On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Jon Masters <jcm(a)redhat.com> said:
> But again, Apples to Oranges. x86_64 (we should formally call it "Intel
> 64", or similar, since I'm not aware of x86_64 having a formal blessing)
"Intel 64" has no "formal blessing" either (it is Intel's
marketing name
for their copy of AMD's instruction set). If you want to call it after
a vendor, it should be "AMD 64" anyway, since AMD created it. They
called it "x86-64" (which is where the "x86_64" name came from),
until
marketing got in the way and they changed to "AMD 64".
"Intel 64" is confusing anyway, since Intel has pushed multiple 64 bit
architectures.
Also there is the x64 marketing bullshit floating around....