[Flaimbait] "amd64" vs "x86-64"

[Chris Dillon]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Peter Wemm wrote:

> There is no way in hell we're using "x86-64" if I have any say in it 
> because it isn't a valid C token.  "x86_64" is a PITA to type.  I 
> thought I saw somewhere that microsoft switched from "amd64" to 
> "x64"..

Not that it matters much what I say, but I'm perfectly happy with 
"amd64".  I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, and AMD is 
the one that came up with this instruction set that Intel was so 
dead-set on not having anything to do with in the first place.  From 
what I understand, after Intel realized they missed the boat they 
considered coming up with their own different 64-bit x86 extensions to 
compete with AMD and Microsoft told them they wouldn't support yet 
another platform, essentially forcing Intel to use AMD's instruction 
set or die.

The only reason Intel has processors which support the amd64 
instruction set today is because the market forced them to, and they 
didn't even do a bang-up job implementing it, either (they're missing 
a couple of instructions, IIRC).  This is an example where everyone 
probably SHOULD be unfair to Intel in the naming of the architecture, 
just out of spite. :-)

-- 
  Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us
  FreeBSD: The fastest, most open, and most stable OS on the planet
  - Available for IA32, IA64, AMD64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures
  - PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development
  - http://www.freebsd.org

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?