Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.user > #233043

Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems

From <tomas@tuxteam.de>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
Date 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100
Message-ID <BSxge-A7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <BSwNc-qD-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

As a direct response to your subject, I quote "Why should Distros
be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC,
when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems?"

Because the currently successful Intel architecture (core, etc)
is (more or less) a copy of AMD's.

The history goes roughly like this: Intel designed a 64 bit
architecture to replace their aging 32 bit line of *86 processors
(386 and followers), which thei called Itanium [1]. As sometimes
happens with such technology jumps, it was too ambitious and
its market acceptance was a bit disappointing (this happened to
Intel a couple of times in its history, whenever it tried to
break out of its compatibility treadmill [2]. It is interesting
to see how they have become themselves victims of the very
technological lock-in they take advantage of).

Anyway: AMD saw its opportunity window and came up with a far
more conservative 64 bit architecture which was much more
backward compatible, the AMD64, also sometimes called x86-64 [3].
Basically, they had the instruction set and wider (64 bit)
registers and... much more of them (something which was known
to be a weakness in the x86 32 bit family).

To keep AMD from eating all of their lunch, Intel had to follow,
so that's why they copied an architecture from AMD who copied
it from Intel :-)

Well, more or less. Follow the links below for the whole, long
story.

And oh, Linux ran on Itanium, too. Linus Torvalds didn't like
that architecture, which he called "Itanic" (although I think
others came up with that name).

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_processors#32-bit_processors:_the_non-x86_microprocessors
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64

 - t

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:10 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and  as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
    Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100
      Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-14 16:50 +0100
    Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100
      Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-14 15:00 +0100
        [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-14 20:20 +0100
          Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 09:20 +0100
            Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 10:10 +0100
              Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 11:20 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 12:10 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 12:40 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 13:00 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 13:20 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-03-15 14:00 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 15:00 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 17:50 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 19:20 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 20:30 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 16:10 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 20:30 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 22:50 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2021-03-15 23:20 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-16 08:20 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 15:00 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 15:10 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 15:50 +0100
                Re: [EVEN MORE OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as  i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are  also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-15 16:00 +0100
            Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 16:10 +0100
              Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 17:50 +0100
              Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2021-03-15 20:40 +0100
                Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 20:50 +0100
                Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-03-15 22:00 +0100
                Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 22:30 +0100
                Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 23:10 +0100
                Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386  for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also  64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-16 00:10 +0100
            Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 17:40 +0100
              Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 18:00 +0100
                Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 18:20 +0100
                Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2021-03-15 18:50 +0100
              Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and  as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 18:40 +0100
                Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 20:10 +0100
              Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 21:00 +0100
                Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 22:10 +0100
          Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 09:50 +0100
            Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-15 16:30 +0100
              Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 17:40 +0100
              Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 23:10 +0100
                Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-03-15 23:20 +0100
                Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-16 09:20 +0100
    Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 03:30 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2021-03-14 12:30 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-14 12:40 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2021-03-14 12:50 +0100
    Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-14 13:00 +0100
      [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-14 20:00 +0100
        Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 17:30 +0100
          Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-16 13:30 +0100
            Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a  32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit  systems Martin Smith <tech@smithproductions.co.uk> - 2021-03-16 14:30 +0100
  Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and  as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-14 13:20 +0100
  [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 13:40 +0100
    Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-14 15:20 +0100
      [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 05:10 +0100
        Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-15 11:50 +0100
        Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as  amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-15 14:40 +0100

csiph-web