Others > Miscellaneous

_amd64?

(1/2) > >>

undoIT:
Why do many Linux distros still refer to the 64-bit versions as amd64? It's not as if it isn't already confusing and intimidating enough for first-time Linux users.

Most people know whether they have an AMD or Intel chip in their computer. If somebody has an Intel chip, it is counterintuitive to see "amd64" in the file name of the download.

Why not x86_64?

kaushalpatel1982:
I dont know whether this is your frustration or enthusiasm but here you may find the answer of your question.

go through the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64.

Linux majorly supports and prefer AMD processors.

undoIT:
Thank you for the link. I had already read through that and it didn't explain to me specifically why certain distros are using AMD in the naming convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Industry_naming_conventions

It seems to me that Linux would be more concerned about catering to users than catering to a company. In my opinion, it is confusing for users to see amd mentioned for the 64bit version of the operating system which will work on both AMD and Intel based computers.

So, my question still is, why are certain distros using AMD as their naming convention when more generic terms exist, such as x86_64?

donk:
I found it confusing as well.  When I dug into this question I was told it is because AMD64 was the first 64 bit system and set the technical standards that are followed, so the name sticks around. 

Similarly, we all create .pdf files but don't have any Adobe software.

         Don K

kaushalpatel1982:
Let's understand it this way. I can write what ever I want to. It does not matter whether it is AMD64 or x86_64. It will be installed on any of the CPU platform either it is AMD or INTEL. If anyone ask, Just tell them both are the same.  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page