On 13/01/2010 19:13, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
* Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
instead of:
* Python 2.6.4 Windows AMD64 installer (Windows AMD64 binary -- does
not include source)
-1. AMD doesn't want
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 13:45, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> So to echo what Michael said, the Microsoft nomenclature is "x64"
>> regardless of yours and Martin's objections to that name. Nobody who
>> uses Windows would be confused by "x64" since that is *the* Microsoft
>> naming scheme.
>
> That's
> So to echo what Michael said, the Microsoft nomenclature is "x64"
> regardless of yours and Martin's objections to that name. Nobody who
> uses Windows would be confused by "x64" since that is *the* Microsoft
> naming scheme.
That's actually not entirely true. There are several places in the
API
> As Windows doesn't run on non-x86 architectures, their naming is
> generally just Windows (32 bit) and Windows (64 bit).
Windows actually does - it runs on IA-64 (which is a non-x86 architecture).
However, end users are unlikely to use such hardware, so distinguishing
between 32-bit and 64-bi
On 1/13/2010 2:13 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I think we should use whatever is most informative and least confusing
to our users - we owe our allegiance to them and not to a processor vendor.
And why do you think this is x86-64?
I do not believe I have personally seen, or at least noticed,
>>> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
>>> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
>>>
>>> instead of:
>>>
>>> * Python 2.6.4 Windows AMD64 installer (Windows AMD64 binary -- does
>>> not include source)
>>>
>> -1. AMD doesn't want us to use the term x86
On 1/13/2010 9:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As Windows doesn't run on non-x86 architectures, their naming is
> generally just Windows (32 bit) and Windows (64 bit).
That is not correct. There are IA-64 versions of Window Server.
>From [1]:
"Backward compatibility is a key point differentiating
Michael Urman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 00:11, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> -1. AMD doesn't want us to use the term x86-64 anymore, but wants us
>> to use AMD64 instead. I think we should comply - they invented the
>> architecture, so they have the right to give it a name. Neither
>> Microso
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 00:11, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> -1. AMD doesn't want us to use the term x86-64 anymore, but wants us
> to use AMD64 instead. I think we should comply - they invented the
> architecture, so they have the right to give it a name. Neither
> Microsoft nor Intel have such a ri
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>> How about:
>>
>> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
>> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
>
> +1. I don't care about trademarks or official names, we should call it
> whatever
> is obvious fo
On 13/01/2010 06:11, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
How about:
* Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
instead of:
* Python 2.6.4 Windows AMD64 installer (Windows AMD64 binary -- does
not include source)
-1. AMD doesn't
Christian Heimes cheimes.de> writes:
>
> How about:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
+1. I don't care about trademarks or official names, we should call it whatever
is obvious for our users.
As for Itanium, it i
On 1/12/2010 2:46 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
download page?
The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
FWIW, we simply use (64-bit, x64).
Platf
> How about:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows X86-64 installer (Windows AMD64 / Intel 64 /
> X86-64 binary -- does not include source)
>
> instead of:
>
> * Python 2.6.4 Windows AMD64 installer (Windows AMD64 binary -- does
> not include source)
-1. AMD doesn't want us to use the term x86-64 anymor
On 12/01/2010 23:41, Christian Heimes wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
download page?
The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
The instal
On 12/01/2010 23:40, Michael Foord wrote:
On 12/01/2010 23:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[snip...]
"""The binaries for AMD64 will also work on processors that implement
the Intel 64 architecture (formerly EM64T), i.e. the architecture that
Microsoft calls x64, and AMD called x86-64 before calling
Michael Foord wrote:
> I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
> release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
> download page?
>
> The current description is " Windows AMD64 binary".
The installer works on all AMD64 compatible Intel CPUs.
On 12/01/2010 23:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[snip...]
"""The binaries for AMD64 will also work on processors that implement
the Intel 64 architecture (formerly EM64T), i.e. the architecture that
Microsoft calls x64, and AMD called x86-64 before calling it AMD64.
They will not work on Intel Itan
> I presume the email below is about the Windows binary. Does the AMD64
> release work on intel 64bit and can we make the wording clearer on the
> download page?
"intel 64bit" is as clear as mud. It could mean the "Intel 64"
architecture, or it could mean the "IA-64" architecture, both
are 64-bit
19 matches
Mail list logo
