32 or 64??

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Odd wrote:
> Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Monday, February 01, 2010 10:23 PM, Odd wrote:
>>> Wybo Dekker wrote:
>>>> Chris Jones wrote:
>>>>>> I have: one of my software packages, important for me, is based
>>>>>> on xview, which is an early Sun-development. My package does not
>>>>>> compile on 64-bit machines, since xview is frozen and not
>>>>>> compatible with 64 bits.
>>>>> Nothing stops you working in 32 bit mode on a 64 bit system. 64 bit
>>>>> is a super-set of 32, and completely backwards compatible.
>>>> that's exactly what I do, but the statement was that no problems were
>>>> expected for a 64-bits OS
>>> The 64bit architecture was engineered specifically to be able to run
>>> 32bit x86 software natively. That's not a problem, it's a feature of
>>> the architecture.
>> 'The 64bit architecture'? May I remind you that some people fight over 
>> whether to use AMD64 or EMT64 (I vote AMD64)
> 
> That's funny. They are both AMD64. Intel adopted it wholesale, back
> when they realized AMD had come up with something that gave
> them an advantage. That's why the AMD64 version of Ubuntu works
> flawlessly on Intel's chips. Those people fighting are very uninformed.

Tell that to the kernel devs. Feel free to check Intel's website to 
verify that EMT64 and AMD64 are slightly different (okay, one 
instruction added in EMT64 and another that behaves differently) and 
more so when it comes to the hypervisor. But yes, I was exaggerating the 
AMD64 vs EMT64 part which would be more like use AMD or Intel.


> 
>> and loath though I am to 
>> make mention of it, the Itanium was NOT specifically engineered to be 
>> able to run 32-bit x86 software natively. Neither the Alpha nor the 
>> Sparc/MIPS? nor PowerPC/PPC.
> 
> I see I should have taken into account the people whose ability to
> connect the dots from one post to the next is lacking. Let me spell it out
> then:
> 
> "The 64bit architecture we're talking about, AMD64, was engineered
> specifically to be able to run 32bit x86 software natively."
> 
> Now, is that clearer? That's what people are talking about in this
> thread. Not Itanium, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS, PPC, Power, or what have you.
> 

 >:P

Lost me chance to do some Itanium bashing. Ah well.