Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 beta 4/12/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.apple,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Separate newsgroup for Mac owners?
Message-ID: <2085@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jul-84 19:15:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2085
Posted: Mon Jul  9 19:15:47 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 08:26:06 EDT
References: <964@eosp1.UUCP>, <552@drutx.UUCP> <860@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 20

> I disagree with the net.micro.mac idea.  I just feel that
> creating sub-groups of the same company is a waste of resources.
> Let each computer manufacturer have a sub-group....
> The only wading through articles you will need is at least
> in the same ballpark.

Prune juice.  The only thing the 6502-based Apple micros and the 68000-based
micros have in common are the company that makes them, and some of the
peripheral equipment available for them.  I don't own a Mac or Lisa, but I am
interested in them - but I personally have no interest whatsoever in the 6502-
based Apples.  I'm sure there are people out there who have 6502-based Apples
who have no interest in Apple 32s.  Perhaps what is needed is a per-manufacturer
group and subgroups of those groups for all major distinct product families
(i.e., net.micro.pc or net.micro.ibm would probably not need subgroups, as
all the PCs form one family, but net.micro.apple would have two subgroups,
one for the Apple II family (and possibly Apple III) and one for the Apple
32 family).

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy