search

nefarius / ViGEmBus

Windows kernel-mode driver emulating well-known USB game controllers.
https://docs.nefarius.at/projects/ViGEm/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
3.08k stars 285 forks source link

Renaming the setup binary #94

Closed Rocky04 closed 2 years ago

Rocky04 commented 3 years ago

Can you please rename the binary files to avoid confusion for people who don't get the wrong naming. Because some people seem to be unsure which file is for which system.

In the context both versions are in the x86 instruction set family. They only differ by the bit length of the instructions, so the correct full naming would be "x86 32-Bit" or "x86 64-Bit" respectively.

Masamune3210 commented 3 years ago

x64, while not technecally correct (it should be x86-64 or AMD64) is commonly used around the internet to mean 64-bit. Even Microsoft does this with Windows.

Masamune3210 commented 3 years ago

Besides, explaining Intel's failure of a attempt to make IA64 happen would probably just confuse people more

Rocky04 commented 3 years ago

The main goal here is to differ between 32 and 64 bit. Now it's kind of weird due to a mixed naming convention. For completes x86 can still be used as a part to differentiate other platforms. Like when an ARM build comes some day.

I recommend to avoid using AMD64 because then people who have Intel 64 are may confused because they don't know that they are compatible to each other. Or the other nomenclature like IA-32 which stands for x86 32 bit because IA-64 isn't the same as x86 64 bit.

Edit: Again, for a few users it's confusing to use x64 for "x86 64 bit" and x86 for "x86 32 bit", so they don't know which is the right one. Maybe they even think the later is better because of the greater number.

nefarius commented 3 years ago

I can't edit existing assets but I can adopt a new naming scheme in the future and offer adding a hint to the release notes which file name means what (which those who need the explanation probably won't read anyway but I digress) 😉

I even wrote a small article on the topic for a different project.

Rocky04 commented 3 years ago

I don't really get why to stick to the weird nomenclature from Microsoft. Yeah you can refer to it and may even provide a conversion scheme. But I would recommend to use the more common explicit naming.

As mentioned if there will be an ARM build some day you should better provide the instruction type and length anyway, so why not start with it in the next version.

x86-32 (IA-32)
x86-64 (AMD64 / Intel 64)
ARM32
ARM64
nefarius commented 3 years ago

As mentioned if there will be an ARM build some day you should better provide the instruction type and length anyway, so why not start with it in the next version.

As I said, I'll take it into consideration 🙂 And it will most probably change nothing because what experience showed me is that those who need to be told how to look up their CPU architecture won't read documentation anyway 😛

Cheers

Rocky04 commented 3 years ago

So it's just me... I know what it means and still don't like it.

So thanks for at least consider it.