Why do Linux world uses the term i386 instead of x86?
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I see the term i386 instead of x86 in many places related to Linux. As of my knowledge, they are not interchangeable. x86 is a family of instruction set architectures where i386 is a specific one of the x86 processors. But why do Linux world uses the term i386 instead of x86 ?
References:
x86 | Wikipeadia
Intel 80386 | Wikipeadia
x86 cpu-architecture
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I see the term i386 instead of x86 in many places related to Linux. As of my knowledge, they are not interchangeable. x86 is a family of instruction set architectures where i386 is a specific one of the x86 processors. But why do Linux world uses the term i386 instead of x86 ?
References:
x86 | Wikipeadia
Intel 80386 | Wikipeadia
x86 cpu-architecture
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
3
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
1
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I see the term i386 instead of x86 in many places related to Linux. As of my knowledge, they are not interchangeable. x86 is a family of instruction set architectures where i386 is a specific one of the x86 processors. But why do Linux world uses the term i386 instead of x86 ?
References:
x86 | Wikipeadia
Intel 80386 | Wikipeadia
x86 cpu-architecture
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I see the term i386 instead of x86 in many places related to Linux. As of my knowledge, they are not interchangeable. x86 is a family of instruction set architectures where i386 is a specific one of the x86 processors. But why do Linux world uses the term i386 instead of x86 ?
References:
x86 | Wikipeadia
Intel 80386 | Wikipeadia
x86 cpu-architecture
x86 cpu-architecture
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 18 hours ago
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
asked yesterday
Anees
1124
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
3
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
1
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
3
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
1
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago
1
1
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
3
3
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
1
1
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
As I stated in the question, i386 and x86 are not interchangeable. i386 is just a specific one of the x86 processors.
The reason for this is that the
i386, or 80386, was the first 32-bit processor. When it was introduced, the word i386 is started to be used in many places, including in OSs and compilers, which made it impossible or very difficult to change later.
Even after the introduction of other advanced x86 processors, including the 486 and 586, many manufacturers didn't bother to change the label i386 and started to use it as an alias for "32-bit x86 processor".
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as.i686.rpmbecause they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.
– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Anees is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489145%2fwhy-do-linux-world-uses-the-term-i386-instead-of-x86%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
As I stated in the question, i386 and x86 are not interchangeable. i386 is just a specific one of the x86 processors.
The reason for this is that the
i386, or 80386, was the first 32-bit processor. When it was introduced, the word i386 is started to be used in many places, including in OSs and compilers, which made it impossible or very difficult to change later.
Even after the introduction of other advanced x86 processors, including the 486 and 586, many manufacturers didn't bother to change the label i386 and started to use it as an alias for "32-bit x86 processor".
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as.i686.rpmbecause they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.
– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
As I stated in the question, i386 and x86 are not interchangeable. i386 is just a specific one of the x86 processors.
The reason for this is that the
i386, or 80386, was the first 32-bit processor. When it was introduced, the word i386 is started to be used in many places, including in OSs and compilers, which made it impossible or very difficult to change later.
Even after the introduction of other advanced x86 processors, including the 486 and 586, many manufacturers didn't bother to change the label i386 and started to use it as an alias for "32-bit x86 processor".
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as.i686.rpmbecause they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.
– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As I stated in the question, i386 and x86 are not interchangeable. i386 is just a specific one of the x86 processors.
The reason for this is that the
i386, or 80386, was the first 32-bit processor. When it was introduced, the word i386 is started to be used in many places, including in OSs and compilers, which made it impossible or very difficult to change later.
Even after the introduction of other advanced x86 processors, including the 486 and 586, many manufacturers didn't bother to change the label i386 and started to use it as an alias for "32-bit x86 processor".
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As I stated in the question, i386 and x86 are not interchangeable. i386 is just a specific one of the x86 processors.
The reason for this is that the
i386, or 80386, was the first 32-bit processor. When it was introduced, the word i386 is started to be used in many places, including in OSs and compilers, which made it impossible or very difficult to change later.
Even after the introduction of other advanced x86 processors, including the 486 and 586, many manufacturers didn't bother to change the label i386 and started to use it as an alias for "32-bit x86 processor".
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
edited 17 hours ago
Kusalananda
120k16225369
120k16225369
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
answered 18 hours ago
Anees
1124
1124
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Anees is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as.i686.rpmbecause they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.
– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
add a comment |
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as.i686.rpmbecause they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.
– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
2
2
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as
.i686.rpm because they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.– telcoM
14 hours ago
In addition to the 32-bit capability, the 80386 also introduced a lot of important features that were important for multitasking OSs, so backporting any code that uses these features to 80286 or older processes would require major changes. Other important features were introduced by the original Pentium and Pentium Pro chips, also known as i586 and i686; for example, 32-bit RHEL 6.x RPM packets have their architecture ID as
.i686.rpm because they've been compiled to unconditionally use features of Pentium Pro and later chips, with no fallbacks for CPUs older than that.– telcoM
14 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
Thanks for pointing it out
– Anees
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Anees is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anees is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anees is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Anees is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489145%2fwhy-do-linux-world-uses-the-term-i386-instead-of-x86%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Hi, :-) I am new to this community. Please consider commenting the reason of down-voting so that I can improve the question.
– Anees
yesterday
3
Possible duplicate of 32-bit vs 64-bit vs ARM in regards to programs and OSes
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
1
@ThomasDickey I don't see the relation to ARM.
– RalfFriedl
yesterday
There's several answers which provide the details that OP wants to know, which also provide information that OP may not want to know.
– Thomas Dickey
yesterday
@ThomasDickey thank you for pointing it out. I have read the answer multiple times. But I don't think it answers the core question. As researched further on the internet, I could find an answer which I think is correct. Please check it out.
– Anees
18 hours ago