Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups

I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98 groups should be
purged, and I provided a list of the best candidates. I didn't get a direct
confirmation that they were thinking that way, but I did get a response that
indicated the idea was being considered, whether as a result of my
suggestion or not.

It was about the time that MS was posting in some newsgroups that priority
technical support would no longer be provided in any Usenet group, but only
through the MS-managed web forums. This meant that MS could properly
validate the people entitled to priority support, which they couldn't do in
a Usenet group. And that was about the time the participation by MS staff
members in Usenet groups took a big dive (although I'm sure some continued
posting under different names).

Their line of thinking has been clear for some time, but I think any shut
down will be orderly.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
snip

If the end result is that all the English language Win98 traffic is
consolidated into one group, then this will be a good thing, IMO.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Jeff Richards wrote:

I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98
groups should be purged, and I provided a list of the best
candidates. I didn't get a direct confirmation

I posted the list of win-98 groups that they recently removed. How does
that list match your "suggestions" ?

Their line of thinking has been clear for some time,

As indicated by what?

but I think any shut down will be orderly.

Calling any shut-down "orderly" is certainly one way to give it a
positive spin. I don't know what you would call a "dis-orderly"
shutdown.

Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Jeff Richards wrote:

I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98
groups should be purged, and I provided a list of the best
candidates. I didn't get a direct confirmation

I posted the list of win-98 groups that they recently removed. How does
that list match your "suggestions" ?

Their line of thinking has been clear for some time,

As indicated by what?

but I think any shut down will be orderly.

Calling any shut-down "orderly" is certainly one way to give it a
positive spin. I don't know what you would call a "dis-orderly"
shutdown.

In message , Tim Slattery
writes:
[]
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet.

AFAIK, they haven't actually said that, but their actions certainly
bear it out.

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any sort, the
name of the last one suggests that it might be a Microsoft-"sponsored"
one.
--
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. **

The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
-James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

In message , Tim Slattery
writes:
[]
In message , MEB
writes:
[]
Microsoft has no intention of opening its Win7 or later OSs and
applications to Usenet.

AFAIK, they haven't actually said that, but their actions certainly
bear it out.

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any sort, the
name of the last one suggests that it might be a Microsoft-"sponsored"
one.
--
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. **

The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons
provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
-James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter Jeff Richards wrote:

I proposed to MS earlier this year that defunct W95 and W98
groups should be purged, and I provided a list of the best
candidates. I didn't get a direct confirmation

I posted the list of win-98 groups that they recently removed. How does
that list match your "suggestions" ?

It's pretty close - AFAICT everything I nominated is there, plus many others
(which I didn't consider).

Their line of thinking has been clear for some time,

As indicated by what?

By the examples I just gave - no more priority support through Usenet, and
MS staffers either not participating or (if they are there) using an alias.

but I think any shut down will be orderly.

Calling any shut-down "orderly" is certainly one way to give it a
positive spin. I don't know what you would call a "dis-orderly"
shutdown.

I don't know why you would think that shutting down _any_ MS newsgroups
would be a positive move, but if it's going to happen then I would prefer it
to be based on feedback they receive, consultation with their staff who deal
directly with Usenet participants and an analysis of traffic, rather than
some arbitrary executive decision.

--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------

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

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.

Actually - no.

The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.

It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.

Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.

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

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.

Actually - no.

The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.

It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.

Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.

On 12/15/2009 09:10 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.

Actually - no.

The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.

It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.

Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.

AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/15/2009 09:10 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

alt.windows7.general
it.comp.os.win.windows7
microsoft.public.it.windows7

Are already on the 'servers I use. While far from proof of any
sort, the name of the last one suggests that it might be a
Microsoft-"sponsored" one.

Actually - no.

The last group on your list was not created by Microsoft.

It's an example of what I've said many times - that Microsoft has no
unique relationship with the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet
newsgroups. Microsoft does not control, direct, administer, or manage
those usenet groups. Microsoft does not play any role in message
aggregation, distribution, or moderation.

Someone else generated the group-create messages for that group, and
other usenet servers around the world honored them. So there exists a
newsgroup called microsoft.public.it.windows7 on some usenet servers,
and they are exchanging messages that are being posted to it by their
users.

AND now that you've brought it Microsoft's attention, it will likely
shut it down....
As for honored; no, likely it was propagated under the impression
Microsoft created it.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---