Xeon 64-bit?

[Jarod Wilson]

On Monday 09 July 2007 14:56:51 Chip Marshall wrote:
> 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.

Ew. Yeah, that's el stupido.

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

There are good reasons for _ instead of -, from a programming standpoint.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com