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". All the best, Michael -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Download Page - AMD64 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:03:16 -0600 From: Thomas Brownback <thomas.brownback@gmail.com> To: webmaster@python.org Should I use the AMD64 version of Python on an Intel 64 chip? I know those 64-bit implementations are very similar, but are they similar enough that your AMD64 will work on Intel? If so, perhaps a note should be placed on that page to help avoid confusion. Explicit being better than implicit and all. Thanks for your time, Thomas -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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 architectures with processors manufactured by Intel. The former is officially called AMD64 (not by Intel, but officially), and our AMD64 binaries run on such processors. The latter is also called "Itanium", and we stopped producing binaries for that architecture a while ago; the AMD64 binaries will *not* run on it. The wording could probably be changed to match the reader's expectation more, most likely, it would also get more incorrect in the process. To make it correct and explicit, an entire paragraph educating users about 64-bit architectures and that there are many of them and that they are mutually incompatible might be required. Most likely, Thomas' processor implements the AMD64 architecture, even though it is manufactured by Intel. A short sentence that he would probably understand (given that he used "Intel 64", not "64bit") is: """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 Itanium Processors (formerly IA-64).""" Regards, Martin
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 Itanium Processors (formerly IA-64)."""
To those not intimately aware of the history and present of 64 bit architecture this sentence would be a great addition - thanks. I'm adding it now as a footnote. All the best, Michael Foord
Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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 it AMD64. They will not work on Intel Itanium Processors (formerly IA-64)."""
To those not intimately aware of the history and present of 64 bit architecture this sentence would be a great addition - thanks. I'm adding it now as a footnote.
I can add it now to the main download page and existing release pages - but are there changes needed to any scripts to change pages created for *new* releases? All the best, Michael Foord
All the best,
Michael Foord
Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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. *scnr* As you most likely know all modern Intel 64bit CPUs are based on AMD's x86-64 design. Only the Itanium family is based on the other Intel 64bit design: IA-64. The name AMD64 was chosen because most Linux and BSD distributions call it so. The name 'AMD64' has caused confusion in the past because users thought that the installer works only on AMD CPUs. 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) ? Christia
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 installer works on all AMD64 compatible Intel CPUs. *scnr*
As you most likely know all modern Intel 64bit CPUs are based on AMD's x86-64 design. Only the Itanium family is based on the other Intel 64bit design: IA-64. The name AMD64 was chosen because most Linux and BSD distributions call it so. The name 'AMD64' has caused confusion in the past because users thought that the installer works only on AMD CPUs.
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)
Right - I've made that change for the Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.0 and 3.1 download pages with a footnote. Prior to that we were offering ia64 *and* amd64 releases so I've left those unchanged. Thanks, Michael
?
Christia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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 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. Regards, Martin
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 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 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. Michael
Regards, Martin
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
* 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 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 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? Regards, Martin
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, that specific term before. Something like "Release for 64-bit Windows (Win NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 <or whatever correct list is>) on AMD64-type processors from AMD and Intel" should be clear enough.
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 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 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?
Well anecdotal everyone I have *every* talked to about 64bit processors has referred to having a 64bit processor (x86 is a given) and not an AMD64 architecture processor. Linus Torvalds addressed this specific issue for Linux and came down on the side of "x86-64": http://kerneltrap.org/node/2466 Look up AMD64 on Wikipedia and it redirects you to the X86-64 page. Information website setup by AMD and partners about the AMD64 architecture: http://www.x86-64.org/about.html In the AMD website they refer to "x86-64 Assembly": http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/assembly.html Microsoft seem to draw a distinction between x64 (which would also be acceptable) and Itanium based systems. Very rarely do they refer to AMD64: * http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/compare.mspx * http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/x64/overview.mspx * http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/overview.mspx Using a vendor specific name automatically begs the question as to whether the installer works on processors from other vendors, as we saw in the specific enquiry from the user that triggered this debate. Referring to the AMD 64 build as x86-64, with a footnote explaining which architectures this specifically means is unlikely to confuse people. It is *definitely* better than just saying AMD64. All the best, Michael
Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
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. -- Michael Urman
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------
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 <Whatever> (32 bit) and Windows <Whatever> (64 bit).
That is not correct. There are IA-64 versions of Window Server.
From [1]: "Backward compatibility is a key point differentiating Itanium from x86 and x64 architectures."
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. And, anyone using IA64 will expect to see "IA64" and not "x64", and furthermore anyone using IA64 is likely aware of what processor they are using (being as there are only Windows Server editions for IA64) and the difference between "IA64" and "x64". I don't think an end-user facing page is a great place for pedantic and wordy defenses of defying the Microsoft-blessed naming scheme.
Linux, on the other hand, can run on multiple 64 bit architectures, so being more specific and using the official AMD64 nomenclature makes sense.
This has no relevance to the conversation since there are no Linux binaries being distributed. The conversation on the expectations of Windows end-users, who are the target of the download links. [1] http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/itanium/overview.mspx -- Scott Dial scott@scottdial.com scodial@cs.indiana.edu
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 APIs where Microsoft either allows or requires to call the architecture AMD64 (e.g. architecture indication in MSI files). Regards, Martin
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 13:45, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> 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 actually not entirely true. There are several places in the APIs where Microsoft either allows or requires to call the architecture AMD64 (e.g. architecture indication in MSI files).
I should have clarified I was talking about the names shown on MSDN subscriptions for downloading installation media of Windows 7 and Windows Vista. It's pretty clear in that context Microsoft uses x64 to describe this platform of Windows. But again, it's far from clear that this is a term they use for non-developers. -- Michael Urman
As Windows doesn't run on non-x86 architectures, their naming is generally just Windows <Whatever> (32 bit) and Windows <Whatever> (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-bit is typically good enough.
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.
Well, we did have Itanium binaries at one point, and the "64-bit Windows binaries" you are referring to most definitely don't run on Itanium, even though that's an Intel chip. Regards, Martin
Christian Heimes <lists <at> 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 is practically dead, I think there is little chance of people mixing it up with x86-64. cheers Antoine.
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Christian Heimes <lists <at> 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.
Until this discussion, I didn't even know the architecture had any name other than x86-64. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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). Platform Download ============================================== Windows (x86) Windows Installer (MSI) Windows (64-bit, x64) Windows Installer (MSI) https://www.activestate.com/activepython/downloads/ -srid
participants (10)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Antoine Pitrou -
Christian Heimes -
Michael Foord -
Michael Foord -
Michael Urman -
Nick Coghlan -
Scott Dial -
Sridhar Ratnakumar -
Terry Reedy