Newsgroup for QuickTime
Walt Atwood
discuss their common concerns and offer support to each other?
I am not aware of any such newsgroups currently on Usenet, and would
consider drafting a control message if such a proposal received sufficient
support.
Comments?
Davoud
*****
No need to duplicate the user-to-user forums at
<http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?1...@214.UbJDaMxadx1.0@.eedee82>.
Davoud
--
david *at* davidillig dawt com
Walt Atwood
<st...@sky.net> wrote:
>> *****
> No need to duplicate the user-to-user forums at
> <http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?1...@214.UbJDaMxadx1.0@.eedee82>.
>
> Davoud
While I respect your opinion, I tend to disagree.
The forums you speak of are a web-based service provided by Apple. If there
is a SNAFU in Apple's service or if you change your e-mail address or have a
password issue, it becomes a headache. Bad thing to have happen when you
need support. I have seen certain of Apple's discussion boards go down for
maintenance. When they are not functioning, you can't post to them.
Hence, the need for a Usenet alternative.
Sorry if I didn't make the rationale clear enough to start with. :-)
--WA
Davoud
> >> How would you feel about a newsgroup(s) being created for QuickTime users to
> >> discuss their common concerns and offer support to each other?
> >> Comments?
Davoud:
> > No need to duplicate the user-to-user forums at
> > <http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?1...@214.UbJDaMxadx1.0@.eedee82>.
Walt Atwood:
> The forums you speak of are a web-based service provided by Apple. If there
> is a SNAFU in Apple's service or if you change your e-mail address or have a
> password issue, it becomes a headache. Bad thing to have happen when you
> need support. I have seen certain of Apple's discussion boards go down for
> maintenance. When they are not functioning, you can't post to them.
> Hence, the need for a Usenet alternative.
> Sorry if I didn't make the rationale clear enough to start with. :-)
*****
What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
for a Usenet alternative. But then you weren't really asking; you were
dictating. That's where I got confused; I thought you wanted comments.
NeoLuddite
wrote:
> Walt Atwood:
> > >> How would you feel about a newsgroup(s) being created for
> > >> QuickTime users to discuss their common concerns and offer
> > >> support to each other? ... Comments?
>
> Davoud:
> > > No need to duplicate the user-to-user forums at
> > > <http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?1...@214.UbJDaMxadx1.0@.eede
> > > e82>.
>
> Walt Atwood:
> > The forums you speak of are a web-based service provided by Apple.
> > If there is a SNAFU in Apple's service or if you change your e-mail
> > address or have a password issue, it becomes a headache. Bad thing
> > to have happen when you need support. I have seen certain of
> > Apple's discussion boards go down for maintenance. When they are
> > not functioning, you can't post to them. Hence, the need for a
> > Usenet alternative. Sorry if I didn't make the rationale clear
> > enough to start with. :-)
>
> *****
>
> What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> for a Usenet alternative.
Sure there is. For one thing the Apple boards only go back a few months
while you can search the newsgroups archives at http://groups.google.com.
It's always good to have choices.
--
Real Address-> neoluddite0comcast.net <- replace 0 with @
If I ever talk about switching to Windows, will someone please beat me with
a Windows for Dummies book till the urge passes?
st...@temple.edu
>
> What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> for a Usenet alternative. But then you weren't really asking; you were
> dictating. That's where I got confused; I thought you wanted comments.
Then why have this newsgroup comp.sys.mac.system at all? After all, the
same type of discussion content is available via Apple's web site too. The
same is true for the other newsgroups to which this question was
originally posted.
If you prefer to participate only on Apple's quicktime forum, then more
power to you. There's nothing wrong with having an alternative forum,
just as we have with the Mac newsgroups.
Walt Atwood
<st...@sky.net> wrote:
> What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
Your question seems to be based on the assumption that nothing can go wrong
with Apple's web-based service. While such occurrences are not very common,
I have experienced them. It's really neat when Apple's boards won't allow
any postings at all. Added to that, it's really a pain when Apple's boards
solicit a manual log-on and the service won't accept your password.
> for a Usenet alternative. But then you weren't really asking; you were
> dictating. That's where I got confused; I thought you wanted comments.
Just because I solicited comments doesn't mean I'm obligated keep quiet and
not say anything. I really never saw myself as a dictator before. :-)
Salute, you dogfaces! (Hey, I could get to like this!)
--WA
"Walt, the Dreaded Dictator!"
"C H O I C E I S G O O D"
--Steve Jobs, at MacWorld Expo
Walt Atwood
see_signature_for_addre...@news.comcast.giganews.com,
"NeoLuddite" <see_signatur...@invalid.com> wrote:
> It's always good to have choices.
Thank you for your on-point comments.
Now, do you think it would be a good idea to have multiple newsgroups,
(like, hypothetically, comp.quicktime.windows and comp.quicktime.mac.classic
and comp.quicktime.macosx) or just have a single one-size-fits all
newsgroup. I suppose a single consolidated one could give rise to more
specialized ones down the road.
How much choice do you think is appropriate?
Gerry Scott-Moore
> What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> for a Usenet alternative.
I think there's a need for an alternative. Web pages are great for
many things, but not everything. I think a dedicated process for
reading discussions is excellent. Or, instead, one can learn 12 or 15
different web "solutions" for discussion. Me, I prefer usenet.
I also generally don't like discussing someone's product at their site.
If I think their product sucks, I'm not going to be hanging out on
their site warning people who just bought the software that they
shouldn't buy it.
--
///--- Nazodesu no more.
Stan The Man
<walt....@verizon.net> wrote:
Since for some ludicrous reason we can't even split out
comp.sys.mac.system.osx from comp.sys.mac.system, to save us all a
bunch of time, I think you're onto a loser with quicktime.classic and
quicktime.osx.
Stan
Davoud
> > It's always good to have choices.
Walt Atwood:
> Thank you for your on-point comments.
Tr: Thank you for demonstrating correct thought by agreeing with me.
> Now, do you think it would be a good idea to have multiple newsgroups,
> (like, hypothetically, comp.quicktime.windows and comp.quicktime.mac.classic
> and comp.quicktime.macosx) or just have a single one-size-fits all
> newsgroup. I suppose a single consolidated one could give rise to more
> specialized ones down the road.
> How much choice do you think is appropriate?
I think a separate newsgroup for each individual who uses QuickTime on
each platform would provide ample choice;
comp.quicktime.mac.classic.your.name.here,
comp.quicktime.mac.osx.your.name.here,
comp.quicktime.win98.your.name.here,
comp.quicktime.winnt.your.name.here,
comp.quicktime.win2000.your.name.here,
comp.quicktime.winxphome.your.name.here, and
comp.quicktime.winxppro.your.name.here, et. al, as appropriate, e.g.
Davoud
> > What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> > for a Usenet alternative.
Gerry Scott-Moore:
> I think there's a need for an alternative. Web pages are great for
> many things, but not everything.
"Everything?" I agree whole heartedly. Can't drive a web page to work,
e.g.
Davoud
> > ...Apple's forums work. There is no "need" for a Usenet alternative.
> Then why have this newsgroup comp.sys.mac.system at all? After all, the
> same type of discussion content is available via Apple's web site too. The
> same is true for the other newsgroups to which this question was
> originally posted.
*****
One of those newsgroups is comp.sys.mac.graphics. What, then, is it's
raison d'être?
NeoLuddite
I think having just one group would be OK as I don't think there would
be sufficient traffic more than that. Although dividing between
Mac/Windows might be a good idea to avoid platform flame wars. Then
again I don't think I've ever seen a flame war in
comp.databases.filemaker which handles Macs & PCs.
Then there's the question of whether to call it
comp.quicktime.* or comp.multimedia.quicktime or
comp.sys.mac.quicktime and comp.sys.ibm.pc.quicktime
eg
> Then there's the question of whether to call it
> comp.quicktime.* or comp.multimedia.quicktime or
> comp.sys.mac.quicktime and comp.sys.ibm.pc.quicktime
I vote for one group called comp.sys.mac.quicktime.
Good idea.
Doug Brown
eg <acer15...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But QuickTime is not just for Mac, there is a Windows version. Would
this have a significant effect? I would have to vote for
comp.multimedia.quicktime or comp.quicktime.
Doug
--
IRCandy: Cocoa IRC client project - http://www.ircandy.com/
Idiot's Guide to Mac Cases - open your Mac: http://maccases.cjb.net/
If you want to reply by email, remove "pleasenospam." and ".invalid"
Gerry Scott-Moore
wrote:
> Davoud:
> > > What is a "password issue!?" Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> > > for a Usenet alternative.
>
> Gerry Scott-Moore:
> > I think there's a need for an alternative. Web pages are great for
> > many things, but not everything.
>
> "Everything?" I agree whole heartedly. Can't drive a web page to work,
> e.g.
As you say elsewhere:
> It's always good to have choices.
> > No it's not. Would you rather fall off a ladder or fall down the stairs?
Walk to work.
NeoLuddite
wrote:
> NeoLuddite:
> > > It's always good to have choices.
> No it's not. Would you rather fall off a ladder or fall down the stairs?
That's an *interesting* argument. Kind of like the "Have you stopped
beating your wife? Answer yes or no." question. I'd obviously rather do
neither, but if I'd had a choice I'd take the one that caused the least
pain and injury for me.
One problem with having a choice is that you have to think about it and
make a decision and sometimes your decision is going to be wrong. I'd
rather have the freedom to make wrong depictions than lose the ability
to make a choice at all. Who gets to decide what the "only" option is?
What about the fact that what's a good choice for one person is not a
good choice for everyone?
However in this case it's not an either/or decision. You can use Apple's
site or usenet or many others as much or as little as you choose.
Walt Atwood
macg3-617788....@news.bellatlantic.net, "Doug Brown" wrote:
> But QuickTime is not just for Mac, there is a Windows version. Would
> this have a significant effect? I would have to vote for
> comp.multimedia.quicktime or comp.quicktime.
Having said this. It could start out as a consolidated cross-platform
newsgroup, like this:
comp.quicktime -OR- comp.multimedia.quicktime
If demand was sufficient, platform-specific newsgroups could be created in
addition to the original newsgroup. In this way, the original could take on
a new role as a cross-platform forum.
Mike Rosenberg
> Since for some ludicrous reason we can't even split out
> comp.sys.mac.system.osx from comp.sys.mac.system, to save us all a
> bunch of time...
"Can't"? I haven't seen anything indicating that anyone has tried to go
through the procedure to do it.
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com>
"If you ever get annoyed, look at me, I'm self employed..."
Ben Sharvy
> On 12/17/02 11:15 PM, in article 171220022315256207%st...@sky.net, "Davoud"
> <st...@sky.net> wrote:
>
> >> *****
> > No need to duplicate the user-to-user forums at
> > <http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?1...@214.UbJDaMxadx1.0@.eedee82>.
> >
> > Davoud
>
> While I respect your opinion, I tend to disagree.
>
Also, Apple censors things. When iTools suddenly became unfree, people
complained in the Apple forums. No doubt some were rants deserving
deletion, but (equally no doubt) some were substantive criticism. All
were deleted by the Authorities. (Having bought OS 9 only a few weeks
before, partly because of the advertisement of the free iTools, I felt
very strongly that there was a breach of contract.)
Ben Sharvy
> Apple's forums work. There is no "need"
> for a Usenet alternative.
Let's belabour the obvious: What are you doing *here*?
James L. Ryan
<d196ca8d.02121...@posting.google.com>):
In all liklihood Davoud peruses these newsgroups for the same reason I do--to
participate in discussions outside of those provided by the services of Adobe
and Apple and such. And what Davoud appears to be suggesting is that in the
case of QuickTime there is no need for a discussion alternative to that which
is hosted by Apple. One of the frustrations of newsgroups and such is when
there are a multiplicity of discussions, often on common issues and problems.
Matthew Russotto
James L. Ryan <talies...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>In all liklihood Davoud peruses these newsgroups for the same reason I do--to
>participate in discussions outside of those provided by the services of Adobe
>and Apple and such. And what Davoud appears to be suggesting is that in the
>case of QuickTime there is no need for a discussion alternative to that which
>is hosted by Apple. One of the frustrations of newsgroups and such is when
>there are a multiplicity of discussions, often on common issues and problems.
I haven't seen a web based message board interface that was half as easy and
efficient to use as Usenet. Apple's doesn't even come CLOSE.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.