Talk:X86

"Generation" column again

How did this completely unreferenced bit of stuff-someone-made-up-one-day get back in here?

This is how: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X86&type=revision&diff=844673781&oldid=843473014 Another Janagewen IP sock.

It's going away. There is no reference for industry-wide "generation" numbers. Jeh (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed: Large number of problems in the chronology table

Hello.

I fixed a large number of problems in the Chronology section. Here is a detailed list of what has gotten fixed:

• Erroneous info: IA-64 and ARM64 were framed into the chronology, in a way that implied they were implementations of x86! And that's the smallest problem; this integration was so weird, it was analogous to reading an article on the life of Bill Gates that frequently strayed off the topic to explain the details of Beyonce's life in parallel. Whatever the noble motive of the original writer, the end result grossly failed to justify itself.
• Writer's pet peeves: Apparently the writer had felt the need to emphatically explain that "x64" is part of "x86". But the irony is this act would backfire because the integration of erroneous info about IA-64 and ARM64. It is like the story of the boy called wolf for the third time; when you (by mistake or intentionally) tell people that IA-64 and ARM64 are part of x86, and they find out otherwise, they don't believe you when you tell them x64 is an x86 version.
• Ambiguous info: Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 are CPU brand names, not CPU models; these brand names have been used since 2008 for the bulk of Intel products. I replaced them with the Intel CPU architecture names, e.g., Nehalem.
• Conflicting top and bottom headings:
  • "Generation" ≠ "Era" (one is time, one is the product of it)
  • "Introduction" ≠ "Release" (one happens once, the other can happen repeatedly afterwards)
  • "Prominent CPU models" ≠ "CPU models" (not every CPU is prominent)
  • "Address Space" ≠ "Physical Address Space", especially when right below the former, it says "Physical", "virtual" and "linear"
  • "Notable features" ≠ "New features" (one feature can be new but not notable)
• Contested info: Please read previous discussions in this talk page
• Editorializing (e.g. "Enhanced Platform", which is zero-informative. Proof: [1])
• Broken links
• Incorrect use of slash; see MOS:SLASH
• Capitalization; see MOS:CAPS
• "NA" → "{{N/A}}"

5.78.104.231 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@5.78.104.231: I've no comments about your words, but would you please design or devise completely a new table rather than modifying mine? 221.9.14.156 (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You (221.9.14.156) are quite obviously the long-permanent-blocked Janagewen (see user:Janagewen, WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janagewen/Archive, etc.). You are permanently blocked from editing due to a wide variety of problems, as detailed at your various case pages. I have therefore reverted your change and will continue to do so. Jeh (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Two "Overview" sections

The first and fourth sections of this article are both named "Overview". The first one provides some background information and description of modern implementation mostly in layman's terms, while the other goes into technical details.

I Require The Table in the Main Article to Be Removed!

It cost me lots of time to design a table like https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion:X86&oldid=144373066, and I put it on the main article several months ago, attacked by some a so called Computer professional, but a really minor! And right now this table was modified and goes away too far from my initial design purposes, so I require the table in the main article to be removed! Anyone could put the old one there, but please do not change mine!!! I do really require this requirement! --- Aaron Janagewen