Do you call it

intel 8086 like, 64 bit extension

probably a tech illiterate winfag

x64
:^)

how is x64 supposed to be pronoucned from some reason ive always read it as "Cross 64"

EX SIXTY FOUR

/throd
:^)

/bread

Intel 64

I use processor from Intel and Intel's implementation differs from AMD64.

>C:\Windows\System32 contains 64-bit DLLs
>C:\Windows\SySWoW64 contains 32-bit DLLs

Attached: 1509035494017.jpg (657x527, 32K)

cross sixty four

lel

WHAT DID MICROSOFT MEAN BY THIS

>64bit
42bit

kek I love this maymay

When a 32-bit program accesses C:\Windows\System32\
it actually sees the contents of C:\Windows\SySWoW64 instead

They are virtual directories

Total brain damage

>WoW
>Windows on Windows

Attached: 1485130830315.jpg (645x968, 55K)

Intel64 aka IA64 is dead and has never been alive.
besides maybe a few months some 13 years ago when HP was the Champion of a certain dicksucking contest

Intel calls it EM64T

Eighty six sixty four

86 bit

64 bit like a normal person. No one cares that amd made it, no one cares its x86, all you care about as the end user is if you are running a 32bit or 64bit operating system

>64 bit
What if you have both 64-bit ARM and x86 CPUs?

>have any of ppc64, aarch64, SPARC V9, MIPS64, Alpha
>What arch are you using?
>64 bit
Sure that's a good idea!

Only x86.

I call it x86 just to perpetuate the common knowledge of Intel being superior to AMD.

AMD is so incompetent that even when they manage to do something new, it's still worse than what Intel made years ago.

86 > 64

So obvious to see that they couldn't even name it with a bigger number, they we're ashamed by the FACT that Intel is JUST what everyone needs!
Oy vey!

No one uses those meme architectures though

>are you using a 32 or 64 bit OS?
>64
and
>what arch are you using
>dec alpha
is not the same
gee that sure was hard

For what purpose? Why not make it so when a 64 bit program accesses System32 it accesses System64 (renamed SySWoW 64) instead?

>No one uses ARMv8
Come again?

>needing 2 questions for 1 piece of (non-redundant) information

Im guessing legacy reasons

Ha! he fell for it!
>aarch64

Intel 64

AMD64 because I like to give credit where credit is due
intel is STILL assblasted about that

The official name is now "Intel 64". They used to call it EM64T and IA-32e. Their SDM still calls it IA-32e, I think.

Wrong. IA-64 was never called Intel 64.

WoW64 is the emulation layer that lets 32-bit software run on 64-bit Windows.
System32 is called that for legacy reasons. Renaming it to System64 would make no sense, because:
- applications would still expect System32 even when compiled as 64-bit
- 32-bit applications are running on an emulator and don't even see the same System32 that native ones do

AMD64

Badly written programs contain hardcoded paths to System32

It's a good example for why Windows is such a mess. Microsoft sacrifices clarity for compatibility at all cost.

Windows 10 still contains 16-bit API functions

Apple is more progressive in that regard. They have no qualms with removing outdated APIs.

>- applications would still expect System32 even when compiled as 64-bit
= defective application

This, but unironically. Both standard names can go fuck themselves.

Attached: 1518631964682.gif (640x480, 422K)

it made porting stuff to 64bit easier
the only disadvantage it has is that it doesn't cater to OCD users, but they're a minority

>t. Steven Sinofsky
Before the CADT fags took over, Windows used to be all about making it easy for application developers.

Depends if it's AMD64 or x86_64.

Attached: 1486183890824.jpg (768x768, 73K)

This is wrong on several levels though.
AMD64 in itself is a full x86 instruction set, it's not considered an extension.

raycis frog

factual correctness was not top priority.

...

I call it shit. CISC scum.

Linux user, actually.

You'd specify 64bit x86 or 64bit ARM. All processors are 64bit nowadays so it's irrelevant. Everyone expects to hear "processor", "CPU" or "desktop processor" which is why I always call x86 that. Any other processor type is usually specified.

>All processors are 64bit nowadays
Plenty 32-bit CPUs are still developed and sold.

I call it. amd64
i386 = Intel 32 bit
arm64 = ARMv7 64 bit
armel = ARM 32 bit (which is what I use)
>All processors are 64bit nowadays
Nope. Don't take 64 bit for granted.

x86

fpbp

Do you acknowledge i(4|5|6|7)86

/thread

Based frogposter

>It's a good example for why Windows is such a mess
And why they are still the main OS provider worldwide. Making sure legacy shit works is a top priority in the industry, and why AMD64 won over IA64.

Windows is the main OS provider only for the x86 desktop market. It's a whole different story for server/mobile/embedded/supercomputer/console market.

often amd64 since that's what I'm used to seeing when looking at gnu/linux distro downloads

it's only on Jow Forums
on Jow Forums it represents their suicidal behavior

I call it x1010110_x100000

It's eks(X)86 cause 8086
And for(X)64 cause it "multiplies the registers" and the 64 is the result

x86 with 64-bit registers

EMT64

Attached: 1515174374464.jpg (888x768, 169K)

>couldn'tven get his meme right
It's EM64T, brainlet.

x86_64_128 when?

I call it x86_64. I'm an AMD fanboy but people who aren't into this sort of thing tend to get confused when you call it AMD64 (they assume it's something AMD specific).

After Chrome 1488, it will not fit in 2^64 bytes of memory.

AMD was one of the first to implement 64bit registers in 32bit architecture hence the name x86_64
They revisited and improved it and called it AMD64
THEN
Intel took it, revisioned and came up with it's implementation calling it IA64

If you want it should actually be eks(X)32(x)x64
Eks32for64 (for implied as 2*2)