Thread: JRE and JDK Questions

Hi,
I had JDK&JRE7 on my pc, the 64 bit versions of both.

When I entered a site to play a java game, it directed me to Oracle website to download and install JRE 6_24. Why did that happen?
Because the applet was coded in 32 bits?
I thought a newer version will be capable of running an applet coded in a previous version.

Can you guys explain me why it happened?

And, if I have an 64 bit JDK, this doesn't mean that 32 bit machines won't run my program, right?

What does your browser say is installed for a Java plugin? Sometimes you can browse about:plugins or something like that. Also there's this:
How do I test whether Java is working on my computer?

I couldn't understand your first sentence.

My browser didn't give any sign, error or prompt. It just redirected me to Oracle website where JDK 6_24 can be downloaded. And I think it was 32 bit.
I can't tell if my browser is 32 bit or 64 bit because as you may know it is installed in some funny place (C:\Users\beerinbox\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Ap plication)

Well, I checked the way you described (about:plugin on Chrome) and now I have a plugin for that, because I installed it. But I had JRE7 before I got this message. I even tried to install it once again but it said "You already have it."

I am pretty sure that I could run java on my pc from the beginning. I coded some little applications and applets. I compiled them and ran them using command "java".

For example, I had to have an 32 bit JDK to run JDownloader. So, does that mean an app which is coded using a 32 bit JDK won't work with a 64 bit JDK and vice versa? This doesn't make any sense to me.

The JRE != Java plugin. The Java browser plugin is sometimes bundled with the JRE, but not always. Ubuntu users are offered a jre_headless which I'm pretty sure leaves it out. What the JRE installer has to do when you install it is attempt to detect any installed (compatible) browsers, and if it finds any, attempt to install the plugin for each one. As a non-Microsoft-OS user with a taste for unloved browsers, I'm well used to failed plugin installs!

When you browse to about:plugins, it should tell you something like (on mine):

Java(TM) Plug-in 1.6.0_26

And that link should open up an applet that tells you something similar. Just so we know where we're at, can you confirm - both ways - what your current Java plugin is?

I don't know about 32-bit/64-bit incompatibilities in the JVM, my CPUs on my desktop are either Intel or AMD 64bit, but I don't have any more than 2GB in any of my desktops, so they're all 32-bit software to avoid bleeding edge pain and the performance hit from 64bit. Do you need a 64bit JVM?

Originally Posted by Sean4u

The JRE != Java plugin.

Oh, that explains a lot to me now. Thanks.

MY browser says: "Java (2 files) - Sürüm: 6.0.270.7
NPRuntime Script Plug-in Library for Java(TM) Deploy"
But like I said, I have installed it when the browser directed me to the page.

Originally Posted by Sean4u

I don't know about 32-bit/64-bit incompatibilities in the JVM, my CPUs on my desktop are either Intel or AMD 64bit, but I don't have any more than 2GB in any of my desktops, so they're all 32-bit software to avoid bleeding edge pain and the performance hit from 64bit. Do you need a 64bit JVM?

Well, I have 4 GB RAM (had 2 more but it's broken now), so I use a 64 OS, and I thought 64 bit JVM would be better. I don't think I really need this, but I wanted it to be as compatible as it can be with the OS (Windows 7).

That looks like a Java 6 plugin - is that what you were expecting?

As far as I know bytecode should be compatible across JVM versions and word-sizes (there have been notable exceptions). There are compiler switches that target particular versions of the JVM, so perhaps the app you're trying has been targeted at Java 7? Also there is an obvious problem with new features in the Java platform, but I'm not sure how 'clever' the plugin would be if it was Java 6 but an application referenced Java 7+ features.

Do you have a link to the Java game?

I thought 64 bit JVM would be better

64-bit Java *is better* if you want heap sizes above 1.5GB or so - you just can't do it with a 32-bit JVM. I would doubt there are many applications yet that would benefit from that much heap. My understanding is that for everything else 64-bit JVMs are slower and less well supported.

Originally Posted by Sean4u

That looks like a Java 6 plugin - is that what you were expecting?

As far as I know bytecode should be compatible across JVM versions and word-sizes (there have been notable exceptions). There are compiler switches that target particular versions of the JVM, so perhaps the app you're trying has been targeted at Java 7? Also there is an obvious problem with new features in the Java platform, but I'm not sure how 'clever' the plugin would be if it was Java 6 but an application referenced Java 7+ features.

Do you have a link to the Java game?

I am sorry, I don't have the link, so I cannot test it anymore.

The thing is that, I had Java 7, so if a plugin was installed, it shouldn't have mattered which version it wanted, because I have the latest. But after you said JRE doesn't mean that there is a plugin, it made sense. It appears JRE 7 doesn't have a plugin.

Originally Posted by Sean4u

64-bit Java *is better* if you want heap sizes above 1.5GB or so - you just can't do it with a 32-bit JVM. I would doubt there are many applications yet that would benefit from that much heap. My understanding is that for everything else 64-bit JVMs are slower and less well supported.

I understand you now. I know most of the programs aren't using 64 bit to full extend. So, 32 bit would be okay too. So, should I have Java 32bit even if I have a 64 bit OS?

should I have Java 32bit even if I have a 64 bit OS?

I would - but I'd be interested to hear other JPF users' opinions. I suspect for a 4GB PC, the advantage from the 64-bit JVM's memory-addressing capabilities will continue to be outweighed by the 32-bit JVM's performance and tried-and-testedness for a little while to come.

The acid test is - as always - to try both on a workload that is representative of your normal use of your PC and see which is better for you!

Thank you for detailed answer.
I am a novice programmer (maybe not even a novice) and this is not going to be my profession. I just started this as a hobby and well, it is deeper than I expected it to be
I told you this, because now I learnt that I will never need a 64bit JDK, not in a near future at least.

So, does that mean it would be better if I use 32 bit jdk instead of the 64bit one? And a program I compiled with 64 bit jdk will work in 32 bit jvm?

About JVM versions, I thought having both would cause problems but it appears that it won't cause any problems. So, I am gonna use them both. If I understood you guys, you say if the program which calls jvm is 32 bit, it calls 32 bit jvm and doesn't recognize 64bit. Is that correct?

Is that correct?

I can't help you with multiple JVM versions - that sounds like a mess to me. I notice from a recently-posted link for Java WebStart though, that webstart will automatically download JVMs to match applications if it needs to. I doubt that's a word-length issue, more to do with missing features in older versions of the API.