Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:53:06 -0400 From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@msu.edu> To: Sean Cavanaugh <millenia2000@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: appropriate 64 bit version? Message-ID: <20080606215306.GB2276@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <BAY126-W1142DEF0A0B833798634EACAB70@phx.gbl> References: <9039B036-5C23-44D3-8FA4-729702AF8BF0@justinarcher.com> <20080606132710.0e2defe8.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <BAY126-W1142DEF0A0B833798634EACAB70@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 05:13:16PM -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote: > > > > The version is called amd64 because AMD published their spec first. (FYI) > > > > > the thing I have actually wondered is why i386 and amd64 are used as the > naming convention instead of x86 and x86-64 or x64 Just because someone thought of that at the time they were naming it. Actually, I think there was some thought that and64 and the Intel attempt would actually be different and so needed distinguishing. But, apparently the Intel differences didn't hold enough sway in the market place. ////jerry > > -Sean > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080606215306.GB2276>