[Distutils] Consistent platform name for 64bit windows (was: distutils.util.get_platform() for Windows)

[mhammond at keypoint.com.au]

I'm reviving a very old thread based on discussions with Martin at pycon.

> Sent: Monday, 23 July 2007 5:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Distutils] distutils.util.get_platform() for Windows

Rather than forcing everyone to read the context, allow me to summarize:
On 64bit Windows versions, we need a "string" that identifies the
platform, and this string should ideally be used consistently.  This
original thread related to the files created by distutils (eg,
pywin32-210.win???64??-py2.6.exe) but it seems obvious that we should be
consistent wherever Python wants to display the platform (eg, in the
startup banner, in platform.py, etc).

In the old thread, there was a semi-consensus that 'x86_64' be used by
distutils (and indeed, Lib/distutils/util.py in get_platform() has been
changed, by me, to use this string), but the Python 'banner', for example,
reports AMD64.  Platform.py doesn't report much at all in this area, at
least when pywin32 isn't installed, but it arguably should.

Both Martin and I prefer AMD64 as the string, for various reasons. 
Firstly, it is less ugly than 'x86_64', and doesn't include an '_'/'-'
which might tend to confuse parsing by humans or computers.  Martin also
made the point that AMD invented the architecture and AMD64 is their
preferred name, so we should respect that.

So, at the risk of painting a bike-shed, I'd like to propose that we adopt
'AMD64' in distutils (needs a change), platform.py (needs a change to use
sys.getwindowsversion() in preference to pywin32, if possible, anyway),
and the Python banner (which already uses AMD64).

Any objections?  Any strong feelings that using 'AMD' will confuse people
with Intel processors?  Strong feelings about the parsability of the name
(PJE? <wink>)?  Strong feelings about the color <wink>?

Thanks,

Mark