Why so much confusion over architecture names?

I have a Lenovo G780 with an i7-3612QM and 8GB of RAM. As I look at 16.04 releases I have two choices either i386 or AMD64.

The English language has definite connotation.

  1. The i386 descriptor implies this is for Intel 32 bit architectures.
  2. TheAMD64 descriptor implies this is for AMD 64 bit architectures.

So given the English language connotation above, which do I chose for my Lenovo?

I tried i368 on my other laptop (Compaq nx6325 with an AMD Turion64 X2 (dual core)3BG of RAM) and it failed miserably. Three attempts to do a dual install have resulted in an error message, running a live session I can not use WiFi.

Even the release notes and file names from the download page do not make it clear. If you would like people to use your version of Lunix why not give us crystal clear information, instead of all the double talk and innuendo?

So far I have found MATE to be long on glitz and glitter, but very short on fulfilling promises.

The reason it's named "amd64" is historic and I'm afraid that boat has sailed.

As I read further, it created the confusion. That is a simple fix to a web page and can be corrected. No time travel needed and they could move forward and quit repeating their past mistakes. Gotta learn from history or else.....

Plus a file name like 32 bit and 64 bit without the connotation would resolve the issue.

Wonder if the developers ever read these comments?

Thanks, Fred
PS Off to try the boot repair.

“Ubuntu MATE 16.04 LTS for amd64 systems.” is the string that should be changed. Although the string highlighted by ouroumov is clear enough, the one you get once you select the 64 bit version can indeed be confusing to people who do not know the history behind the naming (AMD first came up with CPUs that were compatible with Intel’s i386 architecture but also supported 64 bit instructions - those instructions where later licensed by Intel and thus are now used in CPUs from both vendors).

And 95% of the people that use computers don't know that history. I worked in Silicon Valley from the late 70's until the '92 in that industry and know it.

But Ubuntu wasn't born until 2004, so why create and continue confusion when it is not needed. My whole point is KISS you don't need to drag all the old baggage around when it does absolutely no good and only creates confusion.

We used to write instructions on how to do "something" with computers and then go get a secretary (that used a typewriter only) to follow our instructions. Then they were understandable and usable by everyone. I'm an old geezer btw.

And so that string will be changed. :heavy_check_mark: :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, it is not possible as it is delivered by Canonical's infrastructure... I think Debian also uses these for naming. As both @ouroumov and @maximuscore say, it's history that's causing confusion, and the system will still identify itself as i386 and amd64.

1 Like

… Because the Intel Itanium 64 bit architecture was completely different and not compatible with 32 bit code. Intel chips “emulate” the AMD64 bit instruction set with a few minor differences. Many Unix 64 bit systems came in Itanium and AMD64. NetBSD has an Itanium version: http://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ia64/

Most all opensource O/S call the 64-bit version AMD64.

1 Like