Talk:X86

It's clearly specified in the article page, whoever wrote that opinion clearly has some reading disability or is practicing his/her skills on NewSpeak when he/she applies for INGSOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.162.72 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To which opinion are you referring? If you're referring to

As of 2021, most desktop computers, laptops and game consoles (with the exception of the Nintendo Switch^[1]) sold are based on the x86 architecture,

then it explicitly notes that the switch isn't x86, complete with a reference demonstrating that. If you're referring to the claim as a whole, there's a call for a citation on that. Guy Harris (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The information regarding whether or not x86 is open source really belongs within article text, rather than being 'litigated' in a lengthy infobox entry. From my limited understanding, the only 'open' aspect is in regard to expired patents, in which case it would revert to 'public domain' as opposed to 'open source'.

References are generally discouraged in infoboxes, and it has two, along with a 'citation needed' tag! I'm not a subject matter expert on the distinctions revolving around openness, patents, etc. (as above), so ideally someone more experienced would likely do a better job than I could. I think the entry should simply be listed as 'Mixed', with that word being a wikilink internal to where it's discussed within this article. That said, if nobody who comes forward to address this, I'll soldier on and try to do it justice myself. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)