Ah but Brandon, YOU are now wrong :) I never claimed anything but x64 -- I didn't speak to x86-64 or any other designation.
I simply stuck to my original use of x64, and was right. Processor Devil was wrong to tell me I was wrong in that usage. So, thanks for dropping by, but that's a #fail for you buddy. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Brandon Betances <[email protected]> wrote: > Your both wrong. > x86-64 and x64 are globally interchangeable. Doesn't matter whats more > proper, everyone pretty much understands it as both. > AMD 64 chipsets are NOW called AMD64, but the x86-64 spec is originally from > AMD, so again, either is correct. > And Intel's x64 chips are not ALL called Intel 64 CPUs because the Itanium > spec is IA64. > Yall gotta get ya shit together. > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Processor Devil <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Well, you are the one who is blaming here, I did it in a good will :). >> This time I really have to say I wasn't correct. >> I took the google tour and found out that x86_64 CPU's are now called >> simply x64 >> little snippet here: >> (X86-based 64-bit) Refers to the 64-bit versions of x86-based CPU chips. >> Also called "x86-64." Intel's x64 chips are officially designated as Intel >> 64 CPUs (formerly EM64T), and AMD's x64 chips fall under the AMD64 brand. >> So I am sorry. >> About my knowledge of processors. I used to program with x86 assembler, I >> moved to zArchitecture 6 months ago. >> >> 2009/9/19 Andrew Badera <[email protected]> >>> >>> About your terminology: I could give all of two shits. Quit harassing >>> me, processor devil who doesn't know as much about processors, or >>> terminology, as he/she would like to think. Shut up and sit down >>> already. It's called Vista x64 AND x64 ARCHITETURE ALL OVER THE PLACE >>> NOW F*CK OFF. THERE ARE FORUMS FOR x64. THERE ARE MICROSOFT PAGES >>> TALKING ABOUT X64 PRODUCTS -- INCLUDING MSDN SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR VISTA >>> x64. BUY A CLUE. JESUS CHRIST. Quit friggin' annoying me already -- >>> and if you're going to do it, make it about A) something that matters >>> and B) something you're correct about, THANK YOU AND GOOD BYE >>> IGNORAMUS. >>> >>> You're smarter and more informed than the average bear, yet obviously >>> still mentally crippled. Better luck next life. >>> >>> ∞ Andy Badera >>> ∞ +1 518-641-1280 >>> ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private >>> ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Processor Devil >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > x64... :) >>> > last time I told you it is x86_64 :) >>> > About Windows 7... now you can buy new Vista system with possible >>> > future >>> > free upgrade to Windows 7 :) >>> > >>> > 2009/9/19 Andrew Badera <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> 1. Why don't you know? What does the Microsoft website tell you? What >>> >> does Google tell you? >>> >> 2. Why would you buy Vista instead of Windows 7 at this point? If >>> >> you're going x64, the issues you face will be approximately the same >>> >> -- driver support. And at that, minimal. >>> >> >>> >> ∞ Andy Badera >>> >> ∞ +1 518-641-1280 >>> >> ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private >>> >> ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:33 AM, jack me <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > have any idea about on >>> >> > >>> >> > Genuine Windows Vista(R) Home Premium SP1 64 bit (English) >>> >> > >>> >> > .net 2005 and upper versions can run ? >>> >> > >>> >> > I am planning to buy a laptop from dell but i dont know that, on >>> >> > this >>> >> > operating system version 2.0 and upper version of .Net will work >>> >> > fine. >>> >> > >>> >> > Please suggest. >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
