No Win 7 group
 

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Andy

No Win 7 group
 

On 24 Jun 2016, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Why do you think there is no Win 7 group ?

No Win 7 group
 

Andy wrote:
Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Andy

??

alt.windows7.general
I've been in it for at least 5 years.

No Win 7 group
 

On 24 Jun 2016, Nil wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

On 24 Jun 2016, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Why do you think there is no Win 7 group ?

P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

No Win 7 group
 

Andy wrote:

Path: ...!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

There won't be for Google Groupers. You'll have to connect to a real
Usenet provider using an NNTP client.

No Win 7 group
 

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Andy wrote:

Path: ...!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

There won't be for Google Groupers. You'll have to connect to a real
Usenet provider using an NNTP client.

In case you're wondering, both can be free; for the client I usually
recommend Thunderbird (not because it's the best but because it is
widely used - so there will be plenty of people who can answer questions
you have about it, and most news providers have notes on how to set it
up); for the provider, there are a couple of free ones, one one-off
payment one (Teranews, though I think it might have died), and one ("the
Berlin Server", or "NIN") which is very cheap - something like 10 euros
a year. (Plus more expensive ones - Giganews, for example.) [I use one
of the free ones.]

Getting away from Google Groups is one of the best things you can do as
a newsgroup user; GG's user interface is such that its users (especially
gmail users, for some reason) often post followups (a) thinking they're
sending a private reply to the previous poster (b) not realising the
post they're responding to is ancient and the OP probably isn't taking
the 'group any more. (For some reason we get a lot of that sort of post
in soc.genealogy.britain: the poster starts "Hi Dave" or similar, and
isn't aware that Dave's post was dated 199x. Nearly always from a gmail
address - which is not to say that gmailers are dim, only that GG's user
interface, especially for gmailers apparently, is terrible.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'll miss it when it goes, and I suspect nothing of its ilk will ever come
along again, at least on mainstream television. It's too clever, which, in a
world that worships idiocy, is its death warrant.
Alison Graham RT 2016/2/20-26

No Win 7 group
 

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 24 Jun 2016, Nil wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

On 24 Jun 2016, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Why do you think there is no Win 7 group ?

P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

Bummer.

Wonder why not ?

Andy

No Win 7 group
 

In message , Andy
writes:
On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 24 Jun 2016, Nil wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

On 24 Jun 2016, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?

Why do you think there is no Win 7 group ?

P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

Bummer.

Wonder why not ?

Andy

AIUI, they don't carry alt.* 'groups - either at all, or possibly only
the ones that were in existence before GG was set up.

(As others have said, Google Groups is far from the best way to access
newsgroups anyway - and lest you're concerned, the other ways don't have
to cost anything either [e. g. Thunderbird to access them with and a
free server {_not_ Google} to provide them].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

No Win 7 group
 

Andy wrote:
Nil wrote:

P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

Bummer.

The bummer is the use of GG to attempt to participate in usenet newsgroups.

GG is bad for the GG user and GG use is bad for those who are using
usenet with conventional nntp agents and servers.


--
Mike Easter

No Win 7 group
 

Andy wrote:
On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 6:59:48 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 24 Jun 2016, Nil wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

On 24 Jun 2016, Andy wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Why is there no Win 7 group ?
Why do you think there is no Win 7 group ?
P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

Bummer.

Wonder why not ?

Andy

Off to find a free USENET server then.

Google seeks to automate everything. The Alt.*
hierarchy, control messages are turned off. The
automation that could have automatically enabled
new groups to appear for you, simply does not exist.
All admins turn it off, and no "central orifice" issues
value control messages.

If you want Windows 7 on *your* server, you send an
email to the administrator, explaining what other servers
run the group, and how its existence would be "ever
so helpful". That's how Windows 7 got added to my server.

At one time, control messages for alt.* were forged, and
the result was the appearance of around 100,000 vanity
newsgroups. This is a result of that era. Google still
carries this, and it gets around two (filtered) messages
per year. Private news servers have removed this, along
with many other vanity groups. And the removal was likely
based on traffic level, followed by a quick sniff for spam.

http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/grou...bork.bork.html

That group used to be really funny at one time... while
this guy was still on TV. So you can blame the missing
Windows 7 news group, on this guy. It's all his fault.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...edish_Chef.jpg

Paul

No Win 7 group
 

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 6:27:28 PM UTC-5, Mike Easter wrote:
Andy wrote:
Nil wrote:

P.S. There is a Win 7 group. Google doesn't carry it.

Bummer.

The bummer is the use of GG to attempt to participate in usenet newsgroups.

GG is bad for the GG user and GG use is bad for those who are using
usenet with conventional nntp agents and servers.


--
Mike Easter

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But I disagree.

Andy

No Win 7 group
 

Andy wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Andy wrote:

Bummer.

The bummer is the use of GG to attempt to participate in usenet
newsgroups.

GG is bad for the GG user and GG use is bad for those who are
using usenet with conventional nntp agents and servers.

--
Mike Easter

You failed to manually trim my correctly delimited sig. A compliant
nntp newsreader would have done that for you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But I disagree.

I will explain so that you can understand what conditions create the
opinion you are disagreeing with.

GG is bad for the GG user because it does not allow the user to sort and
thread and re-order the arrangement of the messages. It is bad in this
case because it does not provide for you a group which you wish to read.
It is bad for you because it doesn't help you trim your messages
compliantly. Historically GG has left a lot of spam in newsgroups the
GGer to have to wade in. nntp servers and users have powerful tools
which help to eliminate that spam.

The editors that one uses with nntp are much more robust and responsive
than using a browser interfacing with a webserver as an editor as GG does.

GG is bad for the nntp users who converse with GGers because it creates
adverse and non-compliant formatting of the GG messages.

Once, GG was a very good archiver of newsgroups with a powerful advanced
search engine which made it useful for accessing newsgroup information,
but now it no longer serves that role so well. Even then, GG was only
useful for that archival search function, not for reading and posting
news messages as if one were using nntp.


--
Mike Easter

No Win 7 group
 

In message , Mike Easter
writes:
[]
GG is bad for the nntp users who converse with GGers because it creates
adverse and non-compliant formatting of the GG messages.

It also encourages (by poor UI design) GGers to post followups to
ancient posts, thinking they are sending a private reply to the poster
and not realising the age of the post.

Once, GG was a very good archiver of newsgroups with a powerful

When it was DejaNews? (-:

advanced search engine which made it useful for accessing newsgroup
information, but now it no longer serves that role so well. Even then,
GG was only useful for that archival search function, not for reading
and posting news messages as if one were using nntp.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't see the requirement to upset people. ... There's enough to make fun of
without offending. - Ronnie Corbett, in Radio Times 6-12 August 2011.

No Win 7 group
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Mike Easter writes:

Once, GG was a very good archiver of newsgroups with a powerful

When it was DejaNews? (-:

In its early days, GG was MUCH better than deja had been.

There were more usenet archives than deja's had been and the advanced
search engine was much better than deja's.


--
Mike Easter