4 ms·

Wow, this takes me back to the first PC operating system flame wars. I remember listening to the most anti-Microsoft vendors at the sidewalk sale in Dallas back

Wow, this takes me back to the first PC operating system flame wars. I remember listening to the most anti-Microsoft vendors at the sidewalk sale in Dallas back in the early 90's who claimed credit for everything that a computer could do. Multitasking in Win-95? OS/2 did it first. Anti-trust? IBM did it first. mISV's who ignore and deny problems in a system architecture to upsell their products? OS/2 had that with a vengeance. I was only a teenager but I remember the lesson well: Fanboy's have no real effect on a computer ecosystem because they put people off and ignore peoples questions about the issues and concerns. People will buy what their friends use because that is where they get their help from. Fortunately or unfortunately, OS/2 was just too complicated compared to Win-95 to compete. Given the shift in the interface from Win 3.10 to Win-95, OS/2 had the perfect opportunity to introduce itself to the market but didn't stick. I cast my eyes towards what goes on now with "<system> evangelism" and wonder how much of a waste in money and time it is. I don't remember why exactly, but the Win32.exe installer for Win95 make Windows much, much better. Maybe their should be a Wikipedia page for this moment/introduction, but this is when Microsoft officially became a monopoly. It was not necessarily because of the OEM deals, but because it was a combination of being enough better than the more obscure alternativeness and it offered "innovations" that people could take advantage of immediately upon installation.

flomo 15y ago
Haha, "Team OS/2" was up there on the insanity scale with Amiga advocates. The author described it as 'social media and conversational marketing', but I recall one magazine columnist who said something like "I stopped writing about OS/2 because I was sick of receiving death threats."
- smashing 15y ago
  I see Android users are the heir apparent to the OS Persecution Complex. EDIT: I just realized that what I wrote could be viewed as condescending, and I don't mean it be that way. It just saddens me that people can get so attached to a machine. Dogs, cats, and other pets I can understand, but a machine cannot make you happy, it can only help you be more productive, and I don't believe productivity directly leads to happiness. Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness and "fanboy-ism" is inherently anti-social.
  - javert 15y ago
    <philosophical> I don't believe productivity directly leads to happiness I don't believe anything leads directly to happiness. But I believe being productive is a pretty important part of getting there. Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness That seems kind of shallow. Sure, relationships with others are another indirect part of happiness. I don't claim to know the answers, here, but I've been pondering these things a lot lately. and "fanboy-ism" is inherently anti-social Sharing closely held values (e.g. a particular OS or programming language) is a really important part of socializing, IMO, and there's nothing wrong with that. Being a fanboy isn't the problem; the problem arises if you try to hard to share that passion with others, and fail. </philosophical>
    - smashing 15y ago
      Socializing is the opposite of shallowness in my opinion. I refer to the Wikipedia for my definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization the problem arises if you try to hard to share that passion with others, and fail. What is wrong with trying hard and sharing passions with others? Or is it just the failing that is a problem? Be concise.
      - javert 15y ago
        I didn't say that socializing is shallow; I don't believe that at all. I said that the statement, "Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness," seems shallow. Be concise. You seem to not have understood my sentence, but it's perfectly clear.
        smashing 15y ago
        What do you think shallow means? What do you consider to be the opposite of shallow? Be concise if not for my sake, but for the sake of other people who may stumble upon this thread. My questions are not an indication that I am predisposed to agree with your response whatever it may be, nor do I feel predisposed to respond.

flomo 15y ago

Haha, "Team OS/2" was up there on the insanity scale with Amiga advocates. The author described it as 'social media and conversational marketing', but I recall one magazine columnist who said something like "I stopped writing about OS/2 because I was sick of receiving death threats."

smashing 15y ago
I see Android users are the heir apparent to the OS Persecution Complex. EDIT: I just realized that what I wrote could be viewed as condescending, and I don't mean it be that way. It just saddens me that people can get so attached to a machine. Dogs, cats, and other pets I can understand, but a machine cannot make you happy, it can only help you be more productive, and I don't believe productivity directly leads to happiness. Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness and "fanboy-ism" is inherently anti-social.
- javert 15y ago
  <philosophical> I don't believe productivity directly leads to happiness I don't believe anything leads directly to happiness. But I believe being productive is a pretty important part of getting there. Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness That seems kind of shallow. Sure, relationships with others are another indirect part of happiness. I don't claim to know the answers, here, but I've been pondering these things a lot lately. and "fanboy-ism" is inherently anti-social Sharing closely held values (e.g. a particular OS or programming language) is a really important part of socializing, IMO, and there's nothing wrong with that. Being a fanboy isn't the problem; the problem arises if you try to hard to share that passion with others, and fail. </philosophical>
  - smashing 15y ago
    Socializing is the opposite of shallowness in my opinion. I refer to the Wikipedia for my definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization the problem arises if you try to hard to share that passion with others, and fail. What is wrong with trying hard and sharing passions with others? Or is it just the failing that is a problem? Be concise.
    - javert 15y ago
      I didn't say that socializing is shallow; I don't believe that at all. I said that the statement, "Socializing with other people is the surest means of acquiring happiness," seems shallow. Be concise. You seem to not have understood my sentence, but it's perfectly clear.
      - smashing 15y ago
        What do you think shallow means? What do you consider to be the opposite of shallow? Be concise if not for my sake, but for the sake of other people who may stumble upon this thread. My questions are not an indication that I am predisposed to agree with your response whatever it may be, nor do I feel predisposed to respond.