Talk:x86-64
Script error: No such module "Message box".
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X86-64 Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
Template:Archives
User:MiszaBot/config
User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Licensing
A significant share of patents is still owned by Intel: [1]. Anyone minds to expand? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Breaking news! Tech companies protect their IP with software patents, and file new patents for improvements to existing IP. In other news, water wet. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The text shows "first announced in 1999" I do not know how long all the x86_64 is under a "patent" but maybe much of it is not protected anymore by the patent protection. The x86 may not be the same as x86_64 also. I do not know what people will still be sued for if those people try to sell things made with the architecture, if most people can even make the architecture. Other Cody (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Tq "All the x86_64" keeps getting stuff added to it, so there are probably new patents being issued.
- Template:Tq x86-64 isn't a from-scratch clean-sheet-of-paper instruction set; it's based on IA-32, which is, in turn based on 16-bit x86, so any pre-x86-64 x86 patents that haven't expired still apply. However, as the next paragraph suggests, there may not be any of those left.
- AMD got at least one patent for the 64-bit extension, US 87,708,4B1 "Central processing unit (CPU) accessing an extended register set in an extended register mode" ("Good doggy! Thanks for fetching another 8 registers without leaving (much of) an incompatible mess! Here's a treat, Rex!"). That Google Patents page seems to be saying that it has expired, so you might be able to make a cup compatible with a first-generation Opteron or Athlon 64, for example, without getting sued. Guy Harris (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The text shows "first announced in 1999" I do not know how long all the x86_64 is under a "patent" but maybe much of it is not protected anymore by the patent protection. The x86 may not be the same as x86_64 also. I do not know what people will still be sued for if those people try to sell things made with the architecture, if most people can even make the architecture. Other Cody (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
2023-01 feature level
The article should mention the x86-64 feature levels, and ideally compare them with i386, i486, i586 and i686 of x86-32. From phoronix.com:
- https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-x86-64-Feature-Levels
- https://www.phoronix.com/news/GCC-11-x86-64-Feature-Levels
- https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-x86-64-Micro-Feature-Lvl
- https://www.phoronix.com/news/RPM-x86_64-Feature-Levels
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Atualy there was a section about that, but using an other name Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Good article
This is a good article and I don't see any such message here. But I see such tags are given to less informative CS articles. Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)