I just noticed that this was added recently...

5.9.4 for Windows x64 ?

Can it be? A true, supported 64-bit client?

---

Yes it is! Try it and enjoy the bugs.

Only it uses a platform ID (windows_x86_64) that is not compatible with that used by ABC, Docking, HashClash, SIMAP (windows_amd64).

There goes Berkeley marshaling along without consulting the projects which helped improve and propagate BOINC ignoring their pioneer work. A shame!

---

Only it uses a platform ID (windows_x86_64) that is not compatible with that used by ABC, Docking, HashClash, SIMAP (windows_amd64).

There goes Berkeley marshaling along without consulting the projects which helped improve and propagate BOINC ignoring their pioneer work. A shame!

Changing that name will waste a project admin 5 minutes of work. Really a shame...

Only it uses a platform ID (windows_x86_64) that is not compatible with that used by ABC, Docking, HashClash, SIMAP (windows_amd64).

There goes Berkeley marshaling along without consulting the projects which helped improve and propagate BOINC ignoring their pioneer work. A shame!

I think your moan was covered in a CVS note before you moaned ;>)

Rom 20 Apr 2007
3876 - Fix: Win x64's alternate platform is really windows_intelx86
3877 not windows_x86_64.

Nope, that's not related. The client was sending x64 main platform and x64 alternate platform, which doesn't make any sense. Fix is sending x86 as an alternate platform.

That means 64-bit clients can still get work from projects with only 32-bit apps. (Alternate platform mechanism was added just this week)

Only it uses a platform ID (windows_x86_64) that is not compatible with that used by ABC, Docking, HashClash, SIMAP (windows_amd64).

There goes Berkeley marshaling along without consulting the projects which helped improve and propagate BOINC ignoring their pioneer work. A shame!

Changing that name will waste a project admin 5 minutes of work. Really a shame...

Actually its a little more serious than just the admins wasting 5 mins as many users are using custom clients set up to report as what the majority of projects require, that is (windows_amd64) but i agree with windows x86_64 myself as the correct name. It will cause users dramas but at least a standard has been applied. Its kinda like the 64bit Linux names.

Actually its a little more serious than just the admins wasting 5 mins as many users are using custom clients set up to report as what the majority of projects require, that is (windows_amd64) but i agree with windows x86_64 myself as the correct name. It will cause users dramas but at least a standard has been applied. Its kinda like the 64bit Linux names.

Only that windows_amd64 has been used by ABC, Docking, HashClash and SIMAP since September 2006 and the BOINC developers came up with windows_x86_64 in April 2007. I.e., they made a decision out of touch with what pioneer projects which not only helped the development of BOINC but also contributed to its success were doing.

And if windows_x86_64 is the correct name for the 64-bit Windows platform, then the correct one for 32-bit Windows is windows_x86, not windows_intelx86. Otherwise, windows_amd64 gives credit where credit is due. ;-)

---

Otherwise, windows_amd64 gives credit where credit is due. ;-)

Please read up on the universal name for X86-64. AMD called its architecture set x86-64 first and only later, after Intel had its own 64bit version, it renamed to AMD64. Soon thereafter Intel changed its architecture name to Intel64.

But to make it vendor free, the name x86-64 is still in use all over the place.

There is no AMD32, only the IA32 architecture developed by Intel and adopted by AMD, which is used by both vendors. So calling it intelx86 is correct.
See IA-32 for reference.

---

AMD called its architecture set x86-64 first and only later, after Intel had its own 64bit version, it renamed to AMD64. Soon thereafter Intel changed its architecture name to Intel64.

Wrong. AMD renamed x86-64 AMD64 months before Intel came out with IA32E, nay, EM64T, nay, Intel64, a copy of AMD64.

---

Personally i think both Intel and AMD names should be removed from all strings as both companies produce processors fitting these standards.
Other than that have the same architectures have similar strings for both 'doze and Linux would be another bonus personally.
But funnily enough only Augustine seems interested in 64 bit Linux so far and still nothing official.

But funnily enough only Augustine seems interested in 64 bit Linux so far and still nothing official.

Rom does the Windows binaries only. Walt does the Linux ones and Charlie does the Mac ones. Charlie (I think) is on vacation right now. So that's probably why there's no 5.9.4 client up for OSX yet. I don't know where Walt is.

---

Kathryn :o)

AMD called its architecture set x86-64 first and only later, after Intel had its own 64bit version, it renamed to AMD64. Soon thereafter Intel changed its architecture name to Intel64.

Wrong. AMD renamed x86-64 AMD64 months before Intel came out with IA32E, nay, EM64T, nay, Intel64, a copy of AMD64.

x86-64 is the accepted term for the technology. Intel does not use AMD64, Intel uses INTEL64. AMD does not use INTEL64, it uses AMD64.

x86-64 is how you coin both implementations at once since they are compatible with one another.

The projects blundered when they went with AMD64. They now have to pay the price and rename the tags.

---

But funnily enough only Augustine seems interested in 64 bit Linux so far and still nothing official.

There are plenty of users other than Augustine interested in 64bit linux support.

---

CIC1=CC=C(C2=N[C@@H](CC(OC(C)(C)C)=O)C3=NN=C(C)N3C4=C2C(C)=C(C)S4)C=C1

Yes plenty of interested users. Im one of them but i was hoping for some official interest. I wait impatiently.
Actually what i find interesting is a number of projects already have 64bit Linux apps and are either don't have or are still testing the 64bit 'doze apps. So the official 64 bit 'doze client is released (testing i know) but still no sign of a Linux version.