Talk:x86

'Open' in infobox

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)

Non-backwards-compatible designs

Are the non-backwards-compatible x86-derived designs still x86? x86S removes legacy operating modes from the core ISA, so is it still x86 family or is it merely an x86-derived design? Unlike IA32 and x86-64, x86S is not a strict superset of x86. ~2026-49810-87 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)