OT Vista newsgroup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quanta
  • Start date Start date
Q

Quanta

Is the Microsoft vista newsgroup still around. I have tried Google news and
another newsserver and it is gone.
 
Hi

Try here:

news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups
 
Quanta said:
Is the Microsoft vista newsgroup still around. I have tried Google
news and another newsserver and it is gone.
Click to expand...

Vista newsgroups:

microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
microsoft.public.windows.vista.administration_account
microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation_setup
microsoft.public.windows.vista.mail
microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing
microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance_maintenance
microsoft.public.windows.vista.print_fax_scan
microsoft.public.windows.vista.security

The server is msnews.microsoft.com.

Malke
 
Quanta said:
Is the Microsoft vista newsgroup still around. I have tried Google news
and another newsserver and it is gone.
Click to expand...

The only authoritative news server for microsoft.* is msnews.microsoft.com.
Use that server in your newsreader to find the group you're looking for.
 
Will said:
Hi

Try here:

news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Click to expand...

That isn't a valid URL. That should be nntp:// not according to RFC
1738. URLs can only point to a newsgroup or specific message on the
default server...

Examples:

would link to the message I'm
replying to.

links to this newsgroup if it's
available on the news server you use by default.

nntp://msnews.microsoft.com:119/microsoft.public.windows.vista.general is
the link to this newsgroup on the correct server.

See RFC 1738 for more information.
 
Actually, Will's link is correct. And only your second link works, not the
other two.
 
Please post in the order English is read: Conversational order.
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
Actually, Will's link is correct. And only your second link works, not
the other two.
Click to expand...

I see you're using Outlook Express. This is a known bug in OE: It
improperly handles nntp: and URLs. Please see RFC 1738 for the
correct, IETF-defined format the rest of the world uses.
 
Rock said:
Stop being a net nanny.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to stop encouraging good posting habits, since it's not
possible to filter out poor posting habits: Social problems have no
technological solution. Only encouraging good habits can combat bad
habits. That's not being a net-nanny, it's called being polite. I'm sorry
that concept is foreign to you.

If it bothers you that badly, I would like to direct your attention to your
newsgroup client's filter options.
 
I'm not going to stop encouraging good posting habits, since it's not
possible to filter out poor posting habits: Social problems have no
technological solution. Only encouraging good habits can combat bad
habits. That's not being a net-nanny, it's called being polite. I'm
sorry
that concept is foreign to you.

If it bothers you that badly, I would like to direct your attention to
your
newsgroup client's filter options.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror. Before trying to encourage others, maybe learn some
manners for yourself. How about common courtesy to start with? You're
attitude of knowing how it should be done is arrogant and disrespectful to
all the posters who use this newsgroup. No one appointed you monitor. How
about working with people according to the standard practices in this
newsgroup? Somehow that seems to be a foreign concept for you.

I don't need to filter you out. You are already doing a good job of
destroying whatever credibility you might have had. A reliance on these
IFC "recommendations" doesn't remedy your lack of common courtesy to the
folks in this newsgroup. Maybe you can start with that.
 
Baloo said:
Please post in the order English is read: Conversational order.
http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting
Click to expand...

No. I will post in the order I think is appropriate. What are you going to
do about it?

I'll elaborate anyway, but it's not directed to you- I use top posting when
I'm answering one question, or addressing one issue. I also like seeing a
reply on top in OE, so I don't need to scroll down. When I'm addressing
multiple issues, I post inline, and may even snip irrelevant data. I'm sure
it's a crime in your world of RFC, open source and blinkers et al, but I
won't be losing sleep over it. (-:
I see you're using Outlook Express. This is a known bug in OE: It
improperly handles nntp: and URLs. Please see RFC 1738 for the
correct, IETF-defined format the rest of the world uses.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you doing here anyway then? This is a windowsxp.general
newsgroup. The standard the 'rest of the world uses'? The same way the rest
of the world uses Linux, right? :-)

Sheesh! Wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Baloo said:
That isn't a valid URL. That should be nntp:// not according to
RFC
1738. URLs can only point to a newsgroup or specific message on the
default server...

Examples:

would link to the message I'm
replying to.

links to this newsgroup if
it's
available on the news server you use by default.

nntp://msnews.microsoft.com:119/microsoft.public.windows.vista.general is
the link to this newsgroup on the correct server.

See RFC 1738 for more information.
Click to expand...

Hi

It's a valid link to the vista.general NG using OE - which Quanta is.

--


Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups
 
PowerUser said:
No. I will post in the order I think is appropriate. What are you going
to do about it?

I'll elaborate anyway, but it's not directed to you- I use top posting
when I'm answering one question, or addressing one issue. I also like
seeing a reply on top in OE, so I don't need to scroll down. When I'm
addressing multiple issues, I post inline, and may even snip irrelevant
data. I'm sure it's a crime in your world of RFC, open source and
blinkers et al, but I won't be losing sleep over it. (-:
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem for a quick top post if it's not TOFU
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU) with a one-line response and screenfuls
of quoted text and doesn't break the context or ability to preserve the
context in future quotes.

The problem is it's often hard to tell whether or not creating a break is
going to ruin it for the next guy when they respond, which is why even on
short material, conversational quoting is preferential. Good, well-trimmed
quotes only keep enough text to maintain the key points within the proper
context, keeping the responses in conversational order help preserve the
flow, leaving replies less open to misinterpretation. It helps provide
context for whatever reason someone might not have seen what lead up to
your response (articles expired, message never delivered, filtered message,
etcc). Anybody can see exactly what someone is responding to and what led
up to it without a lot of superfluous garbage to sort through or having to
piece it together in backwards order. On newsgroups, it's kinder to people
with metered access than preserving the whole text of the previous message
as well.

There's so many good, valid reasons to get it right, seems pretty
inconsiderate
What the heck are you doing here anyway then? This is a windowsxp.general
newsgroup. The standard the 'rest of the world uses'? The same way the
rest of the world uses Linux, right? :-)
Click to expand...

Because I do have Windows experience I can share, I'm just not blind to the
fact that the Microsoft way isn't the right way 100% of the time. Just
because the software gets it wrong doesn't mean it isn't a bug, and not a
feature.
 
Back
Top