x86-64 on i386 (was Re: Promoting i386 version over x86_64?)

[drago01]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jon Masters <jcm at redhat.com> said:
>> But again, Apples to Oranges. x86_64 (we should formally call it "Intel
>> 64", or similar, since I'm not aware of x86_64 having a formal blessing)
>
> "Intel 64" has no "formal blessing" either (it is Intel's marketing name
> for their copy of AMD's instruction set).  If you want to call it after
> a vendor, it should be "AMD 64" anyway, since AMD created it.  They
> called it "x86-64" (which is where the "x86_64" name came from), until
> marketing got in the way and they changed to "AMD 64".
>
> "Intel 64" is confusing anyway, since Intel has pushed multiple 64 bit
> architectures.

Also there is the x64 marketing bullshit floating around....