Re: IA64 or AMD64?
On 10/1/2012 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> 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.
Actually, x86-64 is no longer technically accurate. AMD renamed the
architecture from x86-64 to AMD64 to brand it, much to my chagrin.
Currently, "AMD64" is the technically accurate name of the ISA. AMD
deprecated "x86-64".
Please read my post which stated why both the AMD64 and IA64 port names
must be changed simultaneously for any renaming of ports to effect the
desired result, which is eliminating confusion amongst new/lazy users.
Changing AMD64 in isolation will do nothing to un-confuse new users when
they see "IA64" in the ports list. Anyone not in the know will
instantly think that means "Intel and AMD 64 bit CPU". This is
sufficiently confusing to many users, who apparently don't read the
descriptions, that they feel the need to ask on this list for clarification.
Again, renaming "IA64" to "Itanium" and "AMD64" to "amdintel64", or
similar, would instantly fix the confusion. Why? IA64 would no longer
exist to confuse people, and of the other port choices, "amdintel64"
would simply make sense, because the person downloading the distro knows
his/her CPU is an AMD 64 bit CPU, or an Intel 64 bit CPU, because this
information is on the processor box or computer system. The names of
the ISAs the chips support is NOT on the box or the computer system.
--
Stan
Reply to: