warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (11/03/85)
I own an Atari 800. I don't own an ST. I see one message in dozens in this group which I want to read. Why don't we have net.micro.ST and net.micro.atari800? (or anything else that says it, owners of 400s, 600s and 1200s shouldn't feel excluded.)
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (11/04/85)
In article <170@pluto.UUCP> warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) writes: >I own an Atari 800. I don't own an ST. I see one message in dozens in >this group which I want to read. Why don't we have net.micro.ST >and net.micro.atari800? (or anything else that says it, owners of 400s, >600s and 1200s shouldn't feel excluded.) As much as I agree with the problem, I have to disagree with the suggestion. The 800 (et al) are as dead as lots of other machines with loyal followings, and the need for a newsgroup for new technical data, rumors, O.S. arguments, etc. is just not there. Maybe we can all afford to upgrade some day ...
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (11/05/85)
In article <1543@cae780.UUCP>, gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) writes: > The 800 (et al) are as dead as lots of other machines with loyal followings, > and the need for a newsgroup for new technical data, rumors, O.S. arguments, > etc. is just not there. Well there was just today a posting from someone who requested data on the 600. I'm not loyal to the 800 at all. I gave it to my mother because she wanted to learn something about computers. (Flames about parent-abuse to /dev/null, please. It was her idea.) Anyway if this group only had ST postings, it should be renamed to reflect this.
Denber.wbst@XEROX.ARPA (11/05/85)
"the need for a newsgroup for new technical data, rumors, O.S. arguments, etc. is just not there." I have to disagree with *that*. It was on this newsgroup that I found out about the $4.95 1200XL keyboard from Radio Shack for my Atari 400 *and* the pinouts to hook the thing up (thanks, by the way to the person who provided that - I tried to reply to you personally, but our brain-damaged mailer refuses to parse addresses > 65 chars.). Now I'm looking for information on how to upgrade my memory to 48K. I've heard it involves some 64K chips and cutting a few traces, but I haven't been able to get any details (I also browsed around inthe archives). Also, does anyone have an Indus drive they'd like to part with? The lowest price (new) I've found recently is $200, from a mail-order place in New York. - Michel
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (11/05/85)
In article <1543@cae780.UUCP> gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) writes: > >As much as I agree with the problem, I have to disagree with the suggestion. >The 800 (et al) are as dead as lots of other machines with loyal followings, >and the need for a newsgroup for new technical data, rumors, O.S. arguments, >etc. is just not there. > >Maybe we can all afford to upgrade some day ... As much as I agree with the disagreement with the suggestion, I have to disagree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Gordon. While I don't believe there is a need for a new newsgroup, writing off the machines upon which the Amiga (yes, Amiga) is based due to some sort of computer snobbery is ridiculous. Those "dead" machines not only exist in the homes and offices of literally tens of thousands of people, but continue to have new software produced for them. Add to that the fact that the recent dumping of 'em on the market at extremely low prices makes for a lot of people with a need for *old* technical data, and those "dead" machines rise miraculously from the grave (not unlike a grade B horror flick :-). On the other hand, if you think gigabytes of Amiga vs ST flamage is a necessary thing, perhaps a separate ST newsgroup *would* be a good idea. We'll call it "/dev/null". - Joel Plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could! P.S. Have any of you necrophiliac 8-bit Atari users seen the latest Lucasfilms software (Eidolon?) yet? Is it worth owning?
freak@ihlpa.UUCP (c e malloy) (11/06/85)
> In article <170@pluto.UUCP> warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) writes: > >I own an Atari 800. I don't own an ST. I see one message in dozens in > >this group which I want to read. Why don't we have net.micro.ST > >and net.micro.atari800? (or anything else that says it, owners of 400s, > >600s and 1200s shouldn't feel excluded.) > > As much as I agree with the problem, I have to disagree with the suggestion. > The 800 (et al) are as dead as lots of other machines with loyal followings, > and the need for a newsgroup for new technical data, rumors, O.S. arguments, > etc. is just not there. > > Maybe we can all afford to upgrade some day ... I agree with the original posting. I too have an Atari computer, but have no intention of buying the new ST machine. And I strongly disagree with the last statement. The ST machines are NOT repeat NOT an upgrade from the 400/800/1200XL/600XL/800XL line of computers. They are not compatable, and there for are not an upgrade. When we upgrade the computers here, we don`t have to throw out all of the software that we have. In the worst case, it must be recompiled. That is an upgrade. If I "upgraded" to the ST line, I would have to throw out over 300 disks of software. There is no way that I am going to do that to support Jack Traimel and his personal dreams of glory. Sorry about the flame, but I couldn't help myself. From inside the Tesseract of Clancy Malloy (ihnp4!ihlpa!freak) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Everyone looked up and realized that we were only tenants of this world; | | We have been given a new lease, and a warning, from the landlord. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) (11/06/85)
In article <170@pluto.UUCP> warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) writes: >I own an Atari 800. I don't own an ST. I see one message in dozens in >this group which I want to read. Why don't we have net.micro.ST >and net.micro.atari800? (or anything else that says it, owners of 400s, >600s and 1200s shouldn't feel excluded.) I currently own an 800XL I bought last year for cheap as a game/teaching software machine for myself and my family. I currently WANT to own an ST, because I feel it will be a viable machine for the future. Yes, the 8-bit series seems to be getting phased out for the ST (and TT?), but I STILL WANT to see articles on both; the 8-bit for now, the ST for the future. The level of traffic in this group is not that huge; is it really that burdensome for people only interested in one or the other machine to skip past (to them) irrelevant articles? Bob Halloran Sr MTS, Perkin-Elmer DSG ============================================================================= UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\ {topaz, pesnta, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh USPS: 106 Apple St M/S 305, Tinton Falls NJ 07724 DDD: (201) 758-7000 Disclaimer: I doubt that my employer wants anything to do with my opinions. Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Duke, 'Doonesbury'
jeepcj2a@fluke.UUCP (Dale Chaudiere) (11/07/85)
> I own an Atari 800. I don't own an ST. I see one message in dozens in > this group which I want to read. Why don't we have net.micro.ST > and net.micro.atari800? (or anything else that says it, owners of 400s, > 600s and 1200s shouldn't feel excluded.) As an 800 owner/user I also vote to split micro.atari
jh@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (11/08/85)
Because of many reasons, including money and J. Tramiel, I will not buy an st. I don't want to see st messages. Splitting the group would hurt no one, as those (like Bob Halloran) who want to see both sets of messages can get on both lists, while those of us who see 10 messages a day on a computer they'll never buy won't be bothered anymore. Seriously, folks, fully half my mail is about a machine I'll never get. Splitting will have the advantage of getting us a moderator again. --jh--
cel@CIT-HEX.ARPA (11/11/85)
I'm an 800 owner, but am considering getting an ST sometime in the future. I DO want to hear about both, and would do this by getting both 800 and ST distributions if there is a split. Since a split does let everyone get just the stuff they're interested in, the only real argument against it is whether it's harder to maintain two separate (smaller) groups. Can we find two moderators when we can't seem to find one? --Chuck Lane cel@cit-hex.arpa
dlyall@watrose.UUCP (dlyall) (11/14/85)
It would be a good idea to split the newgroup into to because some of us are using 300 baud (I know it is a sin). It get very bothersome reading things that we really dont need. Split the group! : i
jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) (11/23/85)
Here is another 300 bauder (heaven forbid!) I would like to see the group
split as well.
Can Gene Spafford help us -- Oh Mighty One of USENET?
Aloha,
Jonathan Spangler
{ihnp4,dual,vortex}!islenet!jons
--
Jonathan Spangler
{ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons