[net.micro] how about a net.micro.msdos?

kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (08/23/84)

xxx
Is there any interest in starting a net.micro.msdos newsgroup to
discuss microcomputers that run generic MS-DOS (not IBM PC-DOS)?
There are quite a few machines like this, like the Zenith Z100, DEC
Rainbow, NEC, NCR, Sanyo, etc.  Most of these machines are discussed in
net.micro or net.micro.pc.  I think a more specific newsgroup would
be much more appropriate.  An alternative would be a net.micro.8088
that would cover other operating systems for the 8086 family (like
CP/M-86, VENIX, Concurrent, etc.).
-- 
Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB
wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl

indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) (08/25/84)

	Yeah! I second that.

broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (08/27/84)

  I vote 'yes'.
-- 
        -Bernie Roehl    (University of Waterloo)
	...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl

haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (08/28/84)

Here's my vote!

Tom Haapanen (watmath!wathdcsu!haapanen)

indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) (08/29/84)

I vote yes too.

indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) (08/29/84)

My vote too.

pmg@aplvax.UUCP (08/30/84)

I vote yes!!!
-- 
P. Michael Guba
...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg
...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg

kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (08/31/84)

How come net.micro.pc isn't good enough?
-- 
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt

WAGREICH@BBNA.ARPA (09/02/84)

I vote yes.  Please put me on the mailing list for this newsgroup
and letme know if/when it is formed.

Is there a newsgroup for  8086-based  MS-DOS  implementations  on
non-IBM  machines?   (By  non-IBM  machines, Imean machines other
than IBM, not including IBM compatibles.)

indra@utai.UUCP (Indra Laksono) (09/04/84)

	Because :

		[1] Not every msdos user is rich enough to get an IBM PC
		[2] Not every msdos micro is *that* compatible to --- --
		[3] IBM owners get their own net, why not other msdos users.

	And don't talk to me about copy cat or clones.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		/ Go ahead ! Flame me, see if I care /
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{quite a few sites}!utcsrgv!utai!indra
(Indra Laksono @ U of Toronto, Ontario)

furuta@uw-june (Richard Furuta) (09/04/84)

Please, it is good etiquette to *mail* your responses back to the person who
proposed setting up the group rather than *posting* them to the net (I
realize he didn't *ask* for them to be mailed to him but it is good
etiquette on his part to count those responses if he's really interested in
getting the group started).

Speaking of net.micro.foo, whatever happened to the results from the recent
poll on formation of net.micro.macintosh (no, fa.info-mac does not
substitute)?

I suppose I could muse about how funny it is that people residing in a group
with such an overwhelmingly general name as "net.micro.pc" feel that it
excludes them.  Maybe I'll suggest that the Macintosh discussions be
switched into net.micro.pc (yes, I'm kidding)!

					--Rick

bjw@BBN-UNIX.ARPA (09/05/84)

From:  "Benjamin J. Woznick" <bjw@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>

Yes.  Please add me, too.
	Ben Woznick (bjw@bbn-unix)

dmimi@ecsvax.UUCP (09/05/84)

I should think that a net.msdos group would help both ibm-pc people and other
msdos people.  IBM-PCDOS owners would not have all (though they still might
have some) general msdos stuff applying to other machines to read and other
msdos people would KNOW that net.msdos would apply to their machine rather than
always having to evaluate whether or not it does.

Mimi Clifford

paulsc@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Scherf) (09/08/84)

I vote for net.micro.msdos, so we can get all the "I want
net.micro.msdos" articles out of net.micro.

Paul Scherf, Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
paulsc@tekecs.UUCP