Talk:IA-32

message: I plan on making some major changes to the contents of both the X86 and the IA-32 articles, to eliminate most of the overlap between them. I plan to make X86 the general overview of the architecture, with shorter technical descriptions, and more historical descriptives. For technical info, I will let the X86 link to the IA-32 (and also other articles) for more details. I will make IA-32 the more technical-oriented article, at least for the 32-bit side of this architecture. I will also let the X86 make links to the AMD64 article for the 64-bit technical details of this architecture.
---ykhan 05:29, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Would it be better to merge and redirect? 84.93.243.76 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ykhan's comments indicate why X86 and IA-32 would be separate - X86 is for a general and historical overview (see, for example, the IBM POWER and PowerPC pages), while IA-32 is for technical details of the 32-bit version of that architecture.  I just added to the Apple Macintosh page, in the Hardware section, a note that some Macs now have Intel x86 processors, in the same sentence where it's mentioned that some have PowerPC processors.  X86 is the right page to link to, there, as it's a similar page to the PowerPC page. Guy Harris 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel ykhan has the best approach; the articles about the platform and the language should refer to each other but be seperate and distinct. --Martyr 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamping X86 and IA-32 articles 

message: It seems to me, after the 'AMD64/EM64T/x64 merge' significant 64-bit information here should be relieved from this article. --Charles Gaudette 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did it. Please feel free to modify my humble effort as you see fit. Basically, my POV is to treat x86-64 as a new architecture, co-equal to but derived from IA-32. I feel that this is consistent with the treatment of IA-32 as co-equal with but derived from x86. -Arch dude 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It seems odd that half of this IA-32 article is about non-IA-32 architectures. Move all that information to some other, more relevant article -- perhaps the x86-64 article -- leaving behind a sentence or two describing the relationship between IA-32 and 64-bit architectures and linking to those articles. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post 'AMD64/EM64T/x64 merge' cleanup in this article 

message: This is the IA32 article, but it spends a lot of time saying "IA64 does it [some other way]". Let's avoid IA64 entirely. There's no point. 
Also from a technical view, this article's a mess; Virtual Memory doesn't just mean "so you can swap to the hard drive", and the discussion of addressable space doesn't mention ring-map limits or adequately explain PAE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.193.58 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs help 

message: Whatever this article used to contain in 2006 or so it seems to be gone now. There's not really any useful information on this page any more. I think we should just merge what's left into the X86 article and delete the IA-32 article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shoeless (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. x86 article has already passed 60 KB size line.  (See WP:SIZERULE.) Perhaps, instead of merging, it is time import contents from that article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hello there!  In short, I'm with .  Calling this "dictionary stuff" is a total nonsense, as it's a very important Intel architecture, and it's still around with us as part of all current Intel and AMD CPUs.  It's far away from being obsolete, despite the fact you probably can't see it.  In other words, keep the article. — Dsimic (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of it 

message: This is a complementary message about last edit by] User:Nurg because space constrains made my edit summary messed up. And if User:Nurg or anybody else wants to follow up the BRD chain to it D, he or she could do the discussion here.
Basically, the edit deletes this: And inserts this: 
First, nobody types "x86-32" or click on such a link to mean just "x86". Unfortunately, same is not correct for IA-32, thanks to a past old goof: Two years ago, there was over one million link that read "x86" and came here instead. (It is a WP:EGG violation.) So maybe deleting the old disambiguating hatnote was okay if the problem is solved. (I doubt Nurg has investigated that it was solved.) But putting the new hatnote instead is not. Second, Wikipedia policy on neologism is to not to advertise them if there is no evidence that they are used at all. I don't know who created that "x86-32" redirect but giving equal validity to it is wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: IA-32 is the 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA)? Give some strong evidences!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.17.174 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IA-32 is the 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA)? Give some strong evidences!  

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because the reasons stated by the proposer are not among those supported for speedy deletion. Jeh (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This article has been proposed for merging with x86. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Please do not reply to this message, please discuss the merger on the other article's talk page. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: NB 1 in 3rd paragraph references a SuperUser thread which references back to Wikipedia. Please find a more reliable source. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.41.95 (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims about "IA-64t" and "IA-32e" in the SuperUser thread don't cite Wikipedia, so that part, which is the part we're citing, isn't circular - but, then again, it doesn't cite anything else, and "somebody on a Web forum says XXX" falls under WP:SPS, so it's not a reliable source. Guy Harris (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely removed the note; the bit about IA-32e being a name Intel used for x86-64 didn't seem particularly relevant to why IA-64 wasn't used, even though a reliable source exists, and I couldn't find any obvious source for the claim that IA-64t was used for x86-64. Guy Harris (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular reference