reopen 421338 submitter 421338 ! retitle 421338 this ia64/amd64 issue comes up really often reassign 421338 efi-reader severity 421338 wishlist thanks
Op 29-04-2007 om 18:58 schreef Eddy Petri??or: > Geert Stappers wrote: > > Op 29-04-2007 om 14:28 schreef Eddy Petri??or: > >> Julien BLACHE wrote: > >>> Apple machines aren't ia64, they're i386/amd64 machines. > >>> > >>> So, you used the wrong architecture, grab an i386 or amd64 > >>> installation media instead. > >> Maybe we could add a warning in the ia64 images > >> when such an image is used on an amd64 machine; > > > > Please elaborate your proposal. > > what's not clear? > > if you try to boot an ia64 image and it fails, the error message should > suggest (if clear detection is not possible) that the user might be > trying to boot the wrong type of image and maybe he/she should try an > amd64 image which is the proper image for Intel Core 2 processors It would be nice if the string "Error: unsupported while loading bootia64.efi" would be changed in "Error: unsupported while loading bootia64.efi. Try an amd64 image" Rationalate, courtisity of Eddy Petri??or: > You can't expect everybody to know how debian called its amd64/x86_64 > architecture. Even the people that are close to debian might not > know the difference (I know I also was confused). And since Intel > Core 2 processors are produced by Intel, people *expect* the arch > to be called something along the lines of i386, i486, and not k6, > k7 or amd*, so ia64 - oh "Intel architecture, 64 bits, that's it" > is the first thing that springs to mind. > > This is the reason behind many choices made in all kinds of places > which are taken on the account of the "element of the least surprise". > > Not knowing the history of the x86_64 arch is NOT plain ignorance. You > can't expect everybody to know such things. > > I appreciate what Debian wanted to do (pay a tribute to amd), but we > have to admit the choice backfired. I would be really curious about > some comparative graphs about the downloads of the ia64 images around > the release of etch and around the release of sarge (also in comparison > with i386, amd64 and other images)... I wouldn't be surprised if there > was a big difference since Intel Core 2 processors became more common > place during sarge's lifetime and is *easy* to make the wrong choice... The reassign to 'efi-reader' was to get this BR away from 'installation-reports', but I couldn't find the "efi bootloader" Cheers Geert Stappers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
