Let's start a new thread cause I fell asleep.>>106960769>>106961437>Nobody has referred to 32 bit software as "x86" for a whole decade now.This is literally wrong, they still do.>Nobody even considers 32b x86 a combination worth talking about nowdays.So what?>>106961664>You whatYes.>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.Setting up multilib is not that hard, anon. It is very "possible", so much so that it's normal to have it setup by default in many distros out of the box.>That is incorrect. For PCs, x86 means 32 bit, x64 means 64-bit. It's always been like this.Someone should tell this to the Manjaro team then, pic rel. And that anon who once said "anyone with half a brain knows this is for 64 bit computers". Everyone laugh, now! XD Manjaro's x86_64 shit is mislabeled as exclusively "X86 ARCHITECTURE", that download is 64 bit with multilib.>>106961674>x86 refers to the old cpus named 386, 486 etcImagine not listening to the question.>>106962151>this is why intelligent people use AMD64Now we're talking sense! :)
>>106967145>Manjaro's x86_64 shit is mislabeled as exclusively "X86 ARCHITECTURE"Yeah, that shit is retarded.
>For PCs, x86 means 32 bit, x64 means 64-bitThe important part here is "for PCs". In this context, it's "x86 architecture" vs "ARM architecture". Everybody knows it's x86/x64/Intel/AMD64/whatever you call it architecture (PCs) vs. ARM (phones and meme devices). It's x86 in a more generic sense. This is not a big deal.
Protip:x86 = 32bit x86x64 or AMD64 = 64bit x86arm7h = 32bit ARM 7aarch64 = 64bit ARM 8IA64 = Intel Itainiumppc32 = 32bit Power PCppc64 = 64bit Power PCppc64le = 64bit Power PC Little Endian
>>106967994>x86 = 32bit x86no, x86 is just x86. people stopped saying 32-bit for a reason
>>106968000is x86 more or less than 32bit?
>>106967933>Everybody knows it's x86/x64/Intel/AMD64/whatever you call it architecture (PCs) vs. ARM (phones and meme devices). It's x86 in a more generic sense.Okay, what would happen if someone said "x86 architecture" in the year 1998, before x86_64 was ever announced?>This is not a big deal.Yes it is.
>>106967994>x64 or AMD64 = 64bit x86Just say x86_64, it's okay, it's not gonna hurt you.
>>106968169>what would happen if someone said "x86 architecture" in the year 1998, before x86_64 was ever announced?The same. The other option would be "PowerPC" instead of "ARM", and everybody would still know what it's about.
>>106968213So you're telling me that in 1998, if someone said "x86 architecture", they would've understood this as a 64 bit processor, and not as an i386, i486, i586, or i686 processor?
>>106968246That's not what it means, you are just being a contrarian.They would have understood it is for IBM PCs and not PowerPC computers. Today, they understand it is for IBM PCs and not ARM phones.
>>106968279>That's not what it meansBut is that what it would've meant in 1998? You're telling me that they were talking about shit from the future that they should've never heard of yet? You said it, not me.>>what would happen if someone said "x86 architecture" in the year 1998, before x86_64 was ever announced?>The same.
>>106968279>Today, they understand it is for IBM PCIt's not your fault IBM hasn't made PCs since 2004...
>>106968279>>106968373*branded, whatever
>>106968000>people stopped saying 32-bit for a reasonNo they haven't, people still say this.
>>106968361You're being pedantic.People in 98 would have understood x86 as an IBM PC or whatever PC with an x86 CPU as that is the only thing that existed with that nomenclatureToday actual pure x86 systems basically don't exist as anything vaguely resembling common use but people still like to use x86 and since pure x86 systems are gone for the most part it's interpreted as you are talking about an x86_64 PC anytime x86 is brought up
>>106968246Speaking as someone that was around at the time, in 1998 "x86" referred all CPUs with 8086-compatable instruction sets, including the 16 bit ones. If you wanted to specify just the models with the 32 bit protected mode extension the term was "IA-32".
>>106968373IBM PC is the name of the computer architecture, not the brand in this case.
>>106968557>People in 98 would have understood x86 as an IBM PC or whatever PC with an x86 CPU as that is the only thing that existed with that nomenclatureThen why are you telling me "the same"?>Today actual pure x86 systems basically don't exist as anything vaguely resembling common useMaybe in something like cash registers.>for the most part it's interpreted as you are talking about an x86_64 PC anytime x86 is brought upNo, it isn't. I can tell you that every single time I've seen x86, it meant 32 bit only. And also, that every single time I've seen x64, it meant x86_64. There is no reason for you to defend Manjaro's retarded labeling of it's downloads, because then idiots like me who don't understand their weird ass 4D chess labeling schemes won't know that "x86 architecture" is anything but 32 bit only, especially in a world where people often install Linux on old computers to use them as a print server at home or things like that.
>>106968624My point exactly, none of these are 64 bit by any means.
>>106968655This is kinda getting weird, what if it's something made by Apple?
>>106968700Or Compaq. Or Dell. Or HP. Wow
>>106968809>Or Compaq. Or Dell. Or HP.I know, but imagine someone calling an iMac an IBM PC. That's just hilarious to me, especially since Apple goes out of their way to be as different (and proprietary) as possible.>WowWow is mom upside down!
>>106968655>>106968700IBM PC is(was) an architecture that lead to what we have today. Every consumer computer not Apple is an IBM PC. It's like the GNU/Linux thing, it's correct but pedantic. Apple is not a PC, never was, not even when they used X86.ARM, RISCV, Longsoon, MIPS and etc are also not PCs.
>>106968926>Apple is not a PC, never was, not even when they used X86.Why not? Apple makes computers for personal use.But yes, I understand that "PC" has always been a term for "everything other than Apple", cause back in the day no one really owned Apple computers. I mean, where else did this weird ass arbitrary sounding term come from?
>>106969055>>106968926The word PC (personal computer) can be used for other architectures too, but it was indeed mostly used for IBM PCs ("IBM PC compatible").There were also PC 9800 computers, which also used Intel x86 CPUs, but their architecture was different than IBM PC compatibles.
>>106968661>especially in a world where people often install Linux on old computers to use them as a print server at home or things like that.Bruh, we are basically decades disconnected from 32bit systems. Even Linux autists had to admit 32bit systems are worthless when distros started dropping support as the absolute last ones where a handful of shitty atoms with most of them being pre-core 2 and pre-k8 AMD chips>>106968926Apple x86 systems where PCs in the sense that WIndows and Linux designed for PCs could run.Even PCs could run OSX
Hello /g/, I'm going to let you in on a little secret...32-bit x86 has been dead for so long that when people say "x86", they are well understood to be referring to the 64-bit version of x86. You don't need to refer to it as x64 or x86_64 or amd64 or anything like that... It's okay, you are free now.
>>106969078>Bruh, we are basically decades disconnected from 32bit systems.No we aren't, there's a reason people are talking about the 32 bit integer limit becoming a problem in 13 years. Many computers still use 32 bit shit, even if it's just there because of "backwards compatibility". Why don't you tell developers to stop relying on 32 bit, because as much as they shouldn't, they still do for some reason. It isn't my fault people are still relying on outdated architectures, it's theirs.>Apple x86 systems where PCs in the sense that WIndows and Linux designed for PCs could run.Could you say that in a less coherent way, please? I think you're really just trying to find a difference where there actually is none.>Even PCs could run OSXThey still can, just not with Nvidia. Look up "Hackintosh".
>>106969085i always say x86 to refer to 32bit, and x64 for 64bit
>>106969144>No we aren'tYes we are.Anything involving an actual bonafide 32bit system is on the extremes of edge case. Most of the hardware isn't even going to make it to 2036 as it's already so old.>Many computers still use 32 bit shit,I'm not talking about some packages or libs but 32bit ONLY PCs. They just aren't a thing anymore. It's why distros have dropped them and why Manjaro isn't bothering to make a distinction, none needs to be made.
>>106969085>32-bit x86 has been dead for so long that when people say "x86", they are well understood to be referring to the 64-bit version of x86.No, it's not your fault that Manjaro did a dumb ass one off with it's labeling, and now you think it's normal. Is this the kind of echo chamber you live in?How do you explain all those repositories and download pages that label their software versions side by side as>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x64.zip>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x86.zipAre you saying that both of these can run on a 64 bit computer? What Manjaro did is not common, and even if it was, then it's a dumb ass trend that needs to die, because they are literally labeling their shit with wrong information.What changed, let's start with that, why is it backwards, now?
>>106969085the bsds beg to differ, and windows does as well (until 2032 i think)>>106968926intel macs very much were ibm pc compatible, an actual example of what you're (probably) trying to say would've been the pc-98
>>106969208>Are you saying that both of these can run on a 64 bit computer?Yes, desu there is no reason to keep x86 software around.>What changed, let's start with that, why is it backwards, now?It's been said before but 32bit pcs are no longer common, x86 is a nicer name as it directly references the legacy of the x86 platform and makes it more distinct from IA-64 or AMD64
>>106969205>Anything involving an actual bonafide 32bit system is on the extremes of edge case. Most of the hardware isn't even going to make it to 2036 as it's already so old.Let's fucking hope so.>I'm not talking about some packages or libs but 32bit ONLY PCs.So, is the entire OS not going to break when the 32 bit part hits the integer limit? The fact that you can delete system32 on Windows and still fuck shit up beyond all repair means that we are still relying too heavily on this shit.>It's why distros have dropped them and why Manjaro isn't bothering to make a distinction, none needs to be made.Yes, it does. Because why else did I think "x86" was for a 32 bit computer, you think I'm the only person who was confused about this?
"x86" doesn't suggest a bitness, same goes for "arm" in op's screenshot. i understand manjaro only supports 64bit arm (aarch64), but "arm" encompasses any arm(-based) chip
>>106969230>>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x64.zip>>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x86.zip>Yes, desu there is no reason to keep x86 software around.You are actually retarded. No one on earth would ever label side by side versions of software as x64, and then x86, if it was the same file. You have literally never downloaded anything in your life.>It's been said before but 32bit pcs are no longer common, x86 is a nicer name as it directly references the legacy of the x86 platform and makes it more distinct from IA-64 or AMD64No, you're being fucking retarded, there is no prestige here. In fact, we should be trying our damnedest to try and distance ourselves from x86 entirely, which is why we should label everything as x64, just like we used to.It was fine the way it was before, everyone understood what it meant, and *now* we have ambiguity. Just look at how far we've fallen...
>>106969208>How do you explain all those repositories and download pages that label their software versions side by side as>>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x64.zip>>your_software_here_v1.0.0_x86.zipthis is more of a windows trend. like "x64" specifically i believe is a microsoft term, i don't recall ever seeing it with anything linux-related
>>106969269>bitness/thread
>>106969287>this is more of a windows trend. like "x64" specifically i believe is a microsoft termI don't care if it was coined by Microsoft, it only matters what it does. That's like saying we shouldn't call every 64 bit processor AMD64, even if it was made by Intel, and honestly, we probably shouldn't.>i don't recall ever seeing it with anything linux-relatedThen you are blind.
>>106969304i'm not the same person, i'm not suggesting people not use "x64", what i'm saying is that "x64" for 64bit x86 and "x86" for 32bit x86 is something i only ever really see with windows software.personally i can't see "x86" as meaning 32bit specifically, probably because i've used 16bit x86 before. x86 in my experience means either the architecture in general, or just a common example of such a chip (which nowadays would be a 64bit one)
>>106969085>>106969152>>106969208> Well THESE examples of niche distros and kernels that still target 30 year old hardware beg to differ!> Ummmmmmmm... My anecdotes differ from yours.> HOW CAN YOU LIVE IN YOUR ECHO CHAMBER!?!?Lmao I'm so glad I work at a company that doesn't need to deal with this shit and can just ask "Oh is that one of our ARM servers or x86?" without someone going REEEEEE
>>106969284>No one on earth would ever label side by side versions of software as x64, and then x86, if it was the same fileFor all practical considerations they might as well be since they both run on a 64bit system. Might run into some issues if the 32bit version ever touches a file larger than 4gb tho.Bigger question is why would you still compile for 32bit. You really running that shit on an ewaste laptop from 2006?>and *now* we have ambiguity.There is no ambiguity because you can't get it through your skull that 32bit PCs are literally not a consideration when talking about PCsBasically, no one hears x86 and thinks>oh you mean like an old Pentium 4?No, they just think about an x86 PC which have been 64bit forever now.
>>106969338>Might run into some issues if the 32bit version ever touches a file larger than 4gb tho.that's... not how that works. have you never used a 32bit computer before?
>>106969247do you think system32 is only used for 32 bit compatibility? that's not how it worksalso i do wonder how many 32 bit systems out there either still connect to the internet and adjust the time from an ntp server or have a working cmos battery>>106969269akshually, saying "arm" very much implies 32 bit only, that's 2/2 misleading terms, only the best from manjaro
>>106969323>i'm not the same person, i'm not suggesting people not use "x64", what i'm saying is that "x64" for 64bit x86 and "x86" for 32bit x86 is something i only ever really see with windows software.Then I haven't seen what else you've seen. It just so happens to be that Linux software that I've seen, is labeled as "x64" or "64-bit" when it runs on a 64-bit machine.>x86 in my experience means either the architecture in general, or just a common example of such a chip (which nowadays would be a 64bit one)I mean, when you're running something on an AMD64 CPU, it clearly isn't an i686 CPU. This is where the term comes from anyway, because they just simply dropped to "i" and x'd out the first digit, cause it's easily interchangeable with a 586 or 486 processor, hence "x86".It's the same reason Windows 95 and Windows 98 are often grouped together as "Windows 9x", it's the same scheme.
>>106969330It's not your fault your company has adopted a retarded mentality.
>>106969386it's "x86" as in "(any)86", like you said, which doesn't help your argument because the 8086, 80186, and 80286 (the latter two often abbreviated to 186 and 286 respectively) are 16-bit cpus. "x86" has never only referred to 32bit examples
>>106969412oh and no, you can't say "but nobody means 16bit when they say x86", because guess what? nobody means 32bit nowadays for the same reason.
>>106969338>For all practical considerations they might as well be since they both run on a 64bit system.But you cannot run this on an x86 system, why else would something side by side be distinguished as x64, and then one by x86? They are not the same no matter which way you look at it. I don't care if they can both run on an x64 machine, they both cannot run on an x86 machine. I don't care if one is being depreciated, they are still not the same, anon.>Might run into some issues if the 32bit version ever touches a file larger than 4gb tho.Are you retarded and/or thinking of DOS? How old are you? There's no way you've ever used a 32 bit computer before.>>106969341He thinks if he never says how young he is, he won't get banned.>>106969338>There is no ambiguityYes there is, it's bassackwards now. You have something that is one way, and now it has become the other way. It's different, that's what change means! When you're calling something that it isn't, this is called an error.>No, they just think about an x86 PC which have been 64bit forever now.Imagine saying this in 2010, probably the year you were born. You would get ostracized from the entire computer nerd community. It isn't my fault someone started a retarded trend and everyone just went with it.
>>106969344>do you think system32 is only used for 32 bit compatibility?Then why is it labeled as such, and what is sysWOW64? I don't use Windows.>also i do wonder how many 32 bit systems out there either still connect to the internet and adjust the time from an ntp server or have a working cmos batteryLots of servers that small to medium sized companies never wanted to shell out extra money to replace for something that already works.
>>106969412>>106969428>oh and no, you can't say "but nobody means 16bit when they say x86"Yes, I can't.>because guess what? nobody means 32bit nowadays for the same reason.Because it's depreciating? We won't get to that point until we have 128 bit computing in the home market, and then everyone will be complaining about old ass 64 bit shit being still around for backwards compatibility. I just hope we don't end up in a world where we also refer to a a 128 bit computer as 64 bit.
>>106969485>Then why is it labeled as such, and what is sysWOW64? I don't use Windows.not him, but i know why.originally, windows was 16bit, so it's system libraries folder was simply called "system". then when windows went 32bit, now you had "system" for 16bit libraries, and "system32" for 32bit libraries.when windows went 64bit however, they decided not to make "system64", for a couple reasons. namely that windows had been 32bit for a long time at this point, as well as 32bit software being quite trivial to compile as 64bit with minimal code changes if any, so to make 64bit software updates easier, they kept the library folder name as "system32", otherwise software would need to change any hardcoded reference to it (they shouldn't use a hardcoded name, but some do anyway).so these days "system32", on 64bit windows, is actually the 64bit libraries folder, and "sysWOW64" is for 32bit libraries (windows' multilib support redirects system32 accesses from 32bit processes to sysWOW64)
>>106969485>>106969515oh and to explain "sysWOW64", WOW64 is the name of windows' multilib system, short for Windows (32) on Windows 64. i'm not certain why it's not systemWOW64 other than "sysWOW64" being 8 characters, fitting in the old 8.3 filename limit, but software that uses that folder don't access it directly anyway, so it's probably not a technical reason
the biggest question to all of this is why is it called x86 instead of x32
>>106969515This is more retarded than I ever could've imagined.So, on a 64 bit computer, it's 64 bit files are stored in a folder marked with 32, and it's 32 bit files are stored in a folder marked with 64? I really don't think it should've been that difficult for them to change, this is cursed.>oh and to explain "sysWOW64", WOW64 is the name of windows' multilib system, short for Windows (32) on Windows 64.I'm not here for hot and wet Windows on Windows action, maybe later, lol.>i'm not certain why it's not systemWOW64 other than "sysWOW64"I figured it was just quicker for developers to type.
>>106969554Already answered >>106969386"x64" is just a weird ass cursed retronym to tell you it is compatible with x86 based processors.
>>106969485"something that already works" isn't a good idea for this type of thing, think of eternalblue and whatever the exploit used in sasser is called. both of these examples also liked to crash your computer so you would definitely notice something was wrong>>106969515yes>>106969582system32 also contains stuff like your hosts file, so maybe doing things this way was easier?
>>106969512>128bitif this ever happens it won't be for a long time. as it is i'm not sure if any amd64 even supports a full 64bit address space, they're usually, last i checked, 48bit physically>>106969554i understand microsoft coined "x64" to differentiate it from it's other existing non-amd64 64bit offerings. like for example there was a "Windows XP 64-bit Edition", which was for Itanium processors. later once they made an amd64 version, they had to call it something else, so it became "Windows XP x64 Edition". i can only assume they avoid "AMD64" to avoid customer confusion regarding Intel cpu support>So, on a 64 bit computer, it's 64 bit files are stored in a folder marked with 32, and it's 32 bit files are stored in a folder marked with 64? I really don't think it should've been that difficult for them to change, this is cursed.it's the curse of backward compatibility, compounded by a desire to make upgrading software easier. they could have just made system64 and told devs to fix their software, but microsoft tends to avoid that where they can and keep the old ways around. it does make things quite messy>I figured it was just quicker for developers to type.well like i said, software devs don't use this folder directly. when a 32bit program is running, what it sees as system32 gets directed to syswow64. it does beg the question why they didn't do this with 64bit software instead (direct system32 access to system64). maybe there's a cost to do that, which if so, would make sense to give that cost to legacy software
>>106969600>"something that already works" isn't a good idea for this type of thing, think of eternalblue and whatever the exploit used in sasser is called. both of these examples also liked to crash your computer so you would definitely notice something was wrongDon't tell it to me, tell it to them.>system32 also contains stuff like your hosts file, so maybe doing things this way was easier?They could've made reflinks.
>>106969610>They could've made reflinks.only supported on NTFS, and XP x64 supports FAT32 installation, so reflinks were not guaranteed to be availablewhy put xp on fat32? no idea.
>>106969610i know nothing about windows internals, but if they ended up with something similar to the "stat" system call it would not follow symlinks and would possibly require more work? maybe? i don't know...
>>106969606>if this ever happens it won't be for a long time. as it is i'm not sure if any amd64 even supports a full 64bit address space, they're usually, last i checked, 48bit physically"128-bit" probably won't be using the full 128 bit address space either.But I can't believe when you tell someone that someone labeled their software as "64-bit" to indicate that it is supposed to run on a 128 bit computer, somehow has a different connotation than someone saying they labeled their software x86 to indicate it can run on a 64 bit computer.
>>106969554there is an x32, but it's not what you think. it's an unofficial architecture which is a hybrid of 32bit and 64bit x86, basically running the cpu in 64bit mode, with all the registers and features that comes with it, but uses 32bit pointers instead of 64bit pointers, to save memory and improve performance. linux has supported it for many years but it's rarely used afaik. i bet there's some servers out there using it, but since it's technically another architecture (i.e. you can't run regular 32bit or 64bit programs with x32 libraries, so if you build something as x32, you need to build its' deps as x32 as well)
>>106969620>XP x64 supports FAT32 installationI didn't even know that was possible. If it's a 64 bit OS, how can it be installed on FAT32? Is FAT32 not 32 bit only? What about FAT16?
>>106969674>64bit x86Can't you just say x86_64? I don't think I've even seen that before today, but this is just cursed...
>>106969674>>106969691Not him, btw
>>106969675fat32 is a 32bit filesystem, but that doesn't mean it can only be used by 32bit cpus, it refers to the size of integers it uses to count things like file/volume sizes, addressing sectors and the like. for example it limits file sizes to 4GiB because a 32bit number tops out at 4,294,967,296, which in bytes is 4GiB worth. note that this doesn't limit volume size to 4GiB because volumes are not byte-addressed, they're sector-addressed. fat32 uses an assumed sector size of 512 bytes, so 4,294,967,296 512 byte sectors is 2TiB worth of sectors
>>106969691you can use this thread as an opportunity to learn something new>>106969723>>106969675also, the reason it's part of the name is because it was an upgrade over fat16, which was an upgrade over the original fat (retroactively named "fat12")
>>106969734actually double checking, there was an 8-bit fat, so fat12 was probably always called fat12. 8bit fat predates ms-dos which will be why i'm unfamiliar with it
>>106969723I guess that explains why a Windows 98 computer I had was using FAT16. I don't know why either, somewhere in the OS it even gave me messages saying that it would be better to reformat the drive with FAT32.
>>106969810it was probably upgraded from windows 95. earlier versions of windows 95 only supported fat16.there's a tool to upgrade fat16 to fat32. i'm sure you've seen this icon before and wondered what it was
>>106967145>>106967854>Manjaro being retarded againno surprise there
>>106969832I knew what it was, but I couldn't do it. There was some reason I didn't want to do it or wasn't able to do it, but I don't remember exactly what.I seem to think it lets you do it without even moving anything off the drive, like some weird ass defragmentation-like thing, unless the drive is too full, is that accurate?
>>106969865>I knew what it was, but I couldn't do it. There was some reason I didn't want to do it or wasn't able to do it, but I don't remember exactly what.one potential reason was to keep the drive accessible from older versions of DOS. DOS never officially got fat32 support (as the last standalone DOS came out in 1994, and FAT32 is from 1996), but there's ways around that
>>106969872Maybe, I did use DOS programs on it.
>>106969872>>106969888Wait a minute, no. Windows used DOS 7 and up, it was like a weird proprietary DOS you couldn't separate from Windows.
>>106969900yea, that's why i specifically said older versions of dos. you could run dos programs either in windows 98, or using 98's dos ("reboot into dos mode"), but if you had dos boot discs using dos 6.22 or earlier, those won't be able to access fat32. maybe there's another reason why you didn't want to convert it, but i can't imagine why, maybe you simply didn't believe it was worth it
>>106969918Whenever I used DOS programs, I just rebooted to DOS or used the terminal window.I wanted to convert it, but I swear something was preventing me from doing it. There might've been bad sectors.
>>106969946i'm not sure. i don't remember using drive converter, maybe i used it once. there may have been something about your drive/volume that prevented it from working
>>106969950I just looked it up, it says it won't work if there's bad sectors.
>>106969226Strictly, Intel Macs were not IBM PC Compatibles as they could not boot from MBR disks. They also lacked a bunch of southbridge legacy functions, like no (real or emulated) 8042 keyboard controller.
>>106968183no one uses the term x86_64 except for useless lintroonseveryone else calls it x86 and x64.>inb4 HAHAHAH IF x64 MEANS 64 BIT THEN x86 MUST MEAN 86 BIT! GOTCHA!
>>106969549>i'm not certain why it's not systemWOW64 other than "sysWOW64" being 8 charactersthat's exactly the reason. it's also why they also have "SyChpe64" in arm builds of windows. for some reason they seem to really want to keep the name of these system folders at 8 characters.
>>106971217Windows Server 2012 was the first Windows where every OS component fully supported long filenames.
>>106971281that'd be new to me if true, and not something that would surprise me. it's really hard to be surprised about anything internal to windows anymore
>>106971198>>inb4 HAHAHAH IF x64 MEANS 64 BIT THEN x86 MUST MEAN 86 BIT! GOTCHA!https://youtu.be/VUcI0p04XJw?si=l8kcrIK0sGovjARm
>>106967145Anyone who wants or needs to run software on actual 32-bit x86 hardware would want more info than that anyways, since realistically most people actually compile their x86 binaries to require a Pentium 4 or newer due to compiler defaults but pretty much anyone running 32-bit x86 chips these days is running some esoteric embedded hardware which is typically not fully compatible with the P4.
