-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/10/07 04:45, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 20:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/09/07 19:07, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> "[...]it's clearly stated" - I meant the difference between IA-64 and
>>> EM64T/AMD64 (
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 20:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/09/07 19:07, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> > [...]
> > "[...]it's clearly stated" - I meant the difference between IA-64 and
> > EM64T/AMD64 (emphasized right below "IA-64" heading at
> > http://www.debian.org/ports/), not EM64T -> Intel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/07 19:07, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 17:39 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Well, it's clearly stated on the overview page I provided. EM64T was
>>> recently renamed to "Intel 64" - but, yes, the names here can be
>>> con
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 17:39 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Well, it's clearly stated on the overview page I provided. EM64T was
> > recently renamed to "Intel 64" - but, yes, the names here can be
> > confusing.
>
> Where? I've looked and looked, but don't see it. (I am getting
> old, though, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/07 17:17, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
[snip]
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> You're mixing arches. em64t *is* the -amd64 architecture, which,
>> obviously, isn't i386 (-686).
>
> You can install i386 operating system on AMD64 hardware, because AMD64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/07 17:10, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:35 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/09/07 16:16, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I'm not big into x86-64 business, but AMD64 and EM64T / Intel 64
>> Danger!! Danger!!!
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I'm trying to get the best of my machine based on intel core2 (6550), which is
> compliant with em64t debian arch (at least I thought...) but there is only a
> amd64 install available, which doesn't want to run on Intel machine...
AMD64 == EM64T ==
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:35 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/09/07 16:16, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> > [...]
> > I'm not big into x86-64 business, but AMD64 and EM64T / Intel 64
>
> Danger!! Danger!!!
>
> Intel has two wildly different 64-bit implementations: Itanium (aka
> ia64) and em64t/amd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/07 16:16, Krzysztof Lubański wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:39 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm trying to get the best of my machine based on intel core2 (6550), which
>> is
>> compliant with em64t debian arch (at least I thought...)
On August 9, 2007 05:39:28 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying to get the best of my machine based on intel core2 (6550), which
> is compliant with em64t debian arch (at least I thought...) but there is
> only a amd64 install available, which doesn't want to run on Intel
> machin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/07 15:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying to get the best of my machine based on intel core2 (6550), which is
> compliant with em64t debian arch (at least I thought...) but there is only a
> amd64 install available, which
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:39 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to get the best of my machine based on intel core2 (6550), which is
> compliant with em64t debian arch (at least I thought...) but there is only a
> amd64 install available, which doesn't want to run on Intel machine...
Hello
12 matches
Mail list logo