"Bud Frede" wrote

| I'm not sure I see a downside to using a
| 64-bit OS at this point.

No. I don't know why he's looking for 32-bit Linux.
The only notable downside I know of is that 32-bit
Windows shell extensions can't run. Anything 32-bit
can't run in a 64-bit process. That means shell
extensions, COM DLLs, ActiveX controls, etc. Which
is why IE32 is needed for ActiveX. Most ActiveX controls
are 32-bit. So there can be some minor complications
moving to 64-bit, but I don't think they'd affect most
people.

| PAE may not add anything useful for the person trying to improve web
| browser behavior, but I don't know that I'd call it a "dubious hack"
| since it evidently _was_ useful in many situations.
|

For what? How many software programs need more
than 2 GB RAM? Maybe a video editor? That would
probably be running on 64 bit, anyway. Meanwhile,
the PAE is creating instability and may be incompatible
with some drivers. I can't see it being relevant.

| As for XP having issues with PAE, I'd probably lean towards it being
| more of a problem with Windows than with PAE itself. MS has never put
| much emphasis internally on solid code or squashing bugs.

See the Wikipedia link. It was a problem
with incompatible drivers. I don't entirely
understand how it works, but it sounds like
32-bit software that wants to use PAE would
need to be PAE-aware, PAE-designed, and
would need to check that Windows is PAE-
enabled. So it gets back into the same boat:
How often would it be relevant for a 32-bit
program to be rewritten with bigger numeric
data types just so that it can take advantage
of 4+GB RAM addressing? Probably never.