matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) (05/23/91)
In article <22301@duke.cs.duke.edu> dcf@physics.phy.duke.edu (Dan Flatin) writes: > I support the split proposal. [i.e., create comp.sys.calculators and > copy.sys.palmtops] If there appears to be a disproportionate number of > hp48 postings within the calculators group then we can work out a > sensible subdivision. But can anyone doubt that that will be the case? In the last month, I don't think I've seen any postings at all on any calculator but the hp48 and the hp28. For every posting about some other calculator, I see 100 about the 28/48. I really don't think I'm exaggerating that number. The way I look at it, a "calculators" newsgroup will be an hp48 newsgroup in everything but name---so why not make the name accurately reflect the contents? Well, I don't think any minds are likely to be changed here. My main concern is that an hp48 group get created, and I would rather have one with an imprecise name than have none at all. However, I don't think anyone really knows which proposal (comp.sys.calculators or comp.sys.hp48/comp.sys.handhelds.hp48/ comp.sys.hp.hp48) is more popular: only a handful of people have posted, whereas hundreds voted in the last vote. My proposal, then: a quick, informal straw poll. Send me a brief message telling me which proposal you like better, and I'll summarize for the net in a few days. With any luck, there will be some sign of a consensus one way or another. You don't have to bother giving your reasons for a preference (I'll probably just give numbers in my summary), but you may want to tell me whether you would be willing to vote for either proposal, or whether you think that one of the proposals is so bad that you would vote against it. -- Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a (415) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a austern@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any matt@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (05/23/91)
In article <MATT.91May22113639@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes: |>> I support the split proposal. [i.e., create comp.sys.calculators |>and |>> copy.sys.palmtops] If there appears to be a disproportionate number |>of |>> hp48 postings within the calculators group then we can work out a |>> sensible subdivision. |> |>But can anyone doubt that that will be the case? In the last month, |>I |>don't think I've seen any postings at all on any calculator but the |>hp48 and the hp28. For every posting about some other calculator, I |>see 100 about the 28/48. |> But is that bad? It's apparently bad right now for the palmtop owners. But if they have their own group, now is the HP48/HP28 traffic bad? Is there a disenfranchised crowd of other calculator owners out there? |>I really don't think I'm exaggerating that number. |> |>The way I look at it, a "calculators" newsgroup will be an hp48 |>newsgroup in everything but name---so why not make the name accurately |>reflect the contents? |> Well, over the lifetime of the comp.sys.handhelds group there have been several "sweetheart" calculators. All of them were from HP, but I don't think that has a bearing. This is a group of people who USE their calculators and take them seriously. HP is really the only company that takes their needs to heart. But if Casio or TI suddenly decided to get serious, there's nothing that would lead me to believe that the group wouldn't switch manufacturers as fast as they switch models. (And the changeovers from the 41 to the 28C, 28C to 28S, 28S to 48 were pretty darn fast.) The point is, having a most popular model doesn't mean that the group is not interested in handhelds of all types. Nor does a preponderance of traffic in the group for a single model mean that there should be a split on that model IF IT IS GOING TO LEAVE THE GROUP VIRTUALLY EMPTY. If the 48 got tossed out before this proposal, the palmtop people planned to live on in the vacated group. But if the palmtop people move to their own group, and the 48 people move out, who's left? |>My proposal, then: a quick, informal straw poll. Send me a brief |>message telling me which proposal you like better, and I'll summarize |>for the net in a few days. With any luck, there will be some sign of |>a consensus one way or another. |> Funny how these things happen -- I had just agreed with Jeff Mandel to conduct a poll to see if we could show if there was consensus around a name so we could cut to the chase and call for votes. I hate to duplicate work, but I think your scheme has too many degrees of freedom to draw a solid conclusion from. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD Those who think, write. Those who can't, spell.
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/24/91)
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > RPN. Unless other companies decide to totally scrap their years of > development on infix calculators and go with RPN, I can't see HP users > switching. I can. I would. If Casio or TI or anyone had had a decent programmers calculator back in '84 when I bought my HP I'd have jumped at the chance to avoid HP's dinky little stack language. > After you've done postfix for a while, it's damned hard, > sometimes even almost impossible, for an RPN user to go back to something > less efficient such as infix. After you've done Forth for a while it's damned hard, sometimes even almost impossible, to program on a machine where things you put on the stack disappear. > This virtually guarantees HP a lock on users that use HPs. Not this user. If I can't get a real stack machine I'd much rather use something that approximates the way the rest of the machines in my life operates. Even HP realises this: they've started coming out with machines with = keys. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"