Michael Urman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 00:11, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> 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 right.
I see and agree with the motivation behind your point, but it's just as reasonable to mimic the name Microsoft uses: the release is for Windows rather than the processor. On MSDN Microsoft uses parentheticals x86, ia64 and x64; this would suggest a name like Python 2.6.4 installer for Windows (x64). Unfortunately this usage doesn't seem to be reflected in consumer-oriented product pages, so I'm uncertain how clear it is for those downloading Python.
As Windows doesn't run on non-x86 architectures, their naming is generally just Windows <Whatever> (32 bit) and Windows <Whatever> (64 bit). Linux, on the other hand, can run on multiple 64 bit architectures, so being more specific and using the official AMD64 nomenclature makes sense. In this case, making it clear that the 64-bit Windows binaries work for both Intel and AMD chips is more important than using only the official architecture name. Cheers, Nick. P.S. This discussion made me realise that out of habit I had dropped the 32-bit version of Python on my new 64-bit Windows box... -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------