* Jamie Lokier (ja...@shareable.org) wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > * Anthony Liguori (anth...@codemonkey.ws) wrote: > > > I'm very much against having -cpu Nehalem. The whole point of this is > > > to make things easier for a user and for most of the users I've > > > encountered, -cpu Nehalem is just as obscure as -cpu > > > qemu64,-sse3,+vmx,... > > > > What name will these users know? FWIW, it makes sense to me as it is. > > 2001, 2005, 2008, 2010 :-)
Heh, sadly not far from the truth I bet ;-) Flip side, if you deploy the sekrit decoder ring at ark.intel.com, the Xeon® + number seems equally obscure. Seems we'll never make 'em all happy. thanks, -chris
