Proposal for an iPad newsgroup
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: JF Mezei on 11 Mar 2010 14:39 Kathy Morgan wrote: > Just a point of information: the procedure for creating new groups in > the Big 8 has changed and there will be no Call for Votes. Instead, > after the RFD has been posted and discussed (and possibly subsequent, > modified RFD's as a result of the discussion), Has an RFD been made ? Prior to the RFD being made as per the "Official" process, isn't it normal to have a initial discussion within the affected existing newsgrouyp to gather initial comments that allow the leader to write the formal RFD ?
From: JF Mezei on 11 Mar 2010 15:07 OK, web through the comp.sys groups. There is no comp.sys.apple.* But there are a few groups under comp.sys.apple2 There is also comp.sys.newton comp.sys.psion (the first real PDAs) which are product agnostic. (aka: initailly covered the pre series3, the series 3 and then the series 5). based on the newton group, comp.sys.ipad could be justified. misc.phone.mobile.iphone should have been with the alt.cellular but what is done is done. One of the big issues here is that the disctinction between a "phone" and "computer" is getting blurred to a point where there may be no distinction in a couple of years. If you can load skype on the ipad, does it become a phone ? What is not formally known at this point in time is how closely Apple will match the software of its "touch" devices. There will be feartures available only on the iphone, while the rest of the features will be available on all touch devices. But there will be time lags depending on when an individual device is refreshed. (consider bluetooth which was on ipod touch about same time as iphone, but software became available only a year later). In terms of the iphone specifically, one has to ask how many discussions are carrier specific (aka: AT&T not enabling MMS/thethering or AT&T network performance). Such discussions can go to existing AT&T alt.cellular newsgroups. If you exclude carrier specific topics, could the "i-touch" products (ipod touch, iphone , ipad) be grouped into a single newsgroup ? Sure, some topics would cover only the iphone, and some may cover only the ipad (such as bookreader), but wouldn't there be sufficient commonality to allow a single group ? (think of all the other applications which will be available on all such devices.) Ideally, a major rework would be done with comp.sys.apple as a root, and everything under that. But we all know this isn't going to happen, and comp.sys.mac.* will stay as is. If Apple had a single word such as "itouch" for its handheld machines, then comp.sys.itouch would fit the bill. comp.sys.apple.handhelds might also do the trick. And it would start an "apple" hiearchy" where in the future, new products could be tagged to. ("comp.sys.apple.itunes , comp.sys.apple.tricorders, comp.sys.apple.teletransporters, comp.sys.apple.warp-drive and whatever else apple will think of in the next decades).
From: nospam on 11 Mar 2010 15:16 In article <4b994d69$0$24299$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > If you exclude carrier specific topics, could the "i-touch" products > (ipod touch, iphone , ipad) be grouped into a single newsgroup ? Sure, > some topics would cover only the iphone, and some may cover only the > ipad (such as bookreader), but wouldn't there be sufficient commonality > to allow a single group ? (think of all the other applications which > will be available on all such devices.) whatever group is created should cover *all* iphone os devices, not just the ipad. > If Apple had a single word such as "itouch" for its handheld machines, > then comp.sys.itouch would fit the bill. iphone os devices.
From: Jochem Huhmann on 11 Mar 2010 16:45 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> writes: > OK, web through the comp.sys groups. > > There is no comp.sys.apple.* > > But there are a few groups under comp.sys.apple2 > > There is also comp.sys.newton > > comp.sys.psion (the first real PDAs) which are product agnostic. (aka: > initailly covered the pre series3, the series 3 and then the series 5). > > based on the newton group, comp.sys.ipad could be justified. > > misc.phone.mobile.iphone should have been with the alt.cellular but what > is done is done. What about some reorganization? From time to time the Usenet hierarchy needs a cleanup anyway. comp.sys.mac.* was fine as long as Apple had no other systems than Macs. Times are changing. comp.sys.apple.mac.* comp.sys.apple.apple2.* comp.sys.apple.newton comp.sys.apple.iphone comp.sys.apple.ipad comp.sys.apple.ipod Because otherwise this will never end up with a satisfying result. The iPad is not a phone and not a Mac and the iPod touch is not a phone and not a Mac but runs the very same software as the iPhone and iPad... Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Larry on 11 Mar 2010 17:25
"�n�hw��f" <snuhwolf(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns9D3857BFFB41Csnuhwolfyahoocom(a)216.196.97.142: > Question for the regs...will this iPad group be extra absorbant and > have wings for those "heavy days"? > > Like Adobe FLASH(R), Steve opposes Tampon(R) support on iPhone OS devices. ....something about memory leaks and security.....(c;] -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry |