10:59:35 AM EST Sunday, January 4, 1987 (Sysop .^Dave^.) Okay then folks ... TOPIC: Forum operations Methinks that Wayne would most likely like to say "good morning" or sump'n else spectacular first. (\/\/ayne) Spectacular? No, nothing like that.. but, good morning, everyone. (Larry L) Wayne...I have been asking Dave for a long time about some way to globally search the DL indices for a certain program but he tells me there is no way to do it. Is it possible to incorporate this into future mods? Also, I like the new format so this is not a criticism. (\/\/ayne) Well, Larry... ANYTHING is possible... so lemme see if I can answer your question with a bit more than hopeful optimism. As you probably realize, each of the forums on CompuServe share a common set of software for the basic portions of the forums. Only the information in each of the forums is different; so what you're actually asking is whether a global search will be available throughout the system and the answer to that is "very possibly", but I can't tell you in what kind of time frame we're looking at. Right now, for example, beta-test forums are working with new software for the forums that have incorporated ideas that a group known as The Roundtable made up of 10 CompuServe sysops that have been with CIS for quite a while suggested, over a year ago. At the same time, one of the suggestions was a DL search capabilitiy just exactly like you asked for. So, it's quite possible that we'll see something like that in the future - kind of a 'one great big DL that's easily broken down into little branches of a tree' type of thing - but, as to WHEN it'll show up, no one knows. (Larry L) How about a separate DL that is just an index. (\/\/ayne) Well, it's possible, I guess. As you've probably heard, we're looking at changing things around a little bit, again. And we'll put that on the list of things to look at, Larry. (Sysop .^Dave^.) Larry, I assume you mean a SEARCHABLE index as opposed to the 19 indices currently available. (Larry L) Yes dave. That would do it. (PhilW) Wayne, I have been fairly critical of the new setup, as you know. My concerns are not huge in concept, but are real to the user. To get them on the record, it is misalignment of the SB's and DL's (topic-wise) which causes problems. If I leave a message about a program, the message SB should have the same number as the DL involved, I strongly believe. Otherwise, you have two sets of numbers to remember, end up leaving messages re peripherals in the NEC/OLLY SB, and so on. It is particularly annoying to not be able to find from a message about an upload (based on SB) where the file is in the DL's. So -- why not change the message SB's to align with the DL's, beyond 1-4, where they do now? (\/\/ayne) We're probably going to do just that, Phil, since it has caused a problem for some folks. (PhilW) [would sure silence my complaints, Wayne] (Sysop .^Dave^.) Personally, methinks that there has been a vocal minority expressing their views (with which I concur) but I'd LOVE to hear from the silent majority to see where YOU stand!!!! Speak up oh silent ones!! (Mike A.) Okay, well I might as well chip in. I concur with Phil about the subject coinfusion. I have to have a written table of SB's and DL's sitting next to me and sure would be nice if things matched. Also, it's be nice if Peripherals could be next to Products. (\/\/ayne) Lemme point out something that perhaps might not be apparent to folks who've become more adept at using the forumware. When a 'new person' who is unsure about which subject is which attempts to leave a message he follows the menu: 'L' to start composing... hits the C/R to end... 'S' to save the message, and if he's not sure which section he wants to save it in, and doesn't provide an arguement with the 'S' command it prompts him, giving him a list of the available topics. Those of us who are used to the forum being set up a particular way are the ones that get caught with our 'force of habit' getting in the way. But, like I said, since it has been expressed to be a problem for some folks it's probably going to be changed back to where Sec 7's topic matches DL7's. (PhilW) Agree, Wayne -- but that is the point. The heavy, frequent users will work with no menus and want to be able to work from memory to minimize delay and connect time. WE will make the dumb mistakes of ASSUMING alignment! T'is embarassing|!! (\/\/ayne) I know. (Larry L) I agree with Phil...It would be more helpful for the frequent users to have the DL and message areas coincident. Those who use menus don't need it but we do. (Denny T) I also agree that it would be better to have the alignment, but I have a Q regarding the nut and bolts. would you put the SB's that don't have a DL at the end of the list? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Yep; the only one is "Private for Sales" and that would become S14. (Denny T) Ok, then any new DL's that are added would bump up the list of orphan SB's - correct? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Keerect! And no problem either! (Denny T) Fine. I'm Happy. (\/\/ayne) [Ah, the man is EASY to please!] (PhilW) Hope this does not mean a need to move the DL's around... too much work, I think! (Sysop .^Dave^.) Good grief NO!! Nutt'n to moving the message board and no need to move the DLs. Mike, In your earlier comment you said t'would be "nice" to have peripherals next to products. Understand YOUR viewpoint but we were keeping more/less the same sequence we had ... AND .... the Data Libraries will NOT, noT, nOt, Not or NOT be moved again ... except over my carcass .... . . . . Until they're moved again. Is that clear?? (Mike A.) Gee, just a suggestion! Doesn't matter, really, as long as things align. (\/\/ayne) Mike, probably a side explanation of how the DLs got the way they were might help you understand. In the process of deciding how to set things up we put all of the 100/102-type stuff up front (dl2-9) and at one time the 'scratch list' had a 100/102 label in front of each of those dl's names. The idea was the 100/102 stuff comes first, then the other machines, then the stuff that's non-machine specific. In at least MY thought process, Peripherals oughtta really be called "100/102 Peripherals" with extras for the 200 going in the 200 section, which isn't already overflowing with conversation, 600 peripherals in the 600 section.. etc. Products/Reviews, on the other hand, was meant to be a wholesale holding area across all the machine lines. At least, like I said, that's where MY head was at the time. (Mike A.) Sure, makes sense. Organize it anyway you want. I'd like to add that for the non-frequent user SB and DL alignment is also critical, for many don't read documentation. I know, I'm one of 'em..! (Sysop .^Dave^.) [Hurrah for HURON.DOC!] (Mike A.) And it was only thru gradual observation that I caught on. So, let's hear it for CIS, by far THE best online service today! (Larry L) [YAY] (sysop Tony) However, peripheral devices are seldom machine specific; a TDD program works, regardless of which computer the TDD is plugged in to. (Denny T) I was just wondering how many comments are need to add a new feature to the Forum software. I like the idea of a global search but, do we need to lobby for it to become reality? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Wayne can carry that sort of message pretty well. You ought to SEE what is discussed where those decisions are made!! (\/\/ayne) Oh, boy.. thats true. Denny, there are probably 4 places where user's comments, the online kind, get injected into the system and we're fortunate enough to have representatives on at least 3 of them.... the Sysop Roundtable, where a selected number of Wizard sysops are invited up to Columbus for a couple of days; the Sysop forum, where most of the sysops learn of the new goodies, and how to break it; and another group of sysops and forum that work on beta-testing the forumware (did anyone notice we're not calling it a SIG anymore?) Anyway, Denny... when you suggest something like that to one of the sysops, it does get noticed and noted and usually gets passed along up the chain if more than one or two folks mention it from there it goes to the programmers in CompuServe who take a look at whether it's possible, and how feasible it might be to implement - more studies (usually, quite informal; people thinking about it and talking about it, etc) and depending on how easily it can be incorporated into the forumware you might see an idea that you have suggested show up in anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of years. (Sysop .^Dave^.) For the record, I'm currently FIGHTING a proposed system wide change in DL software. [Some support Wayne?] On Sysop Forum. (Denny T) How far up the chain is this global idea? (\/\/ayne) Right up to the top, Denny. Like I said before it's something that we'll most likely see some time in the future. I don't know WHEN it'll finally get down to the production levels - the forums themselves - but it IS something that's being worked towards. I might note something else that might not be obvious. As anyone who has sysoped for a while becomes painfully aware of when there's a problem in the software, USUALLY radical changes in the forumware don't take place between one version and another. Sometimes, it's inevitable that wholesale changes occur. But, for the most part, the idea up in Columbus seems to be change a little towards the ultimate goal (which is constantly being revised upwards, as well); make sure it works without problems, then change a little bit more. As you might imagine, the forumware is fantastically complex, nowadays and a byte change here sometimes has the worst repercussions in other places. (PhilW) A minor issue and one which may be hard to fix. The old X9 gave the new files without a lot of header data. Now the DL1 DES scheme gives a description of DL1 each time - a bit of a pain, especially at 300 baud, but may not be fixable! (Sysop .^Dave^.) So did X9, but there was less to describe in that DL. I'll take a look and see if'n I can shorten it a bit. (\/\/ayne) I was going to mention, Phil, that as the forum grows and as requirements that are levied on us from 'up there in Columbus' change, (for instance, we can't use the DL DES files like we used to use the X files.. that's a requirement of project excel! which wanted to get things fairly consistent throughout the service) we have to become a little flexible. Like you said, there's no good solution (but, we HAVE asked for several 'read only' files which will be available from the Function: menu). (PhilW) [I do appreciate that most Forums do not have an 'X9-type' feature!!] (Sysop .^Dave^.) Phil you wouldn't BELIEVE the deals I made to get X9 instituted several years back!! One of the Xn mandated requirements was that they describe the Database attached. (sysop Tony) One of the topics of discussion among the sysops and which I'll bring up here (expecting to get shot...) is a "Software Wanted" subtopic on the message board. Where folks could post a description of a program they need, and others could work on, or help develop. Any discussion on that? Also, it has been suggested we might need a DL to preserve the threads about specific program ideas. Comments? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Tony, mayhap we'll get some feedback from readers of the transcript ... Ya HEAR that readers?? FEEDBACK required or your computer implodes! (sysop Tony) (Yes... I note attendance is sparse!) (Sysop .^Dave^.) That help you Tony?? (sysop Tony) Not really, but if folks don't bother to attend CO's that are pre-announced, they get what they deserve. (MARTY N.) I downloaded CISTRN.100 and have big problems. Anyone familiar with that program? (Sysop .^Dave^.) unless you are interested in the program for development purposes, don't really see the reason for downloading it. Am considering moving it out of DL 3 and putting it in programming with a special advisory. It works just fine but XMODEM.312 is a far better way to go with the Model 100 than the CIS 'A" protocol that CISTRN.100 supports. (PhilW) we do need a program which supports CIS-B on the M100. It would be of special value to 1200 baud users I think, since it seems faster than xmodem and works better with the CIS packet switching. Of course, you can get along pretty well with NO protocol here except DC2/DC4. (Sysop .^Dave^.) Very, very true Phil. Expect you to upload it before next Sunday. (Mike A.) First, I like Tony's suggestion for a Software Sugestion box. Maybe it'd be better ust to mention it on the quick message we get on entering and store them in S1. (sysop Tony) Is PCSG ever going to provide any additional support for the Chipmunk? Or is the Chipmunk dying away? Like in a workable DOS for the 200? Or any 102 capability? (Mike A.) No, not dying at all. In fact, it's up and working on our 102's now and a product will follow to let Chipmunks work fine with the 102; and I remember saying it couldn't be done ! The 200 situation remains on hold; but look for a 102 memory expansion from us in the future! (sysop Tony) OK... you know, of course, that lacking any better information we've only been able to recomment the Chipmunk for 100 users. (Mike A.) I understand. (PhilW) Mike, does that mean that 102 owner must buy Munk+Product, or will "product" be included? And "200 on hold" means what? (Mike A.) Er, not sure what you mean, Phil...the software? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Mike, what needs clarification is your statement that the Chipmunk is "up and working on our 102's now" but then that "a product will follow to let the Chipmunks work fine with the 102". (PhilW) [right!] (Mike A.) We've had to make wiring changes inside, and are undecided on exactly how to do that at the consumer level... (PhilW) [inside what?] (Mike A.) it involves discussions with Tandy and their service cntrs., ... (Denny T) [T102] (Mike A.) so maybe I'd better not say more. (PhilW) [aha, inside 102, it seems] (Mike A.) Yes, in the 102. (Denny T) Mike, I would like to see a disk based text editor for the 'Munk, sort of like DTEXT for Power DOS. Is there any possibility of that? (Mike A.) Yes, I'd say a good chance because another ROM software product is being developed using the munk. (Sysop .^Dave^.) Hmmmm, that sort of answers the earlier query about "dying Chipmunk" too. (Denny T) arrrg *Another ROM (Mike A.) But a ROM that uses the disk! (Denny T) soon, I'll have to switch roms in my ROM Bank! (sysop Tony) (Or have a dedicated 100 for each ROM) (Sysop .^Dave^.) [switch ROM banks!] (PhilW) My wish list includes a ROM bank without the world's biggest battery (NO battery), maybe for two ROMs, with software swtiching and Turbo Pascal on a ROM for the M100/102. (sysop Tony) Phil... a recent article in Radio Electronics magazine Feb. 87 issue, (gee don't we wish Portable 100 worked on that kind of schedule?) indicated POLAPULSE batteries, put out by POLAROID served about 80 hours at 100 ma drain. Might be very useful in a FLAT ROM BANK!!! (PhilW) But why have bateries and ROM bank wedded at all?? illogical to combine the two. (sysop Tony) Hmmm ... that's a good question. Probably because ROM bank designers thought most users rely on battery power most. (Mike A.) Just wanted to say that the 5-C cells in the ROM Bank work VERY well for the 100 and peripherals. I use it to power the 'munk when it gets low and I'm now powering my Watchman to catch the game. Also, we've got 7 IC's involved in the switching process, so I imagine they need a bit of power. T'would be nice to have a flat Rom bank tho! (PhilW) [well, I can't argue with THAT logic; PCSG sell Watchman's] (Denny T) I like the way the Bank works and everything, but it just isn't a real portable device. I have only lately been able to include it in my briefcase because I have made my new TDD the portable system and the 'Munk stays at home on my desktop M100 although it does give my briefcase the heft of a MS-DOS variety portable. (Mike A.) Right, it's klunky but I guess the best soln. is for the Big T to incoporate it inside..hint, hint ..but failing that, maybe we can use AAA's next time. (DaveM) I for one enjoy the ROM bank esp. at night from Phone booths (sysop Tony) Ah.... er.... what does one have to do with the other???? (DaveM) well,, just think of all those AA's I'm saving (Sysop .^Dave^.) Ohhhhhhhh, t'ain't the ROM that you need in the phone booth, but the power! See ads from A.R.M.S. (DaveM) Ah but I use the ROM's else where. (Sysop .^Dave^.) Winding down here anything hot left unsaid?? (DaveM) ?? did U already cover the cris cross dl msg sec old hat complaint? (Sysop .^Dave^.) Yep. Will be taken care of by aligning all message sections with the Data Library except for the orphan "for sale" section. Most likely will be done late tonight and ready Monday morning but will have to confer with associates here for sure. Okay Dave? You agreeable to that?? (DaveM) [Whew] sure THX (Mike A.) BTW, what about S5 entertainment+ DL5 and 6? (Sysop .^Dave^.) No Mike, sections will match DL therefore no "Entertainment" but S5 = Games and S6 = Graphics/Music. (Mike A.) Check! thanks! (Sysop .^Dave^.) Okay that's it then .... Thanks to Wayne and all who listened as well as those that spoke. (Mike A.) Thanks Dave, Wayne and Tony!! 12:59:50 PM EST Sunday, January 4, 1987 User ID Nod Handle ----------- --- ------------ 70250,211 LTR PETER 70275,1347 PRI Danny 71266,125 TOR PhilW 72126,3721 SFG STUART R. 72207,457 MON NORMAND LESTER 72407,3224 SYR Marty T 72507,2034 ELP Terry C. 72517,3533 SLC Dave M 73007,1744 IND JIM HAYNES 73117,2320 MON francois 73126,672 HLY Denny T 73337,1743 SMO BobS 73765,605 NYJ Larry L 75765,1124 DCQ Mike A. 76120,1317 HVT MARTY N. 76703,376 FTW \/\/ayne 76703,4062 REN sysop Tony 76703,446 BMD Sysop .^Dave^.