Question for linux-based users

[Bud Frede]

Given how inexpensive RAM is, I'm not sure I see a downside to using a

64-bit OS at this point. In addition, 64-bit mode on the CPU brings with it some useful features, and it also means that some 32-bit malware no longer works.

I personally use far more than 4GB of RAM on a regular basis, mainly to run VMs.

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.

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.

[Mayayana]

"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.

[trader_4]

He isn't, he never said that in the original post, he has even said that he downloaded the 64 bit version. Good grief.

PAE doesn't create instability if you use it properly. Just because some OS's, eg Windows consumer ones, didn't use it doesn't mean that it couldn't be done or is inherently hard to do.

It works as part of the virtual memory capability built into Intel

32 bit CPUs since the 386.

but it sounds like

Only the OS needs to know.

So it gets back into the same boat:

Apparently a lot of software developers believe there is a benefit, as they are issuing 64 bit versions of apps. The ones that would benefit are any that need to handle data arrays that are bigger than 4GB. It's certainly not your email reader, but there are apps that do manipulate large data sets.

And you should probably take up your "not needed" concerns with cell phone makers. They are currently moving to 64 bits.

[Diesel]

The 64bit explorer doesn't support 32bit extensions and has no way to natively execute them. you'd need to run the 32bit explorer to make use of 32bit extensions. OR, upgrade said extensions to 64bit so the 64bit version of explorer can make use of them. Explorer in this sense not to be confused for IE, although they still have some things in common.

As far as 'real 32bit programs', 64bit Windows can run them, via emulation. Ironically, your 64bit AMD/Intel processor (Non Itanium) doesn't need emulation to run 32bit; as they're backwards compatable and can do it natively.