Xeon 64-bit?

[Chip Marshall]

On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <jarod at wilsonet.com> wrote:
> ...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.

To make matters worse, according to Wikipedia[1], Intel now wants us to call
their implementation Intel 64 rather than EM64T or x86-64. To me, this just
seem to be a bad move, Intel 64 is too close to IA64.

x86_64 or x86-64 (_ vs - be damned) seems like the best choice for a
manufacturer independant designation to me.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64

-- 
Chip Marshall <chip at 2bithacker.net>     http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/
GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB++++$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+
V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI++++ D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y?