NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/hardware/36785

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 1.5 KB

Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:36785 comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard:7135 news.groups:26041
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard,news.groups
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca!wlsmith
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:15:21 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> I very much agree with you that the term "x86", does not lend it nicely to
>> suit the description that we are looking for.  Further, as a previous poster
>> had pointed out its a little technical in nature, and it _could_ be obscure
>> to people, especially those who are new to the area of interest.
>
>> but, I somehow feel that just keeping "pc" instead of "ibm.pc" is too
>> generic, and can be very confusing to people.
>
>How about "pc-clone"?
>There are already comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit and
>comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit groups.

I wasn't aware of those groups.  Do they focus on operating system
discussions, or specific unix-related pc hardware?

Is the "clone" in .pc-clone really needed?

The existance of these .unix.pc-clone groups makes me wonder if we shouldn't
have:

comp.sys.pc.unix
comp.sys.pc.dos
comp.sys.pc.os/2 (?)
comp.sys.pc.video
comp.sys.pc.drives
comp.sys.pc.sound

etc...