Which XP newsgroups?

I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
Samsung NC-20).

I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

If you don't know how to orient your card to swipe it through the reader, the
checkout person will say, "Strip down, face toward me." (DNRC newsletter 1997)

 

On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:33:38 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
> Samsung NC-20).
>
> I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
> and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
> which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
> least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.

24hoursupport.helpdesk is a good all purpose computer help group.



--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

 

(xposts removed)

Least important...
I suggest you avoid these: for helpful, friendly and fun
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support


On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:33:38 +0100, in
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
>Samsung NC-20).
>
>I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
>and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
>which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
>least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> was wondering which of the many XP 'groups those here would
> suggest joining - and, at least as important, which you'd advise
> avoiding.

These two groups:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support

have extremely high traffic and your questions have a high probability
of being ignored or maybe get one or two replies at most.

I tend to post (or, usually, cross-post) XP questions to these groups:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage
microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment

If your question is technically not about XP (but about IE or Outlook,
or Excel, Word, etc) then you should post it in an XP-IE or XP-Outlook
group, etc.

Questions relating to security, viruses, spyware, etc, should be posted
to:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin
microsoft.public.security.virus

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
> Samsung NC-20).
>
> I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
> and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
> which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
> least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
> outdated thoughts on PCs. **
>
> If you don't know how to orient your card to swipe it through the reader, the
> checkout person will say, "Strip down, face toward me." (DNRC newsletter 1997)

98 Guy listed some good ones, here are a couple more:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics

microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers

 

windowsxp accessibility
windowsxp basics
windowsxp beta general
windowsxp beta help-and-support
windowsxp configuration_manage
windowsxp customize
windowsxp device_driver dev
windowsxp embedded
windowsxp embedded techpreview
windowsxp games
windowsxp general
windowsxp hardware
windowsxp help_and_support
windowsxp messenger
windowsxp moviemaker
windowsxp music
windowsxp network_web
windowsxp newusers
windowsxp perform_maintain
windowsxp photos
windowsxp print_fax
windowsxp security_admin
windowsxp setup_deployment
windowsxp video
windowsxp winlogo
windowsxp wmi
windowsxp work_remotely

Source & clickable inks: http://aumha.org ntp.htm


J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
> Samsung NC-20).
>
> I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
> and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
> which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
> least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.

 

On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:33:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
>Samsung NC-20).
>
>I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful, friendly,
>and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
>which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
>least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.

Sending you to an XP newsgroup is like sending a person to HELL. I
want no part of that.

Now ask yourself and be honest with yourself. Do you really want to
use that evil XP? Do you really want to abandon all your friends on
the Win98 groups to join the enemy camp of XP users? You wont find
any of those people friendly, because they are all too stressed from
using that horrid XP. You may want to rethink this whole matter !!!

 

In message <4A02CD2B.786F7B58@guy.com>, 98 Guy <98@guy.com> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
>
>> was wondering which of the many XP 'groups those here would
>> suggest joining - and, at least as important, which you'd advise
>> avoiding.
>
>These two groups:
>
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
>
>have extremely high traffic and your questions have a high probability
>of being ignored or maybe get one or two replies at most.

(As well as newusers and basics, apparently.) Thanks for that.
>
>I tend to post (or, usually, cross-post) XP questions to these groups:
>
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment

Look good. What I suppose I'm after is 'groups like this one in terms of
tolerance, traffic levels, and friendliness/expertise.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun

 

In message <OHLbG7yzJHA.1716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
<PABearMVP@gmail.com> writes:
>windowsxp accessibility
>windowsxp basics
>windowsxp beta general
>windowsxp beta help-and-support
>windowsxp configuration_manage
>windowsxp customize
>windowsxp device_driver dev
>windowsxp embedded
>windowsxp embedded techpreview
>windowsxp games
>windowsxp general
>windowsxp hardware
>windowsxp help_and_support
>windowsxp messenger
>windowsxp moviemaker
>windowsxp music
>windowsxp network_web
>windowsxp newusers
>windowsxp perform_maintain
>windowsxp photos
>windowsxp print_fax
>windowsxp security_admin
>windowsxp setup_deployment
>windowsxp video
>windowsxp winlogo
>windowsxp wmi
>windowsxp work_remotely

Is that just a list of XP newsgroups, or an answer to my questions?
>
>Source & clickable inks: http://aumha.org ntp.htm
>
(I like the concept of clickable ink ...)
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> I will soon be using XP at home as well as work (bought a netbook -
>> Samsung NC-20).
>> I have found these three '9x 'groups, on the whole, helpful,
>>friendly,
>> and fun (OK, I've had run-ins with some people!), and was wondering
>> which of the many XP 'groups those here would suggest joining - and, at
>> least as important, which you'd advise avoiding.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun

 

On Sat, 9 May 2009 00:37:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <5vd605d717nlgb3govqjfi72smgil8jb9t@4ax.com>,
>letterman@invalid.com writes:
>>On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:33:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[]
>>Sending you to an XP newsgroup is like sending a person to HELL. I
>>want no part of that.
>>
>>Now ask yourself and be honest with yourself. Do you really want to
>>use that evil XP? Do you really want to abandon all your friends on
>>the Win98 groups to join the enemy camp of XP users? You wont find
>>any of those people friendly, because they are all too stressed from
>>using that horrid XP. You may want to rethink this whole matter !!!
>>
>I get the feeling that XP is now taking the position '98 has had for a
>while - lots of people very familiar with it, MS wanting it to die, that
>sort of thing. Sadly, '98 is beginning to be hard to keep going rather
>like '95 (and 3.x) was, if you want to use anything new.

09 still does everything I need. I run older hardware so it's suited.
In fact my Canon laser printer never released drivers for Win2K and
up. At the same time, Win2K has better usb support, so I have both
installed on the same computer. If 98 is lacking in USB support and I
cant get the needed driver, I just load 2K. Since I cant print from
2K, I just load 98 and print the document I made in 2K. I find myself
using 2K more than I originally thought I would, but both do what I
need. XP is nothing but the bloated version of 2K. I dont need all
that junk they added. And I surely have no need for Vista. I think
MS reached the peak of the mountain with Win2K, and after that they
started coming down the other side. Few average computer users need
all the crap they added to XP and Vista. Vista in particular is only
needed by those who play these very high graphic intense games. I see
no reason why anyone needs all that power for going online or doing
some office type work. I think both MS and many other software
developers have run out of design improvements, and now they only
create bloated versions of the same program in order to increase
sales. In the end, it's only THEM who benefit. At the same time, MS
does a great job of selling hardware (for the companies that make
hardware). They intentionally make bloated power sucking software to
obsolete the older hardware. I personally refuse to buy a new
computer when my old one still works fine. All I do is go online, do
some office work, and edit some of my photos. Win98 does all of that.

 

In message <kqo905hn9sofadb9jfvtms2sln28nhba91@4ax.com>,
letterman@invalid.com writes:
>On Sat, 9 May 2009 00:37:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <5vd605d717nlgb3govqjfi72smgil8jb9t@4ax.com>,
>>letterman@invalid.com writes:
>>>On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:33:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[]
>>>Sending you to an XP newsgroup is like sending a person to HELL. I
>>>want no part of that.
>>>
>>>Now ask yourself and be honest with yourself. Do you really want to
>>>use that evil XP? Do you really want to abandon all your friends on
>>>the Win98 groups to join the enemy camp of XP users? You wont find
>>>any of those people friendly, because they are all too stressed from
>>>using that horrid XP. You may want to rethink this whole matter !!!
>>>
>>I get the feeling that XP is now taking the position '98 has had for a
>>while - lots of people very familiar with it, MS wanting it to die, that
>>sort of thing. Sadly, '98 is beginning to be hard to keep going rather
>>like '95 (and 3.x) was, if you want to use anything new.
>
>09 still does everything I need. I run older hardware so it's suited.

Ah, so you're using soporific's "tenth anniversary edition" of '98 (-:
[actually, I set up a system from scratch with that, and it _is_ good,
IMO].

>In fact my Canon laser printer never released drivers for Win2K and
>up. At the same time, Win2K has better usb support, so I have both
>installed on the same computer. If 98 is lacking in USB support and I
>cant get the needed driver, I just load 2K. Since I cant print from
>2K, I just load 98 and print the document I made in 2K. I find myself
>using 2K more than I originally thought I would, but both do what I
>need. XP is nothing but the bloated version of 2K. I dont need all

Well, it had a lot of eye candy added, but I soon turn that off and have
it looking back like my 98lite.

>that junk they added. And I surely have no need for Vista. I think
>MS reached the peak of the mountain with Win2K, and after that they
>started coming down the other side. Few average computer users need

Hmm. I think you'd have said the same about '98 a while back - but now
you "find myself using 2K more than I originally thought I would".

>all the crap they added to XP and Vista. Vista in particular is only
>needed by those who play these very high graphic intense games. I see

Oh, I think there probably _have_ been genuine improvements in some
other aspects, like (a) security and (b) making it more difficult for
the user to screw things up. Of course, for people like us, the (b)
aspect is just infuriating most of the time, but remember that the
computer savviness of the average user is much lower than when we
started. Vista does seem to have been the least popular new version
across all sorts of people, though - from what I'm reading 7, though in
reality just a tweak of Vista, is being seen as a great improvement (not
least because, according to some, it's _less_ resource-hungry [or can be
set to be so], which must be a first for a new Windows).

>no reason why anyone needs all that power for going online or doing
>some office type work. I think both MS and many other software

Indeed, and the rise of the netbook has shown this (and provided a new
lease of life - to MS's irritation, one gets the impression sometimes -
to XP).

>developers have run out of design improvements, and now they only

Certainly the pace of improvement (at least, of things _I_ see as "oh,
that's a good idea/feature") has dropped considerably. I'll probably be
putting Office 2003 on the netbook rather than the 98 (97 "Burgundy
release", which is a 1998 version) I have on this one, because that's
what I have at work and have grown used to some of the - admittedly
minor - enhancements it has - but I feel no inclination to go for Office
2007, let alone any later version (I'm sure there are some). [Yes I
could use Open Office, I know.]

>create bloated versions of the same program in order to increase
>sales. In the end, it's only THEM who benefit. At the same time, MS

Certainly, a lot of new versions appear to be change (in the user
interface) for change's sake, with very little actual enhancement
underneath.

>does a great job of selling hardware (for the companies that make
>hardware). They intentionally make bloated power sucking software to
>obsolete the older hardware. I personally refuse to buy a new

To be fair, I don't think most software houses _deliberately_ make
bloatware for that reason: it's just that for a given amount of
investment in programming time, the choice between added features (or,
of you like, just more eye candy and similar), or making the code more
efficient, produces visible results for all users for the former, but
does not produce visible results for the latter except on people who are
using older hardware, who are less likely to buy the new software
anyway. Modern coding tools yield ease of coding at the expense of
efficiency, which has been the case since about DOS 4 (I remember
reading somewhere that DOS 3.3 was the last one mostly coded in
assembler, DOS 5 and later being coded mostly in C; of course, GUI stuff
is much harder to code, so tools like Visual Basic make it easier, at
the expense of efficiency).

>computer when my old one still works fine. All I do is go online, do
>some office work, and edit some of my photos. Win98 does all of that.

Indeed. Though some of the going online is getting difficult now, with
the over-use of needless code in webpages, not to mention the fact that
most YouTube clips now use the flash that crashes. But I expect my XP
machine (using what is, in effect, about a ten-year-old OS) to give me
many years of use.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun