Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!billd From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- comp.sys.ibm.pc.tech Message-ID: <5460@celit.fps.com> Date: 20 Dec 89 21:31:11 GMT References: <8912150301.AA22354@uunet.uu.net> Reply-To: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on) Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA Lines: 25 In article <8912150301.AA22354@uunet.uu.net> Peter da Silva writes: >There is a growing tendency for people with IBM-PC specific problems to >post them to comp.lang.c, because the noise level in comp.sys.ibm.pc is >too high for them to have any reasonable expectation of receiving any >response. Occasionally they even get a response. But this has made me >aware of the lamentable condition of comp.sys.ibm.pc... They've been invading comp.graphics in a big way too. There's a 100 times as many VGA postings as all other hardware specific postings combined. >I think it's long past time for a ".tech" group for the IBM-PC. The need >is great enough that alt.msdos.programmer has been created, but as an alt >group it has restricted distribution, and many people just don't know >about it. I'm not sure about this .tech thing. Certainly, comp.sys.ibm.pc should be broken up. Traffic is averaging around 82 articles per day right now. It could be split into .hardware, .software, .programmer and maybe a comp.os.msdos. The desire to look elsewhere would hopefully be cut down. --Bill Davidson