Re: IA64 or AMD64?
On 9/29/2012 4:51 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:47:55 -0500
> Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Stan,
>
>> name I suggest above allows even the most challenged users to
>> understand.
>
> I disagree. the use of the letters INTL are already established,
> admittedly in other fields, as representing "International". For one
> letter, what's wrong with AMDINTEL64?
Works for me. The whole point behind the proposed change is eliminating
confusion. If adding the 'e' helps lets do it.
> However, x86-64 is the better option, IMO. Your contention that "most
> users don't what it is, they've never heard of it" may be true in the
> general sense, but we're talking Linux adopters here; On the whole,
> they're a bit more technically savvy that the average Joe.
It's not my contention of supposition, it's simply fact. Read the post
that started this thread. The OP was confused by AMF64. He's surely be
just as confused by "x86-64". Driving adoption is all about pulling the
non-Linux savvy crowd to Debian. Your point is valid for current users,
not new users, "new" defined as coming from Microsoft Windows and never
having used Linux. If some Linux savvy users, such as the OP who
started this thread, can't understand the current port names, 'new'
users surely won't.
You're also missing the fact that "IA64" confuses people who have never
heard of the Intel EPIC chips based on the IA64 ISA. They see "IA64"
and think "Intel" "AMD" "64".
> Having said that, I am aware that something is changing as the
> IA64/AMD64 question is getting asked more frequently these days.
> Whether that's because there are more adopters that are not quite as
> competent as before, I couldn't say.
There are multiple reasons for it, but the reasons/causes are
irrelevant. What matters is that people aren't "getting it". If we
change the port names they more than likely will get it.
--
Stan
Reply to: