Re: svn commit: r46400 - head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/bsdinstall

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;&nbsp;&xeon;, and
> +	    &intel;&nbsp;&core;&nbsp;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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-doc-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"