This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 191824 - Issue reporter recognise Intel i5 processor as amd64
Summary: Issue reporter recognise Intel i5 processor as amd64
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: platform
Classification: Unclassified
Component: JDK Problems (show other bugs)
Version: 7.0
Hardware: All All
: P4 normal (vote)
Assignee: Antonin Nebuzelsky
URL:
Keywords:
: 192384 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-11-11 01:28 UTC by nazzz
Modified: 2011-06-08 20:18 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description nazzz 2010-11-11 01:28:34 UTC 
Product Version = NetBeans IDE 7.0 M2 (Build 201010151251)
Operating System = Windows 7 version 6.1 running on amd64
Java; VM; Vendor = 1.6.0_20
Runtime = Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 16.3-b01
Comment 1 Marian Mirilovic 2010-11-11 12:20:20 UTC 
Issue reporter reads this info from IDE
Comment 2 nazzz 2010-11-11 13:18:50 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> Issue reporter reads this info from IDE

You have not provided any link regarding this issue, as for me this issue is not critical but something is not right.
Comment 3 Antonin Nebuzelsky 2010-11-11 15:04:51 UTC 
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6378452

This is a JDK issue ("os.arch" system property returns "amd64" for 64-bit JDKs running on any 64-bit CPU).

I just verified this is the case also with Intel Core2 Duo.

Quoting from the JDK issue:

"In the same way that the label "i386" is absolutely archaic but most users understand it's meaning in a packaging or platform query context, "amd64" will have to gain acceptance too, as use of this label is not going to change."

Closing wontfix on our side.
Comment 4 Antonin Nebuzelsky 2010-11-25 08:59:36 UTC 
*** Bug 192384 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Marian Mirilovic 2011-06-08 20:18:48 UTC 
Hmm, marked as WONTFIX on JDK side ...