Re: IA64 or AMD64?
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> 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?
>
> 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.
Agreed, if you where going to change the name, x86-64 makes the most
sense, is the most common name for it in the Linux community (MS users
tend to use x64, which is absurd), and is technically accurate.
There is no reason to call it AMDINTEL64 or any such thing. Unless you
also want to change i386 to INTELAMD32 or some silliness, but at that
point you might as well change the official names to "32 bit AMD and
Intel processors, like the 386 and original Pentium and Athlon" and
"Itanium, Intel's huge, expensive 64 bit chip for servers that
competes with IBM POWER". I mean really, there is a point where it
just gets silly. Just use a reasonable name and give a good
description.
Speaking of which, I note that the Debian ports page has changed, it
now has improved descriptions that call out Xeon and Core2 and Itanium
by name, which I don't believe it did before.
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
Reply to: