Probably ought to add an explanation of the verdict of foolishness:
Whereas I appreciate that there *are* good reasons for it, I think it's the wrong choice. I think the smarter one would have been to say:
Do you have a 64-bit PC? If so, run the 64-bit version. Otherwise, here's a 32-bit version. It doesn't support more than 3-and-a-bit gig of RAM without a big of jiggery-pokery (i.e. switching to the PAE kernel), but it works on your older kit.
64-bit Just Works these days. I've had no compatibility problems in a year or so and they were trivial back then. The single worst I've seen was that Mozilla only offered a 32-bit build of Seamonkey, so Flash didn't work. Big deal.
As for Debian, on my non-PAE Thinkpad, I now have to run a 486 kernel. It works fine but I'm not very happy about that.
no subject
Whereas I appreciate that there *are* good reasons for it, I think it's the wrong choice. I think the smarter one would have been to say:
Do you have a 64-bit PC? If so, run the 64-bit version. Otherwise, here's a 32-bit version. It doesn't support more than 3-and-a-bit gig of RAM without a big of jiggery-pokery (i.e. switching to the PAE kernel), but it works on your older kit.
64-bit Just Works these days. I've had no compatibility problems in a year or so and they were trivial back then. The single worst I've seen was that Mozilla only offered a 32-bit build of Seamonkey, so Flash didn't work. Big deal.
As for Debian, on my non-PAE Thinkpad, I now have to run a 486 kernel. It works fine but
I'm not very happy about that.