On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > Do you really think that having "AMD64", "Intel x86" and "Intel IA-64" > instead of amd64, i386, ia64 will make people magically choose AMD64 if > they're looking for 64-bit Intel support?
I hadn't realised that Simon had made this change. That was the whole _point_. Put the popular architectures first, and call them something meaningful, ie: [x86 32-bit] [x86 64-bit] [PowerPC] The exact names are debatable of course, but expecting people to deduce that 'amd64' is the right link to click on for their shiny new Intel Xeon system clearly isn't working. > The current pages would IMO be more improved by adding a clear link to a > *separate* page with info on "how to choose the correct architecture", > which contains a clear description of what each architecture is. I'm not sure that's a great idea either. Why should users have to learn what Debian's internal name for their architecture is? > If you want to really improve the links to images, which you're very > welcome to do, then please do it by *redesigning* the pages with the links > instead of forcing changes into an existing layout where the changes do > more harm than that they improve things. I have no objection to changing the layout. I want to make this page more new-user friendly (since it's rather key to getting new users into Debian). -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
