Ubuntu QA:
BlogBrainstormPackage status
Log in
Ubuntu QA
The Ubuntu community has contributed 22700 ideas, 138270 comments, 2629576 votes
Idea sandbox Idea sandbox
Popular ideas Popular ideas
Ideas in development Ideas in development
Implemented ideas Implemented ideas
Idea #7370: Change Ubuntu ISO labels - i386 to 32bit and amd64 to 64bit

Written by oencke the 21 Apr 08 at 19:58. Category: Installation. Related project: Nothing/Others. Status: New
Rationale
The i386 ISOs do not have anything to do with Intel or the 386 cpus specifically just as the amd64 are not specific to AMD processors. Additionally these descriptors are practically meaningless to non-techies.

What matters for the decision between the ISOs is the difference between 32bit and 64bit, not intel and amd, so why not just call them that way, and thus take away the burden of having to be a cpu technician to understand them?

EDIT: As a compromise, to avoid confusion of the x86/IA ISOs with those for other architectures, descriptors like PC32bit and PC64bit might also be acceptable as that is likely the maximum a home user knows about his or her computer.

797
votes
up equal down
Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #7370
Written by oencke the 21 Apr 08 at 19:58.
Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #7370 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!
239
votes
up equal down
Solution #2: Call it "x86-64"
Written by Thelasko the 29 Jan 09 at 14:51.
A minor variant of the solution above, specifying "x86-64" ensures it isn't confused with IA64 and other 64-bit architectures.
676
votes
up equal down
Solution #3: Use "32 bit" and "64 bit" with "details" button.
Written by Darwin Survivor the 20 Feb 10 at 02:56.
Most users would not know that i386 is 32 bit or what the "x86" part of "x86_64" means (or the x for that matter). In order to make this as easy and simple for users as humanly possible, we should simply label them as "64 bit" and "32 bit". Beside the options would be a "details" or "help" button that would:
-explain the differences (max ram, performance, compatibility, etc)
-give a specific version type (i386/x86_64/etc) for advanced users
-give instructions to find out what their machine supports (VERY important)

This makes it industry neutral, while also making it much simpler for non-technical users to figure it out. We are targetting non-technical people after all, so why all the jargon?
-194
votes
up equal down
Solution #4: Use the shorter "x64" instead of "AMD64"
Written by readmanr the 18 Feb 10 at 21:43.
The generic term x86-64 is sometimes shortened to x64 as another vendor-neutral term for x86-64 processors from any company referring to 64bit.
484
votes
up equal down
Solution #5: Use "x86_64" instead of "AMD64"
Written by readmanr the 18 Feb 10 at 21:42.
Redhat, Fedora, Mac OS X, and others simply call 64bit "x86_64". It is a clean, neutral name that is accurate no matter which company made the processor, and also does not give free advertising to either company.
68
votes
up equal down
Solution #6: Automatically check 32/64-bit
Written by jbangert the 23 Feb 10 at 21:34.
Some browsers(in particular one quite popular propietary and Evil product) include the string "x64" in the User Agent on 64-bit hardware (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download). We could also provide a platform-dependent download link to a tool that checks for 32-bit / 64-bit ( Windows and Mac mostly - just a simple tool that uses CPUID and then gives a Message Box with 2 links ) .
By default, we should specify 2 download Boxes ( "Ubuntu 32-bit" and "Ubuntu 64-bit" ) giving pros and cons .

Propose your solution

Attachments
No attachments.


Duplicates


Comments
Triple Omega wrote on the 21 Apr 08 at 21:20
Agreed, completely. For anyone without knowledge of processor history the names i386 and amd64 not only offer little explanation of the difference between them, but could even lead to serious confusion. The amd64 version could be seen as a version created for amd processors. That while the name i386 doesn't hint to anything 32bit related, but it does hint to Intel with it's i.

Even I as experienced PC user(but linux noob) checked if there weren't "amd386" and "i64" versions. That is in the few seconds before i remembered why they would be marked as "i386" and "amd64".

REALLY confusing for anyone but the hand full of people who know about intel's x86 and amd's 64bit.

glibik wrote on the 21 Apr 08 at 21:30

I take the point about the AMD/Intel thing, however GNU/Linux, including the Ubuntu version, supports many other CPU architectures including Arm, PPC, Sparc, MIPS. Some of which are also 64bit.

Even in the Intel/AMD 32bit space there are different instruction sets, eg: i386, i486, i686, etc.. There is a whole other debate attached to this but is a bit off this topic.

With regard to the x86 based 64bit instruction set, AMD produced and released the specification. It was only after Intel realised their marketing error that they started building CPUs that emulated the AMD 64bit instruction set.

So the issue is not quite as simple as it would seem. Simply labeling ISOs as 32bit or 64bit would lead to some ambiguity. If I saw "HardyHeron-64bit.iso", I would be forced to question, is it 64bit Sparc, or 64bit x86, or ...

I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put this suggestion down. I simply believe it's something that requires a little more thought.

And, yes I do have an SGI (MIPS 64bit) workstation at home. I also have an old Sun Sparc box to play with at work. A few years ago, I even had a couple of really old (circa 1988) Sparc boxes at home that I managed to get Redhat 6.2 running on.

flounder wrote on the 21 Apr 08 at 22:36
The Ubuntu architecture labeling _is_ non-standard. The standard nomenclature is:
A. x86-32 or ia32; B. x86-64 or AMD6; C. Itanium or ia64; D. PPC-32 or power; D. PPC-64 or power2; etc...

oencke wrote on the 21 Apr 08 at 23:08
I get your point and appreciate your input.

As Triple Omega experienced it seems even experienced user might get at least a little confused when they are first presented the choice of the different linux ISO options.

The question is now, how can we ease the decision for the average human being without the knowledge of the different cpu architectures and what can we expect from someone who doesn't have one of the typical machines?

I think, anyone with anything different than the typical "IBM compatible"/x86/... Intel/AMD computer will know that he or she will have to look beyond the mainstream/standard distribution ISO and at least know his or her architecture name.

The typical home user will probably only know that he has a PC and might have read in its advertisement if it was a 64bit processor or not.

A compromised solution might thus be to change the descriptors to PC32bit and PC64bit.

roemer2201 wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 05:15
Wow, thats interessting. So far I didn't know, that I can use the AMD64 on an Intel-64bit processor. Ok ok, it doesn't have any importance to me, but its good to know.

So... +1 (completely aggreed)

ushimitsudoki wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 06:45
This was actually a point of minor confusion for me when I first moved to Ubuntu. I took me a bit of searching and reading before I was convinced amd64 was what I needed on my Intel-based machine.

I think x86-32 and x86-64 are the right choices here - that matches the Linux kernel use, I think.

kwah wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 07:58
If people do not read explanation in plain English what is what different labeling won't help anyway.

steve196 wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 09:20
i386 is a correct label. 32bit could be a lot of different processors.

wit3k wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 10:41
Hope it will change.

I have resigned few year ago from downloading Mandrake because there "was no PC version".

Now I can recognize all types of platforms but - I am programist ;p

How those poor people can know those things - especialy when we call it "for human beeings".

jtsop wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 10:48
NO i386 is not correct. Maybe i686 or something else but not i386. How many packages are compiled for i386? The best would be something like:

intel-amd-x86-32bit
intel-amd-x86-64bit
intel-itanium-ia64bit
sparc-64bit
mac-ppc-32bit
alpha-64bit and so on
sgi-mips-32bit

etc. You get the point
[cpu|company]-arch-bits

flounder wrote on the 22 Apr 08 at 13:22
One way or the other the labeling is confusing as it stands. Perhaps the following?

ubuntu-desktop-8.04.0-x86-32.iso - AMD/Intel/VIA 32bit "IA32"
ubuntu-desktop-8.04.0-x86-64.iso - AMD/Intel 64bit "AMD64"
ubuntu-desktop-8.04.0-itanium.iso - Intel "IA64" (uncommon)
...

lynx wrote on the 23 Apr 08 at 20:58
all this crap can be resolved by Ubuntu site that should check the CPU architecture and point every mortal to its desired download ... of course afterwards, the download could be named same for all (ubuntu.iso, kubuntu.iso, xubuntu.iso ...)

how do you distinguish between a ppc and x86 iso file that landed mysteriously on your pc?

just quickly mount the iso and read some reamdme files.

ToSsMaStR wrote on the 24 Apr 08 at 13:23
You know some people just argue because they can. Great idea my friend, something simple for everyone to understand! +1

shift6 wrote on the 25 Apr 08 at 08:04
Planning to move to Hardy Heron to try Linux for the first time, one of the very first stumbling blocks as a new user was figuring out which version to download!

I definitely support some sort of improvement in the way ISOs are named, or perhaps some sort of implementation of an interactive guide as to aid a new user as to which version would be most suitable for the model of processor they own.

jespdj wrote on the 25 Apr 08 at 14:07
Agreed, especially the name "AMD" should not be used for the 64-bit version.

Yes, I know that AMD invented it, but there are too many people being confused by the name "amd64", thinking it is only for AMD processors.

leandropls wrote on the 26 Apr 08 at 00:54
Agreed. Ubuntu should use the standard names.

PeterKraus wrote on the 27 Apr 08 at 16:37
x86 and x86_64...

zhomart wrote on the 11 May 08 at 19:44
yes, do something with this names

jpka wrote on the 26 Jun 08 at 12:36
+1
Also please do adding in GRUB conf file 'Ubuntu x.xx 64-bit' instead of 'Ubuntu x.xx'. Because having both 32 & 64-bit system in GRUB looks same and it is confusing.

csahin wrote on the 26 Jun 08 at 21:05
I agree with lynx. If this is to avoid confusing regular people downloading incorrect builds, then it should be a matter of _directing_ them to the right one. This doesn't necessarily involve changing how ubuntu uses architecture names (although I agree using standard names makes more sense)

I think the ubuntu download site should allow the user to choose what kind of cpu the person has (using commercially known names) and direct the person to the right build.

bicchi wrote on the 30 Jun 08 at 01:56
I agree, x86 and x86_64 sound more appropriate.

leemeador wrote on the 25 May 11 at 00:53
Sad. This item is 3 years old and tonight I was confused by the same issue. All I wasted was 22 minutes to download the correct version.

The AMD download runs on my Intel chip. The "i" download runs on someone else's AMD chip. That's good enough reason to get a better name.

Nobody cares who invented the "architecture" and most live people don't even know what an "architecture" is in this context. I bought an Intel chip. It can run 64-bit stuff. It might need 64-bit stuff if I have a large memory sticks.

I should see choices that work with this world view. In fact, the normal Ubuntu download page shows reasonable titles but the files are still named the old names and the alternative download, once you find it, uses the confusing names.

dogweather wrote on the 12 Oct 12 at 06:50
Yep. This bug wasted my time too.

This idea is incorrectly marked as "implemented". How do we fix that?

mpt (Ubuntu developer) wrote on the 13 Oct 12 at 02:54
I have removed the mistaken “Implemented” flag.


Post your comment