intel 64bit?

[Odd]

Josef Wolf wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Odd wrote:
>> Colin Law wrote:
>>> 2010/1/9 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
>>>> Josef Wolf wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Can somebody please add this clarification to
>>>>> the description of the iso mentioned above?
>>>> Why? It's already there, in the description:
>>>>
>>>> AMD64 or EM64T architecture (e.g., Athlon64, Opteron, EM64T Xeon, Core 2)
>>>>
>>>> FYI, Xeon and Core 2 are Intel processors. No need to add anything to that,
>>>> as it would be redundant.
>>>>
>>> It may be redundant to add anything to that, but the fact that many
>>> people are confused indicates that sometimes a little redundancy may
>>> be a good thing.  It would do no harm if the heading were:
>>> 64-bit PC (AMD64 and Intel x64) desktop CD
>>> In addition, in the text it could say "computers based on the AMD64 or
>>>  EM64T (Intel x64) architecture" for further clarification.
>> I don't think that's any clearer at all. If they don't understand what's 
>> there now, they won't understand your explanation either.
> 
> I don't agree with you. I was confused by the original spelling, but I find
> this explanation to be pretty clear.

The thing you snipped that I wrote is even clearer.

-- 
Odd