyone, stick to the 32bit builds,
64-bit builds on Windows provide *no benefit* over the 32-bit builds.

Cheers,

jonathan

[David]

This is directed at Jonathan Protzenko but since he top posted, and I
don't, this is at the bottom and not directed at Michael A. Puls Ii

---------------

Using this logic we would sill be flying in propeller type airplanes. No
power steering or power brakes or automatic transmissions in cars. Maybe
still be riding horses.

For me the 64 bit Firefox, allowing for all of the debug overhead, loads
faster and renders more quickly.

If there is a x86_64 build of any application that I use I use the 64bit
version.

The world does not wait for anyone. If you don't move on you will be
left behind.

Have a good day.
--

David

[Jonathan Protzenko]

This is exactly the kind of reaction we had in the other thread: there
is evidence that the 64-bit builds provide no significant benefit over
the 32-bit ones on Windows (this is untrue for other platforms), yet
users insist on using them, because they think "64-bit is better than
32-bit". This is pure belief, but Mozilla may end up being strong-armed
into wasting significant engineering + testing + infrastructure
resources just because of that belief.

If you really do believe that 64-bit is better than 32-bit, then please
provide hard evidence for that claim using technical arguments (e.g.
profiling, benchmarking, etc.) rather than vague metaphors and
statements without evidence. Right now the benefit seems to mainly
psychological for you.

jonathan

[Philip Chee]

There are two know advantages though:
1. Fewer OOM crashes.
2. Fewer crapware antivirus products that inject themselves into your
process space and then crash because the entry points they are looking
for have changed.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Jonathan Protzenko]

HI,

Re 1., OOM makes more sense for Firefox because the memory usage
increases as you open tabs, but I believe it's hard to reach the 3GB
limit inside Thunderbird, unless you have a very specific use-case. Do
we have a real problem with OOM crashes in Thunderbird?

2. is because there's less crapware compiled for 64-bit?

jonathan

[David]

On 6/17/2012 8:49 AM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of reaction we had in the other thread: there
> is evidence that the 64-bit builds provide no significant benefit over
> the 32-bit ones on Windows (this is untrue for other platforms), yet
> users insist on using them, because they think "64-bit is better than
> 32-bit". This is pure belief, but Mozilla may end up being strong-armed
> into wasting significant engineering + testing + infrastructure
> resources just because of that belief.
>
> If you really do believe that 64-bit is better than 32-bit, then please
> provide hard evidence for that claim using technical arguments (e.g.
> profiling, benchmarking, etc.) rather than vague metaphors and
> statements without evidence. Right now the benefit seems to mainly
> psychological for you.
>
> jonathan

May I ask 'just who are' Jonathan? Are you one of the Mozilla Developers?
No disrespect intended. I am but a simple user

--

David

[Mark Rousell]

On 17/06/2012 13:49, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of reaction we had in the other thread: there
> is evidence that the 64-bit builds provide no significant benefit over
> the 32-bit ones on Windows (this is untrue for other platforms), yet
> users insist on using them, because they think "64-bit is better than
> 32-bit". This is pure belief, but Mozilla may end up being strong-armed
> into wasting significant engineering + testing + infrastructure
> resources just because of that belief.
>
> If you really do believe that 64-bit is better than 32-bit, then please
> provide hard evidence for that claim using technical arguments (e.g.
> profiling, benchmarking, etc.) rather than vague metaphors and
> statements without evidence. Right now the benefit seems to mainly
> psychological for you.

Thing is, technical arguments are not everything in reality. They are
obviously important and can't be ignored but they are not everything.

It is rare for anyone to use a piece of software (where they have a
choice) solely for technical reasons. They may rationalise their
decision in technical terms (and technical reasons may play a big part)
but very often there is sentiment too. In short, people use what they
*like* and people like things for a whole load of reasons apart from
pure technical issues.

The reality is that 64-bit is the future and it is increasingly *what*
*people* *expect* regardless of platform. It is what people think is the
way forward. It is what they like. I think this expectation is
particularly likely to be true for a large proportion of the kind of
users who would even consider Thunderbird at all. They are simply
*happier* with 64-bit apps for their 64-bit OS because that seems
modern. Happy users are surely what we want. It is happy users who offer
the project sustainability, a path to the future.

In this light, surely it is getting to the stage where 64-bit
Thunderbird must be worth it, if only to fulfil 'customer' expectation.
Doing what may well be the technically 'right' thing (i.e. not expending
resources on a 64-bit version) is not beneficial if the customers/users
don't like it, if it makes us look outmoded. Rightly or wrongly, 32-bit
is getting to seem outmoded to many people.

In short, "pure belief", annoying though it may well be to many techies,
really, really matters in terms of long term sustainability and usage.
Image and perception count in users' and wouldbe users' minds, as much
as getting the technology right matters.


--
Mark Rousell

PGP public key: http://www.signal100.com/markr/pgp
Key ID: C9C5C162

[Michael A. Puls II]

On 6/17/2012 4:21 AM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> Yet, users insist on usnig 64-bit builds on Windows, because they think
> they're better, even though a thorough analysis yields the opposite
> conclusion (see the various messages near the end of the thread).

I use them just because I have Win7 x64 and want to use x64 programs.
It's not for logical/technical reasons. I can test the Daily 32-bit
builds from now on if it's really causing that much of a problem as
mentioned in that link and Mozilla doesn't want anyone to testing the
x64 builds. I can have my x64 fun in the built-in mail client of the x64
version of Opera, so I'm good.

--
Michael

[Jeff Grossman]

That might be true, but if you find a bug that is specific to the
64-bit build, it might take a while, if ever, to get fixed. You could
be using an insecure or buggy build for a while just to say that you
are running a 64-bit version.

If the 64-bit build has no benefit over the 32-bit version, how is
using it being left behind. Not sure I follow.

Jeff

[Mark Rousell]

On 17/06/2012 17:44, Mark Rousell wrote:
> The reality is that 64-bit is the future and it is increasingly *what*
> *people* *expect* regardless of platform. It is what people think is the
> way forward. It is what they like. I think this expectation is
> particularly likely to be true for a large proportion of the kind of
> users who would even consider Thunderbird at all. They are simply
> *happier* with 64-bit apps for their 64-bit OS because that seems
> modern.

In respect of my comments above, witness the message below from this
very thread, posted one minute after my message above. ;-)

-<quote>-----------------------------------------------------------------

On 6/17/2012 4:21 AM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> Yet, users insist on usnig 64-bit builds on Windows, because they
> think
> they're better, even though a thorough analysis yields the opposite
> conclusion (see the various messages near the end of the thread).

I use them just because I have Win7 x64 and want to use x64 programs.
It's not for logical/technical reasons. I can test the Daily 32-bit
builds from now on if it's really causing that much of a problem as
mentioned in that link and Mozilla doesn't want anyone to testing the
x64 builds. I can have my x64 fun in the built-in mail client of the x64
version of Opera, so I'm good.

-<quote>-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Jeff Grossman]

Yes, Jonathon is the one who created the Thunderbird Conversations
add-on.

Jeff

[David]

I have yet to see, me personally, a bug that was in the 64bit build that
are not also in the 32bit build. Not saying there are none. Only that I
have not seen one. This is in Firefox Nightly 64bit used for many
months. I can not speak of Thunderbird as the 64bit is so new.

You want to use 32bit software on multi-core 16gig machines, if you have
one, then help yourself. Enjoy.

--

David

[Jeff Grossman]

I understand all of that, but with a project that already is short
developers to handle the load, how can anybody justify splitting that
short amount of developers between handling 32-bit and 64-bit
versions. I would prefer to spend all of the resources on making the
32-bit versions better especially if there is no added benefit to
running the 64-bit versions. Until Thunderbird, or Mozilla in
general, get more developers they need to pick their battles and the
have chosen to concentrate on 32-bit versions. Which I agree with.

They are supplying 64-bit versions, which they don't even have to do,
but do not expect any support if you use them. And, if you use the
64-bit version, that is just one less user to help solve any problems
that might exist with Thunderbird.

Jeff

[David]

Their choice of course. I did not say I was angry. But Mac has duel arch
and Linux has duel arch for both Firefox and Thunderbird.

As I said in this thread I, as in me, has never seen a bug that was not
in both and solved the same way. Repeat. Me. I have even helped to track
several of them down. And as I said about Thunderbird I do not use the
64bit version only because Patrick (Enigmail) has sufficient problems
with four versions of 32 bit Enigmail for 32bit Thunderbird and I value
his extension.

You have a great day.
--

David

[Philip Chee]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:26:34 +0200, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> HI,
>
> Re 1., OOM makes more sense for Firefox because the memory usage
> increases as you open tabs, but I believe it's hard to reach the 3GB
> limit inside Thunderbird, unless you have a very specific use-case. Do
> we have a real problem with OOM crashes in Thunderbird?

Dunno. The Instantbird component used to leak like crazy. I think
Florian has fixed most of them.

[Philip Chee]

On 18/06/2012 01:03, Jeff Grossman wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:53:18 -0400, David wrote:
>

That's not actually answering his question.

[Florian Quèze]

On 17/06/12 22:06, Philip Chee wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:26:34 +0200, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:

[...]

>> Do we have a real problem with OOM crashes in Thunderbird?
>
> Dunno. The Instantbird component used to leak like crazy.

Instantbird is the name of a separate application:
http://www.instantbird.com/
It's not a Thunderbird component.

> I think Florian has fixed most of them.

The large leaks that have been fixed recently are completely unrelated
to instant messaging, see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764742 for the details.

Florian

[Joshua Cranmer]

On 6/17/2012 4:08 PM, Philip Chee wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 01:03, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:53:18 -0400, David wrote:
>>
>>> May I ask 'just who are' Jonathan? Are you one of the Mozilla Developers?
>>> No disrespect intended. I am but a simple user
>> Yes, Jonathon is the one who created the Thunderbird Conversations
>> add-on.
> That's not actually answering his question.
>

Jonathan Protzenko has commit access to mozilla-central and
comm-central, which is as close to an official Mozilla developer as such
a concept usefully exists.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 6/17/2012 3:21 AM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> There was a lengthy discussion on m.d.planning about 64-bit builds for Windows. The tl;dr is:
> - they don't bring any significant benefits in terms of performance, even less so for Thunderbird because I don't think Thunderbird
> will ever run over the 3GB memory limit,
> - they use more memory,
> - less tested,
> - the JITs are better in the 32bit builds,
> - they make life harder when having to support plugins.
>
> Yet, users insist on usnig 64-bit builds on Windows, because they think they're better, even though a thorough analysis yields the
> opposite conclusion (see the various messages near the end of the thread).
>
>
> The full thread is https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.planning/Giij-AZfUAM/discussion and I think the conclusion of the
> thread is that they are not going to be supported in the near future. These builds are being produced for testing purposes only:
> please, everyone, stick to the 32bit builds, 64-bit builds on Windows provide *no benefit* over the 32-bit builds.
>
> Cheers,
>
> jonathan

Didn't Bill Gates say that no one would ever need
more than 640 KB of ram back in the 80s ?

Relax, the world is changing. Fortunately you
can chose to abstain here.

Lynn

[don.da...@gmail.com]

I found that I could NOT Compact folders with standard Thunderbird, and that my Gmail account (even with frequent pruning), was well over 3 gig. Suspecting I was reaching an addressing limitation with 32 bit Thunderbird, I found and installed Daily 64 bit, and Voila, I compacted folders and saved several gig of old static space that I had previously been unable to compact. Just that alone makes the 64 bit version necessary for me.

[Lynn McGuire]

Cool ! I wonder why Mozilla does not push 32 bit users onto it like
they did for Firefox ?

Lynn

[Wayne]

If it worked for you in a 64bit version, it was because of newer or
different code, NOT because it is a 64bit application.

[Jörg Knobloch]

On 04/01/2018 01:26, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Cool !  I wonder why Mozilla does not push 32 bit users onto it like
> they did for Firefox ?

We're working on a 64bit version for Thunderbird. Currently only
Thunderbird Daily is available as 64bit.

Jörg.