Microsoft ending newsgroup support
in [MFC]
|
From: Ajay Kalra on 5 May 2010 15:01 On May 4, 10:22 pm, "David Ching" <d...(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: > "MP" <mpNoS...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:esIqxF$6KHA.2160(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > > Microsoft said it plans to end support for more than 4,000 old-style > > newsgroups starting next month, pushing users instead to discussion forums > > such as those found on the Microsoft Answers, TechNet, and MSDN sites. > > There is an MFC forum:http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcmfcatl/threads It already knew who I was as I had logged in using the Live ID. I guess MSFT is getting everyone all under one big umbrella. -- Ajay
From: David Lowndes on 5 May 2010 15:26 >I already dont feel like taking the step of using the bridge. This >era is coming to a rather abrupt end. I've been trying to use the NNTP bridge with the forums, but quite frankly it's still a poor solution compared to using a proper NNTP source. I don't think I can be bothered much more. Dave
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 5 May 2010 15:36 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:qt23u55s551a96vftb8pm0hcph63fmr1nk(a)4ax.com... > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy) > > Doesn't this seem to describe someone who would force us to use > badly-designed forums? The > lack of empathy is what produced the VS IDE. While there are some aspects I don't like in the new IDE, there are others that are great. For example, I like the C++ squiggles feature which appeared in VS2010! BTW: I agree with you on the NNTP-bridge thing (I prefer pure NNTP newsgroups like this one). And one of the problems of the web forum interface is the lack of threading view (they are "flat"); there are also problems in using the quoting tool in the web-based editor. And yes, I fail to understand the reason why there is no simple download link to get the bridge binaries... Useless complexity in requiring login before downloading :) Giovanni
From: Hector Santos on 5 May 2010 17:52 David Lowndes wrote: >> I already dont feel like taking the step of using the bridge. This >> era is coming to a rather abrupt end. > > I've been trying to use the NNTP bridge with the forums, but quite > frankly it's still a poor solution compared to using a proper NNTP > source. I don't think I can be bothered much more. > > Dave It is really getting tiresome. What makes this difficult is that its really one man's decision and certainly they have not thought out completely. But this type of new direction was precisely why I was concern when Ozzie took over. We develop sell electronic mail and forum software, and I've seen all angles to it as a vendor and also provider, we use it for support as well. And been doing this since the 80s. Once upon a time, it was all local support, then it your have internet integration. Admittingly, it is difficult to single source it not only from a development standpoint but from an operations and customer support standpoint. I can understand it from a SMALL VENDOR standpoint, but not Microsoft. Case in point, ourselves. We developed, sold and used our own Online Support system. Users could connect via: Dialup first only. Then Dialup Connetion (PPP) Then a native GUI frontend (free) was offer Then a WEB interface offering was made Wildcat! Exchange (hook into Outlook Exchange, MAPI) These were still Online Mail, then offline mail technology via RFC: POP3/SMTP <-- store and forward IMAP <-- still a online concept NNTP <-- still an online concept with local cachine LIST MAIL <-- Email based Group ware So from a support standpoint, we offerre all various ways to support users. When the RFC methods appear, there was "some lost" of control, it was no longer a strong "centralized concept" with the exception of IMAP. But you have also the other angle of support levels: Free Subscription levels And there also the concept of USER SUPPORTED areas, your own customers supporting others. Lets not forget where Ozzie came from - Lotus Notes - the very essence of centralize control and group ware communications. In short, they are behaving as if they are a small vendor and doesn't have the technology to properly integrate the diverse nature of electronic support. Like if the easiest thing as a small vendor is to use one method only and make a hard decision to alienate decades of diversity for support and connectivity. Don't get me wrong, they can still do what they want but they need to have ready the different ways people can connect and access (upload/download) information and do so properly. So the reasons are far from just being technical here, but one of consolidation and honestly some bug up someone butt who think he can redirect Microsoft into a new era by forgetting decades of diverse support methods. I didn't know they tried to get rid of the MVP group. If that was the case, then indeed they are trying to create a new model for technical support that will come with different fee based support tiers. They can't afford (liability wise) to have MVP people deal with Enterprise people for example, that has to come from internal employees only. Like I said, I am personally tired of they new directions in many areas and they are making it very difficult to dedicate to Microsoft only. They really need a support manager that understands all this and is not just a FaceBook and Twitter a-hole. That is where all this mindset is coming from. -- HLS
From: Tom Serface on 5 May 2010 18:20
I've just been using the web interface and it's not so bad once you get used to it. I have to be careful not to accidentally do something that makes it go "back" or I lose everything I've typed and offline work is not possible, but it's not too bad. Tom "David Lowndes" <DavidL(a)example.invalid> wrote in message news:ceh3u5lbi4u34titgtnd07pu7om9jrmjg6(a)4ax.com... >>I already dont feel like taking the step of using the bridge. This >>era is coming to a rather abrupt end. > > I've been trying to use the NNTP bridge with the forums, but quite > frankly it's still a poor solution compared to using a proper NNTP > source. I don't think I can be bothered much more. > > Dave |