We need to have a serious discussion. Is it at all common for x86_64 bit versions of software to be labeled as "x86" only?Because I've literally only seen this once, and it was on the Manjaro website. Every single time I've seen x86, it meant 32 bit only, not x86_64. But someone told me that something labeled "x86" is very obviously supposed to be for 64 bit computers. What kind of brain dead developers are working there?
>>106960769Nobody has referred to 32 bit software as "x86" for a whole decade now. Nobody even considers 32b x86 a combination worth talking about nowdays. You live under a rock, OP.
While no longer relevant at all, there was a time when Linux distros used to specify what arch their binaries were built for. i386, i486, i686. Other than absolutely ancient hardware, this was really only relevant for some embedded systems like Vortex that were technically only i586 (Pentium 1) compatible. Eventually this was all dropped and instead builds started to be referred to as SSE2 (Pentium 4) or AVX2 and so on which you'll still see on some freeware or open source projects.So at the end of the day x86 and x86_64 are mostly meaningless terms that need to be specified much more narrowly to actually mean anything. Most software labeled simply x86_64 doesn't even start on anything older than Sandy Bridge if you're lucky.
>>106960769You whatx86 means it's a 32 bit program. You can run 32-bit programs on 64-bit CPUs. They literally work out of the box on Windows without any problems. I don't know how to do it on Linux because native Linux programs are usually 64-bit anyway (I mean just try running a Linux binary that was compiled more then 5 years ago lmao), but I know it's possible to do it too.>someone told me that something labeled "x86" is very obviously supposed to be for 64 bit computersThat is incorrect. For PCs, x86 means 32 bit, x64 means 64-bit. It's always been like this.
x86 refers to the old cpus named 386, 486 etc
this is why intelligent people use AMD64
