Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:05:02 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20210315110502.GB30885@tuxteam.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 9h3q0h7200h3v8@mids.svenhartge.de>
References: <[🔎] CAEG4cZUCTRc8PR3B+ytmdyhY=VxwqSCJpHpjVePDJf1oEpkXQQ@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 604DF13D.1050306@fastmail.fm> <[🔎] 20210314114415.uvjcfzchopjzw4qe@acr13.nuvreauspam> <[🔎] 6h3noph200h3v8@mids.svenhartge.de> <[🔎] jwvk0q9zhxc.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user@gnu.org> <[🔎] 8h3ppao200h3v8@mids.svenhartge.de> <[🔎] 20210315090250.GA27977@tuxteam.de> <[🔎] 9h3q0h7200h3v8@mids.svenhartge.de>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:

[...]

> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
> competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface with
> primarily.

Too lazy to research now, but it sounds credible, yes.

> If this rumor is true and IBM had acted differently, the PC ecosystem
> today would also look quite differently.

Or the Z8000. Absolutely. 8086 was, architecturally, the worst possible
choice at that time.

Cheers
 - t

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>
- Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
- Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>

References:
- [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>
- [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
- Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>
- Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
- Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
  - From: Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>