Microsoft ending newsgroup support
in [MFC]
|
From: Cholo Lennon on 7 May 2010 18:21 On 07/05/2010 14:13, Pete Delgado wrote: > "Tom Serface"<tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message > news:ue$VuEK7KHA.5708(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I've just been using the web interface and it's not so bad once you get >> used to it. I have to be careful not to accidentally do something that >> makes it go "back" or I lose everything I've typed and offline work is not >> possible, but it's not too bad. >> > > Tom, > I don't really have a problem with the manner in which the interface works, > but rather what is lost. For example, with nntp you can download all current > messages for offline viewing. While you can certainly try to cache the forum > using IE or a variety of other tools, I suspect that the JavaScript code > that guides the beahviour of the forum will not allow this to work properly. > > ...and speaking of JavaScript, people like Joe who refuse to allow it to run > on their machines are removed from the community. Thus we lose Joe's > valuable experience and knowledge. > > Then we have the case of mobile devices on which these relatively "heavy" > pages either do not render properly or are sluggish or inoperable because of > the scripting behind the pages or the size of the download. As a relatively > "lightweight" technology, the pure text newsgroup is much better for mobile > devices. Take a look at the size of each page that must be downloaded from > the forums on a mobile device. Most of what is downloaded for each page is > boilerplate markup and script. While some browsers can cache external script > and CSS files, the html written for the forums appears to not optimize that > aspect. > > I also dislike the fact that posters and responders cannot remain anonymous. > I think it restricts the discussion. > > Finally, I believe I may have already mentioned that you cannot filter out > particular posts, subjects etc. with the forum software. Something that you > can do with many newsreader clients. > > -Pete > > Well Pete, you have made an excellent description about the cons of web forums. I totally agree with you. As you said, even using mobile browsers with compression (like opera mini/mobile), is annoying/expensive/time consuming/etc the use of web forums. I like the simplicity of text newsgroups, I don't mind if I don't have syntax coloring, different fonts, etc, etc. Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG
From: Stephen Wolstenholme on 7 May 2010 18:33 On Fri, 7 May 2010 07:57:32 -0700, "Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote: > We are pretty high power users >and don't care about bells and whistles that much, but I think the typical >MSFT Windows 7 customer likes the fancier looking interface. > The "typical" Windows 7 customer is confused by the fancier looking interface. Many disable the bells and whistles as soon as they find out how. >I also think the forums protect the content. > Protect from what? Steve -- Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
From: Stephen Wolstenholme on 7 May 2010 18:54 On Fri, 07 May 2010 17:55:54 -0400, r norman <r_s_norman(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Thank you for a touch of reality. Just how many answers to questions >on these news groups comes from Microsoft, anyway? If few or none (at >least on the dozen news groups I follow, then what will change? > >Do they have the ability to shut down the name "microsoft.public." ? If they do we can always move to the MFC group in comp hierarchy. Steve -- Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
From: Hector Santos on 7 May 2010 19:17 r norman wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:42:19 -0600, Jerry Coffin > <jerryvcoffin(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> In article <s8v6u5dbf77frmmnrcco1dh8qpqb25i09m(a)4ax.com>, >> newcomer(a)flounder.com says... >> >> [ ... ] >> >>> I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds >>> like nobody at Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we >>> often phrase it "their reality-distortion field was running full >>> force that day". >> I think the impact of this announcement may be getting exaggerated a >> bit. In fact, if Microsoft had simply shut down their servers >> (without making a public announcement of doing so) I doubt much of >> anybody would have even noticed. >> >> NNTP allows almost any group of cooperating servers to exchange news, >> with no no reliance on one server or group of servers (such as >> Microsoft's). From a technical viewpoint, Microsoft shutting down >> their servers means nothing unless 1) you use them directly as your >> newsfeed, or 2) the sole path from you to some other group of servers >> is through them. >> >> Doing a quick search of headers of the articles I have on hand, I >> can't find a single post that originated from, or passed through, a >> Microsoft server to get to me. Some people may be seeing articles >> that come to them via a Microsoft server, but if so it's a fairly >> simple change in configuration to get news from elsewhere instead. >> >> The one problem this might cause would be more from the announcement >> than the shutdown itself. Some other administrators might quit >> carrying these newsgroups just because Microsoft did. If too many do, >> that could cause a problem, even though (from a technical >> perspective) things would be just fine. > > Thank you for a touch of reality. Just how many answers to questions > on these news groups comes from Microsoft, anyway? If few or none (at > least on the dozen news groups I follow, then what will change? IMO, the reality is the centralization of MS NTTP Servers provided. Those other SITES only proved to work and be reliable with great participation only because on the backend one way or another, directly or indirectly, they were connecting to the main source: msnews.microsoft.com What people do not realize is that these microsoft.public.* were not part of the usenet backbone. So its not like losing the MS NNTP Server and everything will remain the same. No. Once that host is gone, the great participation we come to realize from all over the world will be cut off and cut down. In fact, you will see a major cut down in MVP input as well as the input from prolific participators. > Do they have the ability to shut down the name "microsoft.public." ? I don't think they fully realize the impact with the "3rd party branding" issues. Maybe they do and have outlined a plan when they cross that bridge. -- HLS
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 9 May 2010 01:29
One of the myths Microsoft loves to propagate is the concept of "a rich multiemedia Web Experience" and by this they mean "you love to have annoying musing played, terminally cutesy animations shown, and pointeless videos to watch". I have found that most Web videos suffer from low information bandwidth, and could be done as text which I could read much faster than the video delivery presents. I can read a 1-hour video content in about 10 minutes, so why would I want to waste an hour watching a video that conveys nothing more than the text document? Screw "rich multimedia experience". When you replace this with "malware vector enabling technology" (which is all that it appears to be) then it is even more obvious how bad it is. I don't need pictures; imagine how many horrible screen shots we are going to have to download if people can post images! The forum interfaces are among the worst interfaces I have seen in a long time, and I work in the newsgroups because the bandwidth usage is effective. I don't waste time with boring videos, I don't need to enable any malware vectors, and I don't have to see annoying flashing ads and be annoyed by other "rich multimedia" features (the second time I got blasted by offensive rock music on a Web site, I disabled the speakers on my computer; then I found there was a way to disable playing sounds in the browser). My desire to maintain the integrity of my site means I have never used YouTube, FaceBook, Yahoo Groups, or any of other social networking site (I think most social sites are a waste of time, although the Olcott Saga absorbed far more time than it deserved), and I never use any information site that requires that I register or login. joe On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:21:49 -0300, Cholo Lennon <chololennon(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 07/05/2010 14:13, Pete Delgado wrote: >> "Tom Serface"<tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message >> news:ue$VuEK7KHA.5708(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> I've just been using the web interface and it's not so bad once you get >>> used to it. I have to be careful not to accidentally do something that >>> makes it go "back" or I lose everything I've typed and offline work is not >>> possible, but it's not too bad. >>> >> >> Tom, >> I don't really have a problem with the manner in which the interface works, >> but rather what is lost. For example, with nntp you can download all current >> messages for offline viewing. While you can certainly try to cache the forum >> using IE or a variety of other tools, I suspect that the JavaScript code >> that guides the beahviour of the forum will not allow this to work properly. >> >> ...and speaking of JavaScript, people like Joe who refuse to allow it to run >> on their machines are removed from the community. Thus we lose Joe's >> valuable experience and knowledge. >> >> Then we have the case of mobile devices on which these relatively "heavy" >> pages either do not render properly or are sluggish or inoperable because of >> the scripting behind the pages or the size of the download. As a relatively >> "lightweight" technology, the pure text newsgroup is much better for mobile >> devices. Take a look at the size of each page that must be downloaded from >> the forums on a mobile device. Most of what is downloaded for each page is >> boilerplate markup and script. While some browsers can cache external script >> and CSS files, the html written for the forums appears to not optimize that >> aspect. >> >> I also dislike the fact that posters and responders cannot remain anonymous. >> I think it restricts the discussion. >> >> Finally, I believe I may have already mentioned that you cannot filter out >> particular posts, subjects etc. with the forum software. Something that you >> can do with many newsreader clients. >> >> -Pete >> >> > >Well Pete, you have made an excellent description about the cons of web >forums. I totally agree with you. As you said, even using mobile >browsers with compression (like opera mini/mobile), is >annoying/expensive/time consuming/etc the use of web forums. I like the >simplicity of text newsgroups, I don't mind if I don't have syntax >coloring, different fonts, etc, etc. > > >Regards > >-- >Cholo Lennon >Bs.As. >ARG Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |