🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) says:

>In article <ANKI.93Jan21212738@stekt3.oulu.fi> suopanki@phoenix.oulu.fi writes:
>>> I very much agree with you that the term "x86", does not lend it nicely to
>>> suit the description that we are looking for.  Further, as a previous poster
>>> had pointed out its a little technical in nature, and it _could_ be obscure
>>> to people, especially those who are new to the area of interest.
>>
>>> but, I somehow feel that just keeping "pc" instead of "ibm.pc" is too
>>> generic, and can be very confusing to people.
>>
>>How about "pc-clone"?  
>>There are already comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit and
>>comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit groups.
>
>I wasn't aware of those groups.  Do they focus on operating system
>discussions, or specific unix-related pc hardware?
>
>Is the "clone" in .pc-clone really needed?
>
>The existance of these .unix.pc-clone groups makes me wonder if we shouldn't
>have:
>
>comp.sys.pc.unix
>comp.sys.pc.dos
>comp.sys.pc.os/2 (?)
>comp.sys.pc.video
>comp.sys.pc.drives
>comp.sys.pc.sound

I think comp.os.msdos and comp.os.os2 take care of the dos and os2 needs.
Unix has it's own areas.


comp.sys.pc.video
comp.sys.pc.audio
comp.sys.pc.drives
comp.sys.pc.systems   <- to discuss PC vendors 
comp.sys.pc.misc
--