Intel renames EM64T (again)

[YKhan]

Intel renames AMD64 to Intel 64
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34722

 

[chrisv]

Intel renames AMD64 to Intel 64
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34722

Pretty silly, eh? I'm just happy/relieved that they didn't do
something REALLY stupid (i.e. develop their own, non-compatible X86-64
ISA)

 

[Keith]

Pretty silly, eh? I'm just happy/relieved that they didn't do
something REALLY stupid (i.e. develop their own, non-compatible X86-64
ISA)

BillyG told them to forget that idea. They had WinBlows for IA-64
and that was all they were getting.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Pretty silly, eh? I'm just happy/relieved that they didn't do
something REALLY stupid (i.e. develop their own, non-compatible X86-64
ISA)

I'd say it's pretty significant: it makes the name of their AMD64
clone more prominently "Intel" than IA-64 is. I think I can just
barely see the tip of the bow through the bubbles...

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I'd say it's pretty significant: it makes the name of their AMD64
clone more prominently "Intel" than IA-64 is. I think I can just
barely see the tip of the bow through the bubbles...

With all of the name changes that Intel is putting to it, it's virtually
guaranteed that no programming language is ever going to put a directive
in called "Intel 64", or any of the other previous names they came up
with: EM64T, and IA-32E. They're just likely going to stick to AMD64,
x86-64, or x64.

Yousuf Khan

 

[nobody]

With all of the name changes that Intel is putting to it, it's virtually
guaranteed that no programming language is ever going to put a directive
in called "Intel 64", or any of the other previous names they came up
with: EM64T, and IA-32E. They're just likely going to stick to AMD64,
x86-64, or x64.

Yousuf Khan

Does it really matter? Looks like pure marketeering and no real
substance. Also reminds the attempts to copyright the letter 'i' and
the numbers x86 (386, 486, and all the way up).

NNN

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

With all of the name changes that Intel is putting to it, it's
virtually guaranteed that no programming language is ever going to put
a directive in called "Intel 64", or any of the other previous names
they came up with: EM64T, and IA-32E. They're just likely going to
stick to AMD64, x86-64, or x64.

Sounds like a safe bet. What I saw as significant is yet another sign
that Itanic is on its way to the bottom.

 

[George Macdonald]

Does it really matter? Looks like pure marketeering and no real
substance. Also reminds the attempts to copyright the letter 'i' and
the numbers x86 (386, 486, and all the way up).

I'd guess it's their "clever" plot to take back the initiative, in
conjunction with SSE4... and all the wonderful things it'll do for us.

 

[chrisv]

I'd say it's pretty significant: it makes the name of their AMD64
clone more prominently "Intel" than IA-64 is. I think I can just
barely see the tip of the bow through the bubbles...

Well, IA64 is the Itanium, so they couldn't use that.

I'm not so sure that X86-64 even needs a "marketing" name anymore,
since it's becoming a standard feature...