From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Summary: comp.sys.mac.notebook!!!
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:52:26 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k9bu0INNpq4@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew Englander) writes:

>>I think we should create comp.sys.mac.68040 
>>   or
>>comp.sys.mac.quadra

>If other Quadra-owners agree that a Quadra-only group would suit them,
>then fine, I'm not opposed. But I really don't think there's such a
>great demand for this.

Don't you recognize SARCASM when you see it? Yeesh.

>So far there have been only two objections to the creation of c.s.m.pb.
>These are:	1. It doesn't "fit" into the current c.s.m hierarchy,
>		   because there are no other "specific-mac" groups.
>		   If we approve c.s.m.pb, then we'll have to have
>		   separate groups for Classics, SEs, II-series Macs,
>		   Quadras, etc.
>		2. The group should not have "powerbook" in its name
>		   because Apple might discontinue the PowerBook line
>		   and besides, Outbound users and Portable users
>		   share some of the same concerns with PB users.

That's a pretty fair summary.

>As for objection 1, it seems to be expounded by people who care
>more about having everything neat and tidy and logical than about 
>having a system of newsgroups that's practical and lets the greatest
>number of people find postings of greatest interest to them with
>the greatest amount of speed and convenience. It is, to say the
>least, unlikely that any other group of Mac-owners will want a
>group specifically for their Mac.

Are you so sure? I'm not. I would hate to set the precedent for it too.
Having everything neat and tidy is nice, but I could care less about that.
However, I am a big fan of consistency. I like the basic 'theme' that
comp.sys.mac.* is broken down along and I would hate to see it screwed up
with a group for a specific product family.
Just because a group has a lot of potential readers doesn;t mean that it
is a practical group. comp.sys.mac.[notebook,laptop,portable] would serve
the same group of people just as well.

>As for objection 2, it seems to be directed more at the name of the group
>than the idea of having a group. No one supporting comp.sys.mac.powerbook
>thinks that if the group is formed and someone posts a question about
>Outbounds then that person would see more flames than a Cheektowaga
>firefighter. If calling the group "comp.sys.mac.portable" is all it
>takes to get the support of a lot more people, I don't think many
>people will object.

I'm glad you don't object.
I agree, an Outbound post in comp.sys.mac.powerbook wouldn't draw a lot of
flames. But it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense either. And it would NOT
be very obvious to a newbie. 

Hypothetical. New net reader wants to buy a mac portable but knows nothing
about them. He looks at the whole comp.sys.mac.* hierarchy and posts in
comp.sys.mac.misc. Well, that's OK but most of the experienced portable
users are in comp.sys.mac.powerbook... But the newbie doesn't know what a
powerbook is! He WOULD know what a notebook or a laptop was.

Why not avoid such confusion with a slightly more general name and
charter?

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

                         Think of it as evolution in action.
                                  - Oath of Fealty