intel 64bit?

[Josef Wolf]

On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 03:41:27PM +0100, Odd wrote:
> 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.

Oups, I failed to see your suggestion. Sorry.