mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (03/04/91)
I will be issuing the call for vote in one week. As it stands now, it seems that the compelling arguments I have heard to date indicate that the new group should be a subgroup of .handhelds, and should be devoted primarily to handhelds made by HP and which share the basic architecture of the 28/48 (i.e., not the Jaguar). Basically, there are two philosophies: Make it as narrow as possible, e.g. .hp48sx, and make it as wide as possible, e.g. .hpcalcs. Since it seems likely that all handheld DOS machines will be sufficiently similar to be together somewhere, either in this heirarchy (comp.sys.handhelds.dos) or elsewhere (comp.sys.laptops.handhelds??), I see little reason to imply that all HP handhelds are to be found in the new group, thus, I am withdrawing the comp.sys.handhelds.hp selection. Thus, I am most interested in the views of those individuals who I see as most affected by the choice - those HP users who use 28s and other non-48 systems. Do you want to stay in the .handhelds group or do you want to go to the new group? Please let me know. I already have plenty of opinions from the 48 community, and the casio/sharp/poquet/psion community only seems to care about the 48s being in the new group. Please try to restrict your comments to this question. I try to respond to all views, but I feel it is important that the discussion process move towards resolution, rather than just permitting everyone to catharse. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane Unversity School of Medicine New Orleans, LA
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (03/05/91)
In article <6433@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: |> [...] Thus, I am most interested in the views of |>those individuals who I see as most affected by the choice - those HP |>users who |>use 28s and other non-48 systems. Do you want to stay in the |>.handhelds group |>or do you want to go to the new group? Let's not skew the question too much -- there is no new group. There won't be a new group unless a vote indicates that one is desired. The question then becomes do the readers want the new group to be for 48's only or 28's and 48's or for all HP calculators? You've appointed yourself to coordinate the vote and so you get to call the shots to some extent about the name you're going to propose. But the readership in general should be polled for input to that choice -- it's not proper to partition the readership. After all, why do the 28 users get a choice of staying or being evicted when the 48 users are not being extended the same choice? Their only choice comes with the vote. Once again, I point out that moving the traffic on the 48 out of the group is a point solution and suffers from the failing of all point solutions -- a changing world will make it obsolete. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to waste my time on this crap....
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) (03/05/91)
PStJTT gives much more eloquently than I could reason enough to doubt the
wisdom of the proposed split.
If I were a non-48 user, I might be exasperated enough with infinite versions
of Tetris, infinite "How do I find out my ROM version", infinite "Let's flame
HP for giving away equation cards and upgrading old calculators", ad nauseum,
to vote in favor of kicking the 48 users out. But as a 48 user, the proposed
split does nothing to benefit me or most of the rest of us.
I'm going to vote against.
--
- Rich Holmes rich@suhep.bitnet or rich@suhep.phy.syr.edu
Syracuse U. Physics Dept. or if you must: rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu
"I don't lie. I'm cultivating a reputation for honesty so I can blow it
when something big comes along. This ain't it." -- Steven Brust, Phoenixc_s244010117@stat.appstate.edu (03/05/91)
In article <6433@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > those individuals who I see as most affected by the choice - those HP users who > use 28s and other non-48 systems. Do you want to stay in the .handhelds group > or do you want to go to the new group? Please let me know.............. As a previous 28S owner (and happy 48SX owner), I think that 28 users should consider carefully the option of moving with the 48. When I was starting out with my 28, I found this group to be a goldmine of information, even though there were few postings about the 28. By simply asking questions on c.s.h, I would often receive LOTS of help from all the 48 owners, who mostly started out as 28 owners themselves....... Think about it!
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar5.030117.17209@rodan.acs.syr.edu> rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) writes: >If I were a non-48 user, I might be exasperated enough with infinite versions >of Tetris, infinite "How do I find out my ROM version", infinite "Let's flame >HP for giving away equation cards and upgrading old calculators", ad nauseum, >to vote in favor of kicking the 48 users out. But as a 48 user, the proposed >split does nothing to benefit me or most of the rest of us. > >I'm going to vote against. > -----FLAME ON----- Excuse me, but this is just a little too petty and self-centered to go unanswered. Why is it that you cannot see that benefitting someone else does nothing to benefit you? Why do people insist on treating this as physical property that is being wrested from them? This is just a reorganization to better serve a segment of the community, and does not adversely affect anyone interested in the latest Tetris version. If the vote fails, I suppose we can try again with comp.sys.handhelds.not.HP48sx.damn.it, but is there any reason why anyones ego should be so fragile as to warrant such measures? -----FLAME OFF----- Sincerely, I have better things to do with my time. I have book chapters overdue to publishers, undergraduate and graduate students running amok, residents who are daily testing the limits of what it takes to kill people, an administration that wants to spend $1,100,000 of the $3,500,000 computer budget I fought to get them on consultants to tell them it was a good idea, an OR that needs a total reorganization of its data management, a respiratory therapy department that needs a software interface to their blood gas machines yesterday, a wife who wants to drop out of business school so she can go to law school, and a two year old daughter. If you people think you have the direct line to God, fine, just leave it at home when you sign on the air. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (03/05/91)
In article <6465@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > |>In article <1991Mar5.030117.17209@rodan.acs.syr.edu> |>rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu |>(Rich Holmes) writes: |>>> [...] But as a 48 user, the proposed |>>split does nothing to benefit me or most of the rest of us. |>> |>>I'm going to vote against. |>> |>-----FLAME ON----- |>Excuse me, but this is just a little too petty and self-centered to |>go |>unanswered. Why is it that you cannot see that benefitting someone |>else does |>nothing to benefit you? Why do people insist on treating this as |>physical |>property that is being wrested from them? This is just a |>reorganization to |>better serve a segment of the community, and does not adversely affect |>anyone |>interested in the latest Tetris version. If the vote fails, I suppose |>we can |>try again with comp.sys.handhelds.not.HP48sx.damn.it, but is there any |>reason |>why anyones ego should be so fragile as to warrant such measures? The question seems to be why do we hold our own opinions instead of your opinions? Maybe some believe, as I do, that it's pointless and short-sighted to split the group. I'm sure others have reasons other reasons for not wanting to do the split. We're not petty or self-centered. We just believe you're wrong. Why is *your* ego so wrapped up in splitting the group? So much so that you've given a declaration that if you can't split it one way, you'll split it the other. |>-----FLAME OFF----- |>Sincerely, I have better things to do with my time. I have book chapters |>overdue to publishers, undergraduate and graduate students running amok, |>residents who are daily testing the limits of what it takes to kill |>people, an |>administration that wants to spend $1,100,000 of the $3,500,000 |>computer budget |>I fought to get them on consultants to tell them it was a good idea, |>an OR that |>needs a total reorganization of its data management, a respiratory |>therapy |>department that needs a software interface to their blood gas |>machines |>yesterday, a wife who wants to drop out of business school so she can |>go to law |>school, and a two year old daughter. If you people think you have the |>direct |>line to God, fine, just leave it at home when you sign on the air. |> |> Why is this screed excused from the label "petty and self-centered"? Pick your name. Have the vote. Let that decide. -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to waste my time on this crap....
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) (03/06/91)
In article <6465@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: >-----FLAME ON----- >Excuse me, but this is just a little too petty and self-centered to go >unanswered. Why is it that you cannot see that benefitting someone else does >nothing to benefit you? Why do people insist on treating this as physical >-----FLAME OFF----- If the proposed split did nothing but make life easier for non-48 users, I'd happily vote for it. But it will complicate things for 48 users who have an interest in other handhelds. It will complicate things for 28 users. It will complicate things for 68 (or whatever the next HP professional handheld is) users. And it will look damn silly a year or so down the line when the industry goes the way of all industries and the 48 is just another blip on the curve. Or put it this way: When the HP-35 came out, was a c.s.hh.35 group formed? Would an HP-35 group be viable today? When the HP-21 came out, was a c.s.hh.21 group formed? Would an HP-21 group be viable today? When the HP-41 came out, was a c.s.hh.41 group formed? Would an HP-41 group be viable today? When the HP-28 came out, was a c.s.hh.28 group formed? Would an HP-28 group be viable today? Is the 48 really any different? >Sincerely, I have better things to do with my time. I have book chapters >overdue to publishers, undergraduate and graduate students running amok, >residents who are daily testing the limits of what it takes to kill people, an >administration that wants to spend $1,100,000 of the $3,500,000 computer budget >I fought to get them on consultants to tell them it was a good idea, an OR that >needs a total reorganization of its data management, a respiratory therapy >department that needs a software interface to their blood gas machines >yesterday, a wife who wants to drop out of business school so she can go to law >school, and a two year old daughter. Pardon me for not making the sarcastic flamefest reply this deserves, but what does this have to do with anything? I'm a busy guy too, but I don't blame it on c.s.hh. >If you people think you have the direct >line to God, fine, just leave it at home when you sign on the air. Good advice. -- - Rich Holmes rich@suhep.bitnet or rich@suhep.phy.syr.edu Syracuse U. Physics Dept. or if you must: rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu "I don't lie. I'm cultivating a reputation for honesty so I can blow it when something big comes along. This ain't it." -- Steven Brust, Phoenix
taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) (03/06/91)
While mumbling to myself today, I tried to order my thoughts on why I
think this split is not good. Then, trying to make Dr. Mandel, who is a
very busy man, happy, I tried to come up with a way to make some kind
split that could make us both happy. This is what I came up with:
1) The motivation behind the split is wrong. It's not a positive
response to a need, it's a negative reaction to HP users. I.e. it's not
a case of someone saying "Gee, we <Casio!TI!Sharp> users need a place
where we can discuss our common interests. Let's form
comp.sys.handhelds.<Casio!TI!Sharp>." It's a case of people saying
"We're sick of hearing about the HP48 -- let's get rid of the people who
talk about it."
2) As a corrolary to 1, the call for a new group is not being made to
clear up bandwidth for other discussions. In fact, the non-HP traffic
in the group wouldn't justify the creation of a new group -- which is
the motivation behind moving the HP users! HP users CAN justify making
a new group, and that means that the non-hp folks could have the
abandoned group without having to justify it by traffic volume.
3) The emphasis of making a new group for the HP48 is short-sighted ( I
covered my thoughts on that in a previous message, and I note that a few
people seem to think the same way.)
4) It just ain't elegant. If the proposal was to reorganize the group
by manufacturer, I think it would be a shoe-in. There are only a
handful of serious handheld makers. HP, Sharp, Casio and TI are the
only ones that spring to mind. A good case can be made that since they
don't interchange code, we could reorganize the group into a hierarchy:
comp.sys.handhelds ;general discussion, new products,
algorithms
comp.sys.handhelds.hp ;obvious
comp.sys.handhelds.casio ; "
comp.sys.handhelds.sharp ; "
comp.sys.handhelds.ti ; "
Now the hp group can settle for itself if they want to branch into
subgroups by model or be one happy anarchy. And when the new model comes
out, hp discussions are still confined to hp people.
Only by a reorganization vote could enough votes be gotten for the
others to have their own, private (empty?) newsgroups. The base c.s.h
would let the rest of use hear about it if one of the other vendors
happens to make something that would swing the bulk of postings into
their subgroup.
Would this make all sides happy? I dunno. I know that I wouldn't
object to it as much as I would an HP48 or HP2848 group. We're still in
the discussion period. What do you think?
--
>>>==>PStJTT
Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD
If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to
waste my time on this crap....bson@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) (03/06/91)
In a posting of [5 Mar 91 16:30:32 GMT] rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) writes: > it will look damn silly a year or so down the line when the industry > goes the way of all industries and the 48 is just another blip on the > curve. I don't think this is really true. I replaced my HP-41 with the HP-48 because it was a better calculator than the HP-41, it was at least as versatile (for me; I don't really miss HP-IL, but I can picture a lot of people do), and has the same software functionality plus a lot more. I had my HP-41 for almost 10 years and put it into a lot use, and when I bought it relatively few people had even heard the word NEWS, less had any chance of reading it. Even less so when it was released. I know only one person who sold his HP-41 and bought an HP-28 when it came out; he soon bought a new HP-41. None of the HP-15, HP-16, HP-28 and others that were released to any extent replaced the HP-41. Sure, many people had a second calculator, usually an HP-16, or HP-28. Today, everyone I knew who had an HP-41 (and have met or talked to recently) has an HP-48. Everyone! I'm confident that the peripheral market for the HP-48 will mushroom, and that this thing is here to stay at least for another 10 years. Either the HP-48 or some direct, fully compatible, descendant which we'll stick into the same newsgroup. Secondly, even if the HP-48 turns out to be a 2-year fad, we'll just discuss and vote on terminating the .hp48 newsgroup. Not very complicated. No one who finds it overly burdensome has to participate. The only problem I can think of with the proposed split that people who are exclusively interested in the HP-48 only may have to read .handhelds also, just so they don't miss out on anything interesting posted there by accident. Personally, I intend to read both since I have interests in both groups. In fact, the split will probably just make it easier for me to ready news since .handhelds will rarely carry much of interest to me, and the articles will get collectively killed after a quick glimpse through the list of subjects. Finally, I will vote for the split unless compelling arguments are brought forth why no such split should take place. Not because I benefit from it, which is debatable, but because I consider it rude to impose myself on others and tell them to leave if they don't like it. And, yes, no newsgroup moderation please. -- Jan Brittenson bson@ai.mit.edu Read my lisp: no new classes!
kamidon@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Keith Amidon) (03/06/91)
I have been avoiding jumping into this discussion for a while, but
after reading about 100000000 messages on the subject I have decided
to add the 100000001th message, which fractionally, won't be wasting
too much bandwidth.
I currently own an HP-16C, HP-48sx, and am actively seeking a personal
organizer such as the sharp wizard. I am interested in all of the
possible topics under c.s.hh. I feel that the HP-48 traffic is enough
to make forming a group for it by itself. The 48 seems to be HPs new
41, which will mean that it will be supported for a long time to come.
I don't see traffic on the topic dropping off for quite some time. The
only valid concern I can see for splitting off the 48 traffic is the
mail gateways, and I have no idea what this involves, so I can't really
comment on it. I will vote yes to a group dedicated to the 48, not
because it will make some other users life easier, but because it will
make MY life easier to have the topics separated. Anyway, hope this
hasn't pissed anyone off, I just want people to know that not all 48sx
users are bound and determined to keep 48 traffice a part of c.s.hh.
Thank you, Keith Amidon
-- tim@fonda.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow) (03/07/91)
In article <4078@ryn.mro4.dec.com> taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > >1) The motivation behind the split is wrong. It's not a positive >response to a need, it's a negative reaction to HP users. I.e. it's not >a case of someone saying "Gee, we <Casio!TI!Sharp> users need a place >where we can discuss our common interests. Let's form >comp.sys.handhelds.<Casio!TI!Sharp>." It's a case of people saying >"We're sick of hearing about the HP48 -- let's get rid of the people who >talk about it." Yeah, what he said. > >>>==>PStJTT > Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD Winner of the most complicated initials contest.
apm279l@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (03/07/91)
In article <4076@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: > In article <6465@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E > |>In article <1991Mar5.030117.17209@rodan.acs.syr.edu> > > The question seems to be why do we hold our own opinions instead of your > opinions? No it isn't. The point is that the is extremely popular, and so this group is dominated by discussion of that machine to the point that other c.s.h. readers cannot use it. Either we stop reading, or wade through piles of stuff irrelevant to us to look for a couple of scraps of relevancy. This is of course, a vicious circle: high 48/other stuff ratio -> fewer non 48 users -> higher 48/other stuff ratio. Why do you think 28 discussion died so rapidly? DON'T KID YOURSELF that there are fewer 28 users out there: EG in Australia, the 48 costs $650 (no free card offers!) - as a result, it's about as good value for money as the commadore 16 :-). Well anyway, I've only ever seen one, and not many places sell them. Peter
rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) (03/07/91)
stur0832@mstr.hgc.edu (douglas sturim) writes: > Just another vote againt split. > Doug Sturim > stur0832@sz.hgc.edu This poses another question: How do I vote? Is a posting here sufficient? Or do I have to mail it to someone? Rob +------------ | rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Rob Prior, President, Still Animation Logo Design +------------------------------------------------------------
jimd@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Jim Donnelly) (03/08/91)
One personal vote against a split. Jim Donnelly jimd@cv.hp.com
trimahal@aludra.usc.edu (Rakkiat Trimahaloek) (03/08/91)
Just another vote againt split. Rakkiat trimahal@usc.edu
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (03/08/91)
In article <25590118@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.>, jimd@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Jim Donnelly) writes: > > > > One personal vote against a split. > Would you mind explaining your reasons? Please send a copy to Chris Spell, as he and I are cooperating on the CFV, and we want to make sure that any concerns that can be addressed are addressed.
bob@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar9.205841.20050@mstr.hgc.edu> stur0832@mstr.hgc.edu (douglas sturim) writes:
Just another vote againt split.
I'm for comp.sys.hp48 and comp.sys.hp48.d as proposed recently. The
reasons are simple.
1. The proposed groups (finally!) make sense - the 48 is a computer
and is too popular to be lumped into the catchall category of
handhelds.
2. If we do the split, we won't have to wade through all the "pro
split", "con split", "let's split it my way," etc. posts that have
been choking c.s.h. with crap for a month. This is the argument I'd
like to remind the people who are against the split of - this issue
won't go away.
3. As a 48 user, I resent having to actually read an article before I
know it's not for the 48 - for all I know, the Psion is a HP48 rom
card. :-) :-)
4. Arguments have been made that when the 48 becomes obsolete, its
newsgroup will dry up and blow away. If so, let it. But I'm willing
to bet there's still an Apple II newsgroup....
- Bobstur0832@mstr.hgc.edu (douglas sturim) (03/10/91)
Just another vote againt split. Doug Sturim stur0832@sz.hgc.edu
akcs.tasmith@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Ted A Smith) (03/11/91)
Another vote against a split! The only things that really annoy me about the current setup are the continuous messages regarding a split. Ted Smith
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (03/11/91)
We seem to have two different meanings for the word "handhelds": In Article <4078@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) writes: >There are only a >handful of serious handheld makers. HP, Sharp, Casio and TI are the >only ones that spring to mind. Poquet/Portfolio/Psion don't count? Well, maybe they do and maybe they don't. It might help if we formally decided that "handhelds" refers to calculators only, and that Wizard/Poquet/Jaguar/etc discussion should be directed to comp.sys.laptops (some will argue that this has always been the case, but it has never been clearly stated). Someone should also tell spaf to include a note to that effect in his "list of active newsgroups". >comp.sys.handhelds ;general discussion, new products, algorithms >comp.sys.handhelds.hp ;obvious >comp.sys.handhelds.casio ; " >comp.sys.handhelds.sharp ; " >comp.sys.handhelds.ti ; " [...] >Only by a reorganization vote could enough votes be gotten for the >others to have their own, private (empty?) newsgroups. The base c.s.h >would let the rest of use hear about it if one of the other vendors >happens to make something that would swing the bulk of postings into >their subgroup. You could lump all the "empty" groups into c.s.h.misc, until there's enough traffic to form separate ones. And I don't think you'd really need c.s.h anymore; just alias it to c.s.h.hp (or .hp48 or whatever it turns out to be). This isn't quite what you wanted, but it leaves the door open to go in that direction. Personally, I'd like to see a less ambiguous name than "handhelds", but some people seem to have an emotional attatchment to it, and it's probably not worth arguing about (as long as you're clear about what it means). Would there be any emotional resistance to putting Jaguar in a different hierarchy from the HP calculators? ================== zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
mr@cbnewsh.att.com (mark) (03/12/91)
1 vote FOR the split. mark mr@cbnewsh.att.com
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) (03/12/91)
I may be wrong, but it seems to me I've been seeing the above subject line
for at least two weeks.
Is someone stalling for time, or are we just lost in bureaucracy?
Can we just get the damn thing over with and return to our scheduled
programming (pun intended)?
--
- Rich Holmes rich@suhep.bitnet or rich@suhep.phy.syr.edu
Syracuse U. Physics Dept. or if you must: rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu
"I don't lie. I'm cultivating a reputation for honesty so I can blow it
when something big comes along. This ain't it." -- Steven Brust, Phoenixperaino@gmuvax.gmu.edu (03/13/91)
> >and writes and writes... > >*FLAME ON* > >Gee Pat, it seems like quite a while since anyone deserved as much . . . (Insert gas-vapor explosion here.) . >*FLAME OFF* > >regards, > >Alonzo Geez, Alonzo, I've never seen you this hot before. I don't think we'll ever be able to find this guy again, even with dental records. peraino@gmuvax.gmu.edu
garye@microsoft.UUCP (Gary ERICSON) (03/13/91)
Has it been a week yet? When is this vote supposed to occur? Let's get it over with! Gary Ericson - Work Group Apps - garye 10/2128 (93)6-3896 [By the way, I'm for the split. But I'll be content without a split if we can just stop discussing it.]
rui@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (+++++++++++++++++++) (03/13/91)
UNSUBSCRIBE HANDHELDS chris tung
sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) (03/13/91)
The many messages which read simply "I vote for/against a split" are a waste of time and resources. Whether some like it or not, we are in a "Call For Discussion" phase of this activity, and these messages are not and do not promote _discussion_. When it is time to vote, it is done via mail, and not with one-liners posted to the net. If participants wish to air their potential vote at this time, it should be in the context of discussion. State your reasons! Either way you intend to vote! OK, I'm off my soapbox now. Thanks! Stephen J Thomas sjthomas@cup.portal.com
spell@thebeach.UUCP (Chris Spell) (03/14/91)
In <71235@microsoft.UUCP> garye@microsoft.UUCP (Gary ERICSON) writes: >Has it been a week yet? When is this vote supposed to occur? Let's get it >over with! >Gary Ericson - Work Group Apps - garye 10/2128 (93)6-3896 >[By the way, I'm for the split. But I'll be content without a split if we > can just stop discussing it.] It has been about a week give or take a day or two. The call for votes should be out around Thursday or Friday of this week. The call for discussion was officially posted Feb 21, 1991 at 7:52:33 GMT. Chris
jsosa@encore.com (Joe Sosa) (03/15/91)
In article <6433@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > I will be issuing the call for vote in one week. As it stands now, it seems > HP users who > or do you want to go to the new group? Please let me know. I already have > plenty of opinions from the 48 community, and the casio/sharp/poquet/psion > community only seems to care about the 48s being in the new group. First, I read this newsgroup to find out more info on the HP-28s and how to get better programs for the 28s. I SELDOMLY read the hp48 stuff. I also do not, or never, plan on getting the 48, the 28 does me just fine while I was in college and now, but it does reserve me the right to get something maybe better than 48 someday if I want. At first, I thought: "I would be great if there would only be a c.s.h.hp28 newsgroup", but how much would be posted to it, a couple bits? Then I hear that the hp28 once ruled this newsgroup, and now since the 48 is now "the handheld" not much other info is found here. Then again the 48, I assume, will not rule forever. I feel something else will come along better, smaller, just as cheap or affordable. and that will rule the airwaves. So my opinion would be NOT to split the 48 into its own newsgroup. I wouldn't mind the 28 be included with the 48 into an hp newsgroup, but I do know how other non-hp users feel. And since this the majority of this newsgroup is 48 stuff, I would vote NOT to split the newsgroup at all. Joe Sosa
jcohen@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Josh Cohen [890918]) (03/18/91)
One thing that I think people overlook is that, at least IMHO, the 48 is the first calculator that is widespread in its use. Many different people seem to have it. Also it is really the first with such great communication capability BUILT IN. this news is extremely adaptable to the kind of sharing we enjoy as far as programs go.. What other calc , with no enhancement can xfer programs and data with NO CORDS. walk up to your buddy and give him db48, tetris, etc, no hassles. This is what will keep this calculator's popularity around longer than people think. I mean, if the 28 had 2way IR and serial then it would have created the same rush that the 48 did, but it didnt so that did not happen. Yes I know, you could type in progams, (I had a 28) come on though, who would have time and patience to sit around all day and type on these keyboards. The upcoming,maybe,split is definitely worthwhile. I think so at least... josh cohen jcohen@scarecrow.csee.lehigh.edu