byron@eosp1.UUCP (Byron Han) (06/26/84)
There is a growing level of traffic of net articles concerning the Apple (r) Macintosh (tm). What do you all out there think about setting up a separate newsgroup devoted to Macintosh owners (e.g. net.micro.mac)? Comments anyone? allegra!eosp1!byron <bh>
beshers@stolaf.UUCP (Cliff Beshers) (06/27/84)
I vote for a MAC group. I have no interest in II's and IIe's etc., but am very interested in MAC.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (06/29/84)
Yes, we could use a separate group for MacLisa owners: net.MacLisa
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)pshell@wxlvax.UUCP (Peter Shell) (06/29/84)
New mac bboard? yes.
Samuel@SU-SCORE.ARPA (06/29/84)
From: Sam Hahn <Samuel@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Usenet is now gatewayed to the info-mac bboard/distribution-list at SUMEX. -------
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (06/29/84)
[]
Count me in as a vote for net.micro.mac
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307bees@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!jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/09/84)
Yes to net.micro.mac -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
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
ksbc@hirst1.UUCP (Annie Brooking KSBC) (07/12/84)
Discussions on whether we should have a Lisa or Mac news group have been going on for ages, and with the increased amout of trafic that is being generated by these machines (mainly the Mac), it's about time something was done. Although they are both Apple machines, we could at least have a sub-group of net.micro.apple, or more important a net.lisa (for Lisa technology, not the machine). Yorick Phoenix (all tm's recognised).
riber@uicsl.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:eosp1:-96400:uicsl:5400001:000:416 uicsl!riber Jul 13 17:28:00 1984 I think the subgroups should be titled after for the processors that are prdominant. Going by this rule, you "mac" people already have net.micro.68k...... Other groups should be net.micro.z80, net.micro.6502, net.micro.6809, etc.,etc.,etc. This not only keeps interest up on your machine, but also keeps you informed to what is happening in related systems. Rick Berry pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!riber :
tower@inmet.UUCP (07/17/84)
#R:eosp1:-96400:inmet:5800059:000:255
inmet!tower Jul 10 14:37:00 1984
How about net.works.apple for mac and lisa technology?
On can argue that the Apple32 line is really workstation technology ...
That would leave net.micro.apple for the Apple II (and III).
-len tower {ihnp4,harpo}!inmet!tower Cambridge, MAguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (07/26/84)
> I think the subgroups should be titled after for the > processors that are prdominant. Going by this rule, you "mac" people > already have net.micro.68k...... > Other groups should be net.micro.z80, net.micro.6502, net.micro.6809, > etc.,etc.,etc. > This not only keeps interest up on your machine, but also keeps > you informed to what is happening in related systems. Unfortunately, it will also give you a lot of traffic on unrelated systems; do the Apple II, the various 6502-based Commodore machines, and the various 6502-based Atari machines have that much in common? What do a SUN workstation and a Mac have in common other than the 68K and the bit-mapped display and mouse? The net.micro.<chip or chip family> groups mainly discuss the characteristics of the chips and their families (and Goldilocks tried the 68881's porridge and it was Just Right...), not the characteristics of computers based on those chips. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy