<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>AMD was the original implementor. Intel is a clone. Admittedly AMD64 is derived from Intel 8086. AMD64 ascribes credit, and is shorter, is consistent with a widespread name that is not going away (not unique in this aspect), and avoids pesky characters like '-' or '_'.<BR>
I cast my one vote for AMD64 (for the second time at least :) )<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> From: hosking@cs.purdue.edu<BR>> To: hendrik@topoi.pooq.com<BR>> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:03:46 -0400<BR>> CC: m3devel@elegosoft.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] target naming again..DJGPP?<BR>> <BR>> Precisely! :-)<BR>> <BR>> Anyway, given that the target would be to both AMD and Intel versions <BR>> of x86_64/AMD64 perhaps it is best to go with a neutral name. To that <BR>> end, x86_64 is probably preferable to AMD64.<BR>> <BR>> On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:01 AM, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 07:12:00PM -0400, Tony Hosking wrote:<BR>> >> Even more amusing: http://www.x86-64.org/<BR>> ><BR>> > I gather that the amusing thing about x86-64.org is that they seem to<BR>> > talk only about AMD64?<BR>> ><BR>> > -- hendrik<BR>> <BR><BR></body>
</html>