Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:51:09 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-doc-head@freebsd.org, svn-doc-all@freebsd.org, doc-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r46400 - head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall Message-ID: <2293373.FuObg3DdlU@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <201504010508.t3158WPX043648@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201504010508.t3158WPX043648@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, April 01, 2015 05:08:32 AM Eitan Adler wrote: > Author: eadler > Date: Wed Apr 1 05:08:31 2015 > New Revision: 46400 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/doc/46400 > > Log: > Minimum Hardware Requirements: installation instructions > > Sacrifice some technical pedanticness to simplify the description of amd64 and > i386. For the users whom are actually confused as to which system they should > use, using more plain language (such as 32-bit vs 64-bit) and referencing the > vendors directly would be more helpful. > > Also, stop mentioning that both UP and SMP are supported. OpenBSD finished that > project in 2004. Mostly looks good, some nits: > + <para>There are two primary vendors of &arch.amd64; > + processors: &intel; (which produces > + <acronym>EM64T</acronym> class processors) and AMD (which > + produces <acronym>AMD64</acronym>).</para> IIRC, Intel uses "Intel64" not "EM64T" nowadays. I think EM64T was actually relatively short lived. > + <para>Examples of &arch.amd64; compatible processsors > + include: &amd.athlon;64, &amd.opteron;, > + multi-core &intel; &xeon;, and > + &intel; &core; 2 and later processors.</para> > </listitem> > </varlistentry> > > <varlistentry> > <term>&arch.i386;</term> > <listitem> > + <para>This architecture is the 32-bit version of the > + &arch.amd64; archiecture.</para> architecture is misspelled, but saying this is the 32-bit version of amd64 isn't really quite right either. You wouldn't say that a manual was the simpler version of an automatic transmission. I would probably say "32-bit x86 architecture". -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2293373.FuObg3DdlU>