but yes, you are right in using the x64 designation. On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Brandon Betances <[email protected]>wrote:
> but unlike PD, im gonna cite my work: > Wikipedia: > > In processor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit> > design, *x86-64* is an extension of the x86 instruction > set<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86>. > It allows far larger virtual and physical address spaces than x86, doubles > the width of the integer registers from 32 to 64 bits, increases the number > of integer registers, and provides other enhancements. It is also known as > *x64* (not to be confused with IA-64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64> > ). > > The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro > Devices<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices> > (*AMD*), who have since renamed it *AMD64*. The first family of > processors to support the architecture was the *AMD > K8<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8> > * family of processors. This was the first time any company other than > Intel made significant additions to the x86 architecture. > > > Assuming we are talking chipsets and not the operating systems that use > them of course. > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
