No, not for Windows.

I had read that, at least a year ago, they planned to make a 64 bit version of firefox 4 for windows, did they just give up on that, or are they putting it off for awhile?

Sorry but there will not be a Firefox 4 64-bit build for Windows. There are nightly builds at http://nightly.mozilla.org. The builds are unsupported, may be more unstable than the 32-bit version. You will be limited to 64-bit plugins. Some plugins such as MS Silverlight do not have 64-bit version (so Netflix will not work in 64 bit mode). It is recommended that you use the 32 bit version at http://www.firefox.com/rc.

Probably, you should leave it for user`s choice? Why Linux user can use 64 bit version and you have no arguments about plugins or whatever else? Using Minefield 64 bit now and found it works better than 32 bit firefox, less memory hangs and no big problems even with beta versions. Flash is also now available in 64 bit version. Very strange decision...

Going along with nesterenko, at least its nice that there are nightly builds but it would be really nice if there was an official release. The whole plugin argument is a chicken and egg dilemma. Plugin makers won't make 64-bit plugins if there are no 64-bit browser and browser makers won't make 64-bit browsers if there are no 64-bit plugins. Well we now have 64-bit flash and 64-bit java. If I want silverlight that badly I could use a 32-bit browser on the side. But I highly doubt there was some huge survey done where the majority of firefox's users used it for netflix only. 64-bit is no longer the future; it is here, it is now, it is relevant. People have 64-bit computers and 64-bit operating systems and are getting tired of the 32-bit performance they get out of firefox. Firefox hogs so much memory so why not officially support a 64-bit version that way people can satisfy the gluttonous memory urges that Firefox inherently has? It seems only natural.

Wtf no 64 bit Windows version, that will make me go back to Internet Exploder, at least they have a 64 bit version.

I seem to remember a promise some time ago, when flash gets 64 bit Firefox will be 64 bit, but I guess that was just a lie.

With the majority of new systems being 64 bit, there is no reason to stay in the stone age anymore.

I love firefox, but I also love my 99% 64 system, Firefox are the 1% left to fix, so if you guys refuse to make a 64 bit Windows version, so be it, I am sure I am not alone, when I say to hell with it, 64 bit M$ Internet Exploder it is then, and the new version 9 runs quite well.

I simply refuse to use 32 bit in a time where 64 bit is the standard, so wehn you guys make a 64 bit version, I might get back, then again I might be so used to IE that I just stay.

No 64 bit version will mean RIP on the long run

Edit: I forgot, so what if a few thousand Netflix users are sacked, if that is the only reason to stay 32 bit, then someone is mentally challenged. It is just a new way of saying nah we cant be arsed to work it out, so we just find some excuse, wait we already used flash, lets use silverlight this time, surely the users will buy it.

I'm not in contact with the developers, so it's not easy to say why it is so, but there must be good reasons why 64-bit Firefox isn't being built for Windows. Right? However, yesterday/today wasn't a good day to go Minefield. :)

ps. IMO, also, it's completely ridiculous not to have it. xd

pps. For some reason the nightly web page didn't link to the latest release for me! The one from this morning doesn't have the visual elements broken: 25-Mar-2011 06:53 12M

It is slated for Firefox 5 although it seems like even that is TBD. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap#Product_Priorities_for_2011

Sakamoto, what are you talking about?

First off, there is no 64 bit version of Flash Player released, there's only the Flash Player "Square" preview that was released before 10.2, hasn't been updated in 5 months and is probably full of bugs and vulnerabilities.

64 bit Internet Exploder 9? Read this blog post by IE developer Eric Law : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2009/05/29/q-a-64-bit-internet-explorer.aspx Microsoft made it because they had to, There is no JIT compiler for 64bit and 32bit IE9 runs up to 4 times as fast as 64bit IE9. They purposely made it so 64bit IE9 cant be set as default because too many things dont work with it, and even the IE developer cant find a true benefit to using 64bit IE.

Similar things apply to the 64bit version of WMP 12 that is hidden away in the Program files without a start menu shortcut and even with office 2010 the 32-bit version is installed by default and 64-bit is recommended only if you have to deal with files larger than 2 gigabytes

How much effort would it take to create a 64-bit FF?

Let the users decide what they want to run -- Inform them of the problems like Flash only having a Beta release (like Google Maps, Google Product Search, and most of the google products for almost a year or more after they were introduced... in other words -- who cares?!)

Only if users have 64-bit versions and demand 3rd party suppliers provide 64-bit compatibility will it ever happen.

I want more memory cache. Right now, I have it set to 1GB on FF3.x and I don't know if that will crash it or not (given FF's-x32 is still limited to 2GB last time I checked -- even though it *could* use up to 4GB on Win7-x64). But if it was recompiled for x64 -- I could have considerably more cache memory (8G? 16G?) .. as my machine has quite a bit more memory in 64-bit mode.

It's funny -- Firefox *claims* to be the browser of 'choice' -- but when it comes to giving users what they want? Only MS offers their browser in 64-bit.

I think it is awful that FF doesn't offer a 64-bit choice.

You can use Minefield 64-bit or the 3rd Party version- http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download

There hasn't been a new x64 Minefield for quite some time now. Does anyone know why we are still using the March build, a third of the way into April? :(

I use the Nigtly on my Windows 7 64bit for a long time and it works well. Flash works fine, video, etc.

Good grief guys - you are slipping away from the real world - good bye.

there is Minefield, a 64-bit version of Firefox, which I love to use (a slightly dated version, 4.0b13pre, from Feb 2011) because it works well for me, it's very fast & most of my favorite add-ons work with it.

but the nightly builds of Minefield have jumped up to a version 6.0a1 now (which I don't use because barely any of my add-ons are compatible), so it seems that there won't officially be a 64-bit version of Firefox 4.

maybe they'll finally release an official Minefield in version 6, when it's ready.

I agree with the comments above concerning the disappointment (disbelief?) that there will not be a 64-bit version of FF.

For the vast majority of us who are asking for the 64-bit version understand that many of the plug-ins may not work or that there won't be as many plug-in/add-ons. We knew that 2+ years ago with the 64-bit version of WinXP, Vista and 7 came out.

Unless there is a 64-bit version of FF there is no reason for the developers to create 64-bit versions of their plug-in/add-on.

64-bit is quickly becoming the norm with respects to Window platforms so why not provide support for both?

i am sorry but i feel somewhat betrayed. i mean i am on the nightly and it's truly great all my addons work (adblock plus, noscript,TACO) and i have run sunspider and peace keeper tests of the 64 vs 32 and in all the tests the only place 64 lags is in video rendering in every other test nightly is in the lead by a noticeable amount.

my proof is in the attached image. so please please make a 64bit and optimize the code to benefit from the larger registers of 64bit commands. its a well known fact that if optimized for it video rendering and things like compiling (i am thinking java) will benefit greatly from 64bit. this really should be on the Firefox teams top priority. because almost all pc's being sold are 64bit now and while a 32 still needs to exist its time to get the 64 up running and official.

as the images attached show 64 is faster in some areas slower in others. if the Firefox team buckles down and starts to optimize the 64bit code to take full advantage of the larger registers then it could have the potential to swamp 32bit (as well as google chrome)

and let's not forget that if 64bit FF became official more addons would be updated to work with it and of course it would give adobe a reason to get off their ass and finish the official 64 release. no reason to do work on something that has no use right? so hurry up and give them a reason!

fee lfree to correct me if i'm wrong somewhere, but, Look, i also love Firefox and this ecosystem of people and add-ons but moving to 64 bits is a must for every mature project. Microsoft plans on ditching all legacy support and all legacy compatibility in Windows 8, also as optimizing IE 10 64 bits for performance and security beyond all they did by far. there are some claims arround the net that IE 10 64 bits will run 12 - 15% faster that what is now IE 9 32 bits. A lot of Security will be implemented in IE 10 compared to IE 9, and Windows 8 compared to windws 7 64 bits, all by natural development of the Trustworthy computing program. Windows 8 will not have 32 bit version, Neither IE 10, as far as i know. So the matter will be that according to forecasts i saw on the net, and the suffocating power of defaults, people will stay on default browser and will not bother switching browsers backwards toward 32 bits. Mozilla is already loosing share because of google chrome, and safari, thanks to increasing popularity of Mac. So it is time mozilla to do something about it, and going 64 bits is a nice step forward, no matter in which version they will move to 64 bits, but still moving to 64 bits at all

@Diabolik

You make some good points, but for a fairly large part of the Windows user base, there is no "default browser" - EU regulations. User pick the browser they want when they boot-up a new PC the first time.

Beyond that, all I can say is that Mozilla does have a 64-bit version under development. Install it parallel to another version of Firefox, create a Profile for the 64-bit version, and try it out. You can "help" in the development process and be "up to speed" when it is finally released.

As far as Firefox losing market share, the amount lost depends upon whose statistics you are viewing. I saw one report last night that showed Chrome moving from 2% to 12% between June 2009 and June 2011, while IE (all versions) lost 14% in that time period, and Firefox lost only 2%. IMO, the overall consensus from a variety of statistic sources is that Firefox's growth has been stunted since Chrome entered the scene, but it isn't actually losing users because the user market itself has grown.

Create a new profile exclusively for the 64-bit version and create a desktop shortcut with -P "profile" appended to the target to launch that profile.

• http://kb.mozillazine.org/Testing_pre-release_versions

• http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows
• http://kb.mozillazine.org/Shortcut_to_a_specific_profile
• http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_multiple_profiles_-_Firefox

OS: WinXP Pro 64bit

The Issue: Java states, "We have detected you may be viewing this page in a 32-bit browser. If you use 32-bit and 64-bit browsers interchangeably, you will need to install both 32-bit and 64-bit Java in order to have the Java plug-in for both browsers. "

As FF4 will not be released in a 64bit version, Oracle wants both 32bit & 64bit versions of Java JRE installed. Installed the 64bit version first. During which the Firefox plugin was installed. When trying to install the 32bit install, Java informed me a good version (the 64bit version) was installed and allowed me to cancel the 32bit install.

Having found this information, the same was asked about Chrome and it is only available in a 32bit version.

...now entering the world of redundant security holes.