Xeon 64-bit?

[klussier at comcast.net]

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com>

> > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is still
> > used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-)
> 
> ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall amd64 
> being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then announced as 
> x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with amd64 to 
> differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes a lot more 
> sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both Intel and AMD 
> 64-bit x86-compatible architectures.

It only seems incorrect if you *AREN'T* AMD :-) They can't license something called x86-64 because it's too generic, and, oh yeah, Intel owns "x86".... The official explaination from AMD is here:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2003/08/msg00031.html

C-Ya,
Kenny