On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Yah, I believe AMD started out calling it x86-64. AMD says x86-64 is the generic name, while AMD64 is AMD's "implementation" of x86-64. Doubtless more importantly to AMD, AMD64 can be trademarked. It's like "tissue" vs "Kleenex"; "tissue" and "x86" are generic; "Kleenex" and "AMD64" are trademarks. DEC did the same thing when they invented the "Alpha" chip. "Alpha" is too generic a name to be trademarked. "AXP" could be trademarked, so DEC renamed the "Alpha" to "AXP". But that was such a crappy name, and "Alpha" was uber-cool, so *nobody* used "AXP" except DEC marketing weenies. Eventually DEC gave in and went back to calling it "Alpha" (preferably with a trademarkable BiCapitalization, like "AlphaServer"). The present situation is a bit different in that "AMD64" actually sounds cooler than "x86-64" IMO, but otherwise, I believe it's the same idea. Anyway, for a long time (years), Intel kept saying that x86 was dead, and IA-64 (Itanium) was a wonderful new set of clothes for an emperor to wear. They insisted AMD's x86-64 design was the Wrong Thing. A lot of people took Intel at their word (or at least decided Intel deserved to be believed), and so took to calling it "AMD64". Nobody wanted IA-64. Everyone wanted Yet Another extension to x86. AMD was giving that to people, and Intel was not. Intel was in serious danger of loosing the entire mainstream microprocessor market -- which would likely have gone down as the biggest corporate blunder in human history. This was surprising to a lot of people (myself included), since Intel's very market dominance was built on extending x86 over and over again. You'd think they'd recognize a good thing when they had it. Eventually Intel gave in, and added x86-64 extensions to their chips, calling it "EM64T" ("Extended Memory 64-bit Technology" or some such horsesh*it). They were still hoping IA-64 would take off at that point. Instead, IA-64 went the other direction, and the EM64T sold like crazy. Intel finally stole their bandwagon back from AMD, and started to push x86 as the future again. They re-re-re-named the extensions "Intel 64". (Which everyone agrees is way too similar to IA-64.) Finally, the contraction "x64" seems to be getting quite popular, especially in enthusiast circles. In summary: x86 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 8086 (circa 1979) i386 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 80386 x86-32 = Generic term synonymous with "i386" x86-64 = Generic term for 64-bit extensions (first by AMD) to i386 x64 = Generic term synonymous with "x86-64" IA-32 = Intel semi-generic term, synonymous with "i386" IA-64 = Intel semi-generic term; Itanium; dead end AMD64 = AMD trademark for their 64-bit extensions to i386 EM64T = Old Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64 Intel 64 = New Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64 Are we sufficiently confused yet? -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/