This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
IA-32 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Okay, here's how it goes... "amount" is a QUALITATIVE measurement, meaning that you use the term "amount" when that of which you are speaking cannot be broken down into single numbers (like sand, you cannot have one sand, or three sands, you have a lot of or a little bit of sand). When that of which you are speaking can be spoken of in individual units, you use a QUANTITATIVE measurement (six dollars, five cats, one idiot who doesn't know basic English grammar), thus you would use the word number or other such logos. To put it plainly You do not have an AMOUNT of countable objects, you have a number.. I see this 6th grade error all the time on Wikipedia and it gets rather frustrating to realise that people can't even use their own language correctly. Why can't the English teach their children how to speak (or write, for that matter)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.16.99 ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2007
I plan on making some major changes to the contents of both the X86 and the IA-32 articles, to eliminate most of the overlap between them. I plan to make X86 the general overview of the architecture, with shorter technical descriptions, and more historical descriptives. For technical info, I will let the X86 link to the IA-32 (and also other articles) for more details. I will make IA-32 the more technical-oriented article, at least for the 32-bit side of this architecture. I will also let the X86 make links to the AMD64 article for the 64-bit technical details of this architecture.
--- ykhan 05:29, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Would it be better to merge and redirect? 84.93.243.76 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
What about x86 assembly language? It appears the Department of Redundancy Department has been working overtime here.... Guy Harris 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.17.1.146 ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
NO!!!
This is a major article, the resulting article would be too damn long if the two were combined
It seems to me, after the 'AMD64/EM64T/ x64 merge' significant 64-bit information here should be relieved from this article. -- Charles Gaudette 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the IA32 article, but it spends a lot of time saying "IA64 does it [some other way]". Let's avoid IA64 entirely. There's no point.
Also from a technical view, this article's a mess; Virtual Memory doesn't just mean "so you can swap to the hard drive", and the discussion of addressable space doesn't mention ring-map limits or adequately explain PAE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.193.58 ( talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Whatever this article used to contain in 2006 or so it seems to be gone now. There's not really any useful information on this page any more. I think we should just merge what's left into the X86 article and delete the IA-32 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shoeless ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to mention the naming conflict between IA-32 (Intel x86 Architecture, 32 bit) and IA-64 (Intel Itanium Architecture, 64-bit) more clearly. Because this is just confusing, everybody starts using the abbreviations x86-32 and x86-64 to refer to the different x86 architectures and IA-64 for the Itanium architecture only. 134.28.77.173 ( talk) 11:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, the thing is that x86 is a general speaking; while IA-32 is a specifically speaking. Do not confuse them both.
IA-64 is another thing, the native architecture of Itanium processor, and early Itanium processors also have x86 engine to execute IA-32 applications on IA-32 mode, which is the link between IA-64 and IA-32. Later Itanium processors does not employ this IA-32 engine, so IA-32 mode is simulated by emulator within operating system. Besides, HP-UX also provides emulator for Itanium to process PA-RiSC applications. Computerfaner ( talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a complementary message about last edit by] User:Nurg because space constrains made my edit summary messed up. And if User:Nurg or anybody else wants to follow up the BRD chain to it D, he or she could do the discussion here.
Basically, the edit deletes this:
{{about|the 32-bit generation of Intel microprocessor architecture|x86 architecture in general|x86}}
And inserts this:
{{Redirect|x86-32|x86 architecture in general|x86}}
First, nobody types "x86-32" or click on such a link to mean just "x86". Unfortunately, same is not correct for IA-32, thanks to a past old goof: Two years ago, there was over one million link that read "x86" and came here instead. (It is a WP:EGG violation.) So maybe deleting the old disambiguating hatnote was okay if the problem is solved. (I doubt Nurg has investigated that it was solved.) But putting the new hatnote instead is not. Second, Wikipedia policy on neologism is to not to advertise them if there is no evidence that they are used at all. I don't know who created that "x86-32" redirect but giving equal validity to it is wrong. Fleet Command ( talk) 06:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
x86 is not an architecture name, and IA-32 is not the third generation of this x86 architecture.
IA-32 is the architecture which x86 processors comply with. Even denoted as IA-32, the 16-bit real mode is part of it; for the pure 16-bit real mode, there is not official architecture name used to refer it. 221.9.19.167 ( talk) 15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
IA-32 is the 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA)? Give some strong evidences! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.17.174 ( talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the reasons stated by the proposer are not among those supported for speedy deletion. Jeh ( talk) 09:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for merging with x86. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Please do not reply to this message, please discuss the merger on the other article's talk page. Thank you. Murph9000 ( talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
NB 1 in 3rd paragraph references a SuperUser thread which references back to Wikipedia. Please find a more reliable source. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.41.95 ( talk) 08:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
IA-32 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Okay, here's how it goes... "amount" is a QUALITATIVE measurement, meaning that you use the term "amount" when that of which you are speaking cannot be broken down into single numbers (like sand, you cannot have one sand, or three sands, you have a lot of or a little bit of sand). When that of which you are speaking can be spoken of in individual units, you use a QUANTITATIVE measurement (six dollars, five cats, one idiot who doesn't know basic English grammar), thus you would use the word number or other such logos. To put it plainly You do not have an AMOUNT of countable objects, you have a number.. I see this 6th grade error all the time on Wikipedia and it gets rather frustrating to realise that people can't even use their own language correctly. Why can't the English teach their children how to speak (or write, for that matter)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.16.99 ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2007
I plan on making some major changes to the contents of both the X86 and the IA-32 articles, to eliminate most of the overlap between them. I plan to make X86 the general overview of the architecture, with shorter technical descriptions, and more historical descriptives. For technical info, I will let the X86 link to the IA-32 (and also other articles) for more details. I will make IA-32 the more technical-oriented article, at least for the 32-bit side of this architecture. I will also let the X86 make links to the AMD64 article for the 64-bit technical details of this architecture.
--- ykhan 05:29, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Would it be better to merge and redirect? 84.93.243.76 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
What about x86 assembly language? It appears the Department of Redundancy Department has been working overtime here.... Guy Harris 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.17.1.146 ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
NO!!!
This is a major article, the resulting article would be too damn long if the two were combined
It seems to me, after the 'AMD64/EM64T/ x64 merge' significant 64-bit information here should be relieved from this article. -- Charles Gaudette 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the IA32 article, but it spends a lot of time saying "IA64 does it [some other way]". Let's avoid IA64 entirely. There's no point.
Also from a technical view, this article's a mess; Virtual Memory doesn't just mean "so you can swap to the hard drive", and the discussion of addressable space doesn't mention ring-map limits or adequately explain PAE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.193.58 ( talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Whatever this article used to contain in 2006 or so it seems to be gone now. There's not really any useful information on this page any more. I think we should just merge what's left into the X86 article and delete the IA-32 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shoeless ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to mention the naming conflict between IA-32 (Intel x86 Architecture, 32 bit) and IA-64 (Intel Itanium Architecture, 64-bit) more clearly. Because this is just confusing, everybody starts using the abbreviations x86-32 and x86-64 to refer to the different x86 architectures and IA-64 for the Itanium architecture only. 134.28.77.173 ( talk) 11:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, the thing is that x86 is a general speaking; while IA-32 is a specifically speaking. Do not confuse them both.
IA-64 is another thing, the native architecture of Itanium processor, and early Itanium processors also have x86 engine to execute IA-32 applications on IA-32 mode, which is the link between IA-64 and IA-32. Later Itanium processors does not employ this IA-32 engine, so IA-32 mode is simulated by emulator within operating system. Besides, HP-UX also provides emulator for Itanium to process PA-RiSC applications. Computerfaner ( talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a complementary message about last edit by] User:Nurg because space constrains made my edit summary messed up. And if User:Nurg or anybody else wants to follow up the BRD chain to it D, he or she could do the discussion here.
Basically, the edit deletes this:
{{about|the 32-bit generation of Intel microprocessor architecture|x86 architecture in general|x86}}
And inserts this:
{{Redirect|x86-32|x86 architecture in general|x86}}
First, nobody types "x86-32" or click on such a link to mean just "x86". Unfortunately, same is not correct for IA-32, thanks to a past old goof: Two years ago, there was over one million link that read "x86" and came here instead. (It is a WP:EGG violation.) So maybe deleting the old disambiguating hatnote was okay if the problem is solved. (I doubt Nurg has investigated that it was solved.) But putting the new hatnote instead is not. Second, Wikipedia policy on neologism is to not to advertise them if there is no evidence that they are used at all. I don't know who created that "x86-32" redirect but giving equal validity to it is wrong. Fleet Command ( talk) 06:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
x86 is not an architecture name, and IA-32 is not the third generation of this x86 architecture.
IA-32 is the architecture which x86 processors comply with. Even denoted as IA-32, the 16-bit real mode is part of it; for the pure 16-bit real mode, there is not official architecture name used to refer it. 221.9.19.167 ( talk) 15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
IA-32 is the 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA)? Give some strong evidences! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.17.174 ( talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the reasons stated by the proposer are not among those supported for speedy deletion. Jeh ( talk) 09:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This article has been proposed for merging with x86. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Please do not reply to this message, please discuss the merger on the other article's talk page. Thank you. Murph9000 ( talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
NB 1 in 3rd paragraph references a SuperUser thread which references back to Wikipedia. Please find a more reliable source. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.41.95 ( talk) 08:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)