🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan28.092047.17831@microsoft.com> alistair@microsoft.com (Alistair Banks) writes:
>Microsoft today has a real-mode operating system, a 286 protect-mode and
>a 386 protect-mode operating system packaged as one product, and is soon
>to release a 32-bit secure pre-emptive multi-processor portable operating
>system
>
	Let's skip the 'Is windows|dos an operating system or a UI|loader"
        discussion that I can see coming....Microsoft can call them
	anything they want.

	...Detailed breakdown of systems using copious buzzwords omitted...

>So I'm making a plea not to break Windows-related discussions into
>unrelated groups based upon current product packaging, but
>rather into audience-related groups, and to recognise Windows is a
>scaleable family of implementations of the same API and same user
>Interface with the same applications running on each.
>
	The problem then becomes "Where should I post this question?"
	Demographics of the net ensure that 90% of the posts come from
	the least net-knowledgable. Proliferation of newsgroups along
	non-obvious topic structures creates a forest-for-the-trees
	situation, making it difficult to place queries or information
	into  it's proper arena. The net isn't here to help Microsoft,
	it's here because it's users get value from it. Look at your
	target audience and align the product (in this case newsgroups)
	to best appeal to the market.

	c.o.m-w.setup.XXX
	c.o.m-w.programmer.win16
	c.o.m-w.programmer.win32
	c.o.m-w.ports
	c.o.m-w.wizards.dos
	c.o.m-w.wizards.winnt


>So I'd suggest the creation of comp.os.ms-windows.setup.winnt today,
>and perhaps comp.os.ms-windows.winnt for topics like "has app A
>by vendor B been tested on Windows NT 3.1?" - "what POSIX apps have been
>ported to Windows NT?" - "Dos this ms-dos application violate
>Windows NT's security mechanisms?" Perhaps also comp.os.ms-windows.workgroup
>and comp.os.ms-windows.modular, comp.os.ms-windows.pen for product
>related miscalaneous questions - Perhaps each of these should be nodes off
....
>When we provide support, we find it much the most efficient to divide
>our groups into user-related and programmer-related groups, and then
>into product related issues within user-related, like setup & device
>support, and into api-related groups within the programming groups,
>with divisions for DDK-related programming and some specific APIs
>like ODBC, MAPI, OLE, Pen, etc
>
>-- Alistair Banks, Microsoft Systems Division

The trade-offs between too many topics and too few have been discussed
ad-nauseum elsewhere, too many and the signal-noise ratio goes down 
due to the 'this discussion is inappropiate here, take it to 
msoft.flonk.flonk.flonk', too few or inappropiately named topics hide
the pearls in torrents of sand.



Alan Davis                      aur : davis@aurfs1
Alcatel Network Systems         BIX : adavis
adavis@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com  CIS : 72317,3661