Chrome 32-bit

[Claude]

Chromestill has official support for the 32-bit architecture. In the image of chrome official download site below,you can find both 32-bit and 64-bit have the same latest version release number viz 89.0.4389.90

The users will not notice any difference according to this: -64-bit-vs-32-bit-for-windows-is-64-bit-worth-installing/ . If you are keen to do it, put in on a departments PCs first and see how it goes. If no complaints roll it out.

As far as determining if an installation of Chrome is 32-bit or 64-bit: It has gotten much more difficult without some fairly customized scanners. There used to be a registry value that could be queried to determine the Chrome architecture but that vanished over a year ago. The Chrome team removed it around the same time that they highly encouraged the arch of Chrome to match the arch of the OS.

In order to improve stability, performance, and security, users who are currently on 32-bit version of Chrome, and 64-bit Windows with 4GB or more of memory and auto-update enabled will be automatically migrated to 64-bit Chrome during this update. 32-bit Chrome will still be available via the Chrome download page."

You'll want to get Chromium which is an opensource chrome. They still support 32 bit Operating systems. I'm using it right now it hasn't been updated since November though. They're still working on updates for it but a new stable version isn't available yet.

If I want to download something for Example 'Google Chrome', the Google Chrome Download Page thinks that I'm using 64bit operating system and thus it downloads 'ChromeStandalone64.exe for me. If I want to download the 32bit, I need to be on the 32bit OS OR I need to click on the other platform. This is just a use case example.

So in general, my question is how do I trick the browser (using any scripting language) that I use 32bit OS ? I know there is a chrome plugin that disguises the Chrome browser as different browser like Safari, Internet explorer. it works. but what about tricking the browser as 64bit or 32bit?

For Google Chrome, you could try clicking on "Other Platforms" near the bottom of the page, then choose the 32-bit version. If you install and browse with the 32-bit version, you may automatically get offered 32-bit versions of other software.

Considering the results of your relevance query is saying that there was a Chrome entry found in the 32-bit branch of the registry (and none found in the 64-bit branch), I would have to ask whether you are certain that 64-bit Chrome is installed on that device?

q: if (exists values "DisplayName" of keys whose (value "DisplayName" of it as string as lowercase contains "chrome") of key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall" of x32 registry) then "32bit" else (if (exists values "DisplayName" of keys whose (value "DisplayName" of it as string as lowercase contains "chrome") of key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall" of native registry) then "64bit" else "not found")

Google discontinued its 32-bit version for OS X almost a year ago. Additionally even if you could get a 32-bit version it is going to have lots of security issues. So why would you want to run it knowing it has lots of unresolved security issues!

Last week, Mike Malone, CTO of Betable, wrote a very insightful and informative article on Math.random() and PRNGs in general. Mike pointed out V8/Chrome used a pretty bad algorithm to generate random numbers and, since this week, V8 uses a better algorithm.

The article also mentioned the RNG we use in Firefox (it was copied from Java a long time ago) should be improved as well. I fully agree with this. In fact, the past days I've been working on upgrading Math.random() in SpiderMonkey to XorShift128+, see bug 322529. We think XorShift128+ is a good choice: we already had a copy of the RNG in our repository, it's fast (even faster than our current algorithm!), and it passes BigCrush (the most complete RNG test available).

While working on this, I looked at a number of different RNGs and noticed Safari/WebKit uses GameRand. It's extremely fast but very weak. (Update Dec 1: WebKit is now also using XorShift128+, so this doesn't apply to newer Safari/WebKit versions.)

Most interesting to me, though, was that, like the previous V8 RNG, it has only 32 bits of precision: it generates a 32-bit unsigned integer and then divides that by UINT_MAX + 1. This means the result of the RNG is always one of about 4.2 billion different numbers, instead of 9007199 billion (2^53). In other words, it can generate 0.00005% of all numbers an ideal RNG can generate.

Safari and older Chrome versions both generate random numbers with only 32 bits of precision. This issue has been fixed in Chrome, but Safari's RNG should probably be fixed as well. Even if we ignore its suboptimal precision, the algorithm is still extremely weak.

Math.random() is not a cryptographically-secure PRNG and should never be used for anything security-related, but, as Mike argued, there are a lot of much better (and still very fast) RNGs to choose from.

@Yandros , @sfackler : Yes, I was going to make the same comment. I read the doc a few time, and the only thing I got out of it was: due to isize offset, a single Vec/Box can't be more than 2^31, but I don't see how to prove the entire heap is only 2^31.

Yes, I was going to make the same comment. I read the doc a few time, and the only thing I got out of it was: due to isize offset, a single Vec/Box can't be more than 2^31, but I don't see how to prove the entire heap is only 2^31.

As far as I am aware, the multi-memory proposal hasn't been merged yet, so you can't increase your available memory by saying "pointer A should use memory block 1 and pointer B should use memory block 2".

In the current version of WebAssembly, at most one memory may be defined or imported in a single module, and all constructs implicitly reference this memory 0. This restriction may be lifted in future versions.

I'd try to modify the program so it doesn't require 2+ GB of memory at any one time (e.g. by processing inputs in smaller chunks). I'm assuming you've already tried this though or that there might be domain-specific reasons why you need more memory, so this suggestion is probably not helpful.

Right now, I'm just shoving data in ArrayBuffer , and loading them into wasm as needed. What I meant to ask in the question was if there were any other techniques, besides js_sys::ArrayBuffer / web_worker that might be useful in this situation. (I.e. other JS/wasm APIs I should learn about).

Yes, I was going to make the same comment. I read the doc a few time, and the only thing I got out of it was: due to isize offset, a single Vec/Box can't be more than 2^31, but I don't see how to prove the entire heap is only 2^31

Code is never part of the wasm linear memory. There is no limit on the size of code that I know of. 10GB of code should work fine I think, though actual implementations likely limit it to a fraction of that. For example chrome limits all (javascript) code to 128MiB I believe. I did expect the wasm code to count towards the same limit.

no, this is a fresh install of ubuntu with chromium installed. Chromium does not have the drm/er? module that allows netflix to play. Chrome does not come as a .deb file. which is why I am having a hard time.

Thanks but I knew that. Support is not the issue, its netflix. Chromium does not have the DRM module to play netflix while chrome and firefox do. Firefox unfortunately seems to be getting slower and slower even after refreshing and reseting extensions. Chrome is the only fast browser now for 32 bit machines if you also want netflix.

As I said, Chromium does not have the DRM module to play netflix while chrome and firefox do. Firefox unfortunately seems to be getting slower and slower even after refreshing and reseting extensions. Chrome is the only fast browser now for 32 bit machines if you also want netflix.

Which one do you think is more safe (not 100% safe neither, I know), mypal 68 (based on outdated quantum 68) or this chromium 115 partially cleaned (but I cannot find connections to China and HDD scanning, but maybe I've not instigated enough, who knows), or maybe 360ee?

Anyway while I'm waiting for my hero to release XP supermium (and maybe the other hero developer of thorium can base its XP chromium on it like will do for the windows 7 one) which one is more recommended?

Well, I'm not talking just about the windows 7 version (which will be awesome after will be based on supermium), but the performance that thorium has on old devices are extreme. The android version I had it installed on an old TV which cannot play nothing in streaming from a browser even at 240p, (with official YouTube app can but 720p60 already is sluggish) but with thorium can stream with acceptable performance, even 720p (but YouTube cannot do more than 480p anyway).

Unless I read somewhere that there is a fix or some way to make the browser last for more than only a year, to me, its not worth putting the energy into it given that I'd be deleting it next year if I started to enjoy it. I also didn't know of such a timebomb with Chrome browsers; but then again, I'm also still uneducated much dealing with chrome and only started to use it with 360 chrome.

3a8082e126