bees@drutx.UUCP (DavisRB) (07/02/84)
Yes: net.micro.apple.32 (mac and lisa) Ray Davis
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/03/84)
I disagree with the net.micro.mac idea. I just feel that creating sub-groups of the same company is a waste of resources. Let each computer manufacturer have a sub-group. Now that the builder field is in the process of being weeded out, this should keep the number of groups down. Do it like this: Net.micro Net.micro.ibm Net.micro.com Net.micro.ata Net.micro.ti Net.micro.app Net.micro.whoever Etc. Etc. The only wading through articles you will need is at least in the same ballpark. Don't create separate little niches for every piece of equipment that falls off the truck. Keep the same manufacturers together in one place. T. C. Wheeler
tac@teldata.UUCP () (07/06/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
I could live without a new newsgroup for Macs & Lisas *IF* {and I doubt
that it could happen} we could train people to put the *TYPE* of apple
that they are talking about in the subject. Until then, we need a
separate group.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
An Apple A Day Keeps The ...
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (07/10/84)
> I disagree with the net.micro.mac idea. I just feel that > creating sub-groups of the same company is a waste of resources. > Let each computer manufacturer have a sub-group.... > The only wading through articles you will need is at least > in the same ballpark. Prune juice. The only thing the 6502-based Apple micros and the 68000-based micros have in common are the company that makes them, and some of the peripheral equipment available for them. I don't own a Mac or Lisa, but I am interested in them - but I personally have no interest whatsoever in the 6502- based Apples. I'm sure there are people out there who have 6502-based Apples who have no interest in Apple 32s. Perhaps what is needed is a per-manufacturer group and subgroups of those groups for all major distinct product families (i.e., net.micro.pc or net.micro.ibm would probably not need subgroups, as all the PCs form one family, but net.micro.apple would have two subgroups, one for the Apple II family (and possibly Apple III) and one for the Apple 32 family). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy