Top 10 Disappointing Technologies

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/145271,top-10-disappointing-technologies.aspx' target='_blank'>http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/...chnologies.aspx</a><br /><br /></div><p>PC Authority has a top 10 list of disappointing technologies. All were thought to radically change some aspect of the technological world and all have come up short, way short in some cases. There is a little something on the list for all of the Thoughts Media sites. Take a look - anything on here surprise you, or anything missing that should be there?</p><p>The only surprise for me is #4 is not a bit higher on the list. <img border="0" src="http://www.ehansberry.com/ppct/wink.gif" /></p>

[Stinger]

I remember going to an arcade in the early 90s and playing a virtual reality game. It was very cool but I can see why it never took off - the price tag, the weight of the gear and the headaches it induced.

I'm still dreaming that one day I'll be able to relive the Red Dwarf episode Gunmen Of The Apocalypse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmen_of_the_Apocalypse). :)

[code-frog]

The fact Vista is number one invalidates this guy as being credible. He hopped on a bandwagon here. Windows 98 and ME had huge problems. Vista was just ahead of it's time. If you put Vista on a box ready for Vista it's a solid platform and as good as it gets. The fact people think Windows 7 is everything Vista wasn't further proves the point. The difference between 7 and Vista are so mall I don't even know I'd call it a service pack as much as just the natural evolution of the code base of Vista combined with user feedback.

Vista is tight. Windows 7 is just a tuned Vista. This guy completely invalidated himself by picking Vista as #1. He jumped on the bandwagon and lost credibility. I've been using it since SP1 on 3 machines "Built for Vista" and it's been brilliant. The UAC hardly even comes on at all anymore and when it does I'm cool with it. This is is someone's tool that just spewed what he thought would draw the most Google hits by article keywords. If you search rank on the 10 technologies he chose they are huge.

His list is the most SEO list I've seen and that's all I give him. That and oh yeah... he's a tool.

[RogueSpear]

Vista was just ahead of it's time.

Yea, and Charles Manson was just "misunderstood".

To be fair I think that Vista has been somewhat unfairly denounced. Every version of Windows prior to it has been just as terrible. Only now are people beginning to catch on to the upgrade train scam Microsoft has been pulling for so long now.

[ucfgrad93]

Windows 98 and ME had huge problems.

Have to agree here. Windows ME was just god awful. While Vista certainly had it problems when it was introduced, it has overcome them.

[Rob Alexander]

What a totally weird list. They clearly didn't stop to consider what a technology is before writing this list. There are technologies that belong on a list like that, like virtual reality and voice recognition, but most of their items aren't technologies at all, but specific products. That's a very different thing.

Like listing the Apple Lisa. Yes, the product was a failure, but the technology it attempted to market was the graphical user interface. Yeah, like that never caught on! As all of us who follow tech things know, the first implementation of a new technology is not always successful. Sometimes it take several tries to get it right.

Or 10GB Ethernet. The technology is Ethernet and this just happens to be one speed variant of it. So innovation passed by this particular level of implementation and we'll be moving straight from 1GB to 100GB. In my book, that's not a technology failure, that's a technology success. The technology is progressing faster than the market.

The Itanium may be a failure as a product (though I'm just taking their word for it), but for the technology to be a failure, you have to say that 64-bit computing is a failure. That's the technology. The fact that Intel didn't build 32-bit compatibility into the chip was a marketing failure, but I seem to be hearing more and more about people running 64-bit versions of Windows now and that sounds to me like a technology that's just about to take off, not one that has failed.

In other places, they seem schizophrenic. Like with Ed's favorite whipping boy, Bluetooth, which at least is a technology. They list it as a failed technology, then end their discussion by telling us that their BT microphone is "incredibly useful and reliable". That's just bizarre. When I have something that is incredibly useful and reliable, I generally tend to think of the technology that drives it as successful.

The Vista problem was a failure in marketing, not a failure in technology. As code-frog pointed out, Windows 7 is just a refinement of all the same technologies and is getting great reviews.

Anyway, I guess it's food for thought, but I wish they had actually done the thing they said they would instead of just making it a list of 'ten things they wish were better.'

[LamboMan]

Looks like this guy is an all-out apple and ipod fanboy! :mad: Everything that he said about the Zune and windows was pretty denigrating!

[Ed Hansberry]

The fact Vista is number one invalidates this guy as being credible. He hopped on a bandwagon here. Windows 98 and ME had huge problems. Vista was just ahead of it's time. If you put Vista on a box ready for Vista it's a solid platform and as good as it gets. The fact people think Windows 7 is everything Vista wasn't further proves the point. The difference between 7 and Vista are so mall I don't even know I'd call it a service pack as much as just the natural evolution of the code base of Vista combined with user feedback.
I agree with your technological assessment, but the fact is, Vista failed. It was not a viable upgrade for so many XP users. There was way too much hardware already out there that couldn't handle it, too many peripherals that had no Vista drivers and too much software that didn't work on it. It was great for new high powered machines with newer devices attached to it and software written after 2005 or 2006. Anything else and you were taking a big chance.

XP Virtual Mode in Win7 proves the point. Even Win7 cannot fix the ambitious changes in Vista, so for companies and Ultimate users, you can virtualize XP and run the app or hardware in there.

Should Vista be #1 on the list? Maybe not, but it absolutely belongs there. No one will be running Vista 2 years from now unless they are just technologically incompitent. Everyone will upgrade Vista to Win7 within 18 months of its release, or even sooner.

[Felix Torres]

But... Vista is no more a technology than is the Lisa.
Its a product built out of a collection technologies; Aero, WFC, WinFX, DX10, etc. Neither product belongs on a list of technologies.

Think of HDTVs; they are products built off a series of technologies; LCD displays, HDMI data transfer protocols, ATSC content broadcasting, QAM cable encoding...
You can say a specific HDTV model is a disappointment without indicting the various technologies that go into it; conversely, a successful product might include disappointing technologies along with successful ones.

As to Vista the product being a failute; doesn't that require a context? A failure at what? Blunting unfair TV commercials? Probably. Upgrading three year-old PCs? Maybe. At a minimum we would need to agree on what Vista was supposed to be and what it failed at. To say Vista failed to be a suitable replacement OS for XP hardware is hardly a damning statement you know; all Microsoft OSes are designed as OEM products first and upgrade paths second. And properly so.

At most, Vista PCs failed to ship with abundant, stable device drivers. And Vista PCs failed to ship to consumer without loads of performance-sapping crapware. And that is more an indictment of the PC vendors than Vista itself.

When installed on contemporary hardware in a clean state, Vista is both stable and fast. Hardly the disaster of biblical proportions that the TV ads pretend.

There are millions of us out here actually doing productive work on Vista machines with nary a gripe, you know.

[USArcher]

Can't wait to see Zune break out of its isolation and onto XBox and Windows Mobile. It should help Zune gain some brand recognition and build on XBox's existing community.

I'd love to know how J.Allard currently views Zune's progress and it's uphill climb to gain marketshare. Is he still actively involved with Zune development? The biggest hinderence to Zune adoption isn't the technology..its actually very good. But its hard to convince consumers of anything when Zune hasn't reached parity. Content Store (movies, games) & portability (mobile phone) parity hasn't been achieved yet. And even when parity has been reached, is that enough to sway consumers to switch. Not without a major change to their advertising strategy and consistent message. In many ways the Zune team has their steepest climb ahead of them. Its doable.

[efjay]

There are millions of us out here actually doing productive work on Vista machines with nary a gripe, you know.

Yep, I agree. I just bought a Compaq PC running Vista Premium yesterday to replace an old HP a610n. I chose to buy a branded pc rather than DIY as this is really just a spare and didnt want the hassle of DIY. I have 2 laptops running Vista and have no problems and no desire to downgrade to XP on any of them, despite this apparently being the in thing to do these days. Love the look, speed and features. When 7 is officially released I will consider upgrading if there are some really compelling features but for now running Vista is not an issue for me.

[Ed Hansberry]

But... Vista is no more a technology than is the Lisa.
They are clearly using the term to refer to technological products - ie somehow associated with computers. Thus, the Edsel and BetaMax don't belong on this list.

OS/2 should have been on the list. No matter how good it supposedly was, it failed, and man was it hyped.

And on Vista, I use it daily. I have 5 PCs at home and 2 run Vista, one runs Win7 b7100 and the other two have XP - too underpowered for Vista. I like Vista - been using it in production since Feb 2007. It is still a failure. And the week Win7 goes gold, I'll have zero machines running Vista, and likely only one still running XP. I've found Win7 can run on machines that cannot handle Vista.

[efjay]

I thinks its more a case of Vista's initial perception as a failure leading to being regarded a failure in other areas. It runs well now with few problems for the majority of users, so why is it still regarded as a failure? Obviously due to impressions formed when it was first released and didnt perform as well as it does today but those biases cannot be/are not easily changed and so Vista continues to suffer from that initial backlash which will obviously have a knockon effect on other aspects eg sales and so Vista continues to be perceived as a failure.

As for capable hardware, my hardware ranges from a Celeron 585 with 3GB(1GB) ram, Core 2 with 4GB(2GB) ram and Athlon LE 1650 with 1GB or ram. Figures in brackets are the original shipped memory and they ran well before the upgrade and better after.

[Ed Hansberry]

I thinks its more a case of Vista's initial perception as a failure leading to being regarded a failure in other areas. It runs well now with few problems for the majority of users, so why is it still regarded as a failure?
Actually, it doesn't run any better than it did 2 years ago unless you have the hardware to support it and aren't running old apps. The compatiblity improvments in Vista (and there have been some in Sp1 and Sp2) are a drop in the bucket compared to the problems it still has, and it has done nothing to reduce system requirements. Many people with a new PC purchased in 2006 still cannot run anything but Home Basic and some cannot run it at all. The only reason more and more people run it successfully is their PC is 2007 or later, and for those devices, it runs fine - assuming you find drivers for your printer/scanner/name-your-external-device-here. It is a bandaid approach though.

Again, I run it daily and generally like it, but it is a failure. The best thing Ballmer had to say about it is it is a work in progress. Ballmer: Vista a 'work in progress' (http://www.seattlepi.com/business/359541_msftmvp18.html)

Damning praise.

[alanjrobertson]

Hmm - I have to disagree re. #4 (Bluetooth). In day-to-day use I really find it invaluable - and not for the headset use mentioned in the article but for wireless data - connecting to mobile broadband from my laptop to mobile and between my Palm TX and Bluetooth GPS unit. For these sort of situations not having any wires is brilliant!

I also disagree with it being a pain to setup - I got a new NC10 (& put Windows 7 on it of course :D), and within seconds I'd paired it to my Sony Ericsson K850i, setup a dial-up networking connection and was on the internet. It's great when on a train or moving around just being able to leave the phone in your pocket and connect whenever you want.

Kinda agree re. Vista at #1 though (valid arguments re. them mixing up technologies and products aside) - Windows 7 is so what Vista should have been!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

You must understand Alan, the poor yanks have terrible or neutered phones, so they don't get to use Bluetooth as much. :P

[Rob Alexander]

But... Vista is no more a technology than is the Lisa.
Its a product built out of a collection technologies; Aero, WFC, WinFX, DX10, etc. Neither product belongs on a list of technologies.

Yes, I agree, and that was exactly my point. That's why I commented that Vista was a marketing failure, not a technology failure, noting that the same set of technologies are in Windows 7 which is being well-accepted. The techologies in Vista are not a failure, only the product itself is. For those who would disagree, please note that I am not saying the product is not good. I use it on two of my three computers. I am saying that it did not succeed in the marketplace and it didn't.

[Rob Alexander]

They are clearly using the term to refer to technological products - ie somehow associated with computers. Thus, the Edsel and BetaMax don't belong on this list.

I diagree Ed. If they were using the term as you have defined it, then they could not have included virtual reality, voice recognition or bluetooth. Those are technologies, not technological products. I would be content if they had stuck with all products or all technologies, but instead, they have not thought through what is was they were actually doing before making the list. The result is just a list of 'ten things we want to complain about'.

[Ed Hansberry]

I diagree Ed. If they were using the term as you have defined it, then they could not have included virtual reality, voice recognition or bluetooth. Those are technologies, not technological products. I would be content if they had stuck with all products or all technologies, but instead, they have not thought through what is was they were actually doing before making the list. The result is just a list of 'ten things we want to complain about'.

I think the Wikipedia artilce makes it clear that all 10 items are considered "Technology." Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology)

[alanjrobertson]

You must understand Alan, the poor yanks have terrible or neutered phones, so they don't get to use Bluetooth as much. :P LOL no comment (but I understand how this might be an issue!) ;-)

[code-frog]

I agree with your technological assessment, but the fact is, Vista failed.

I don't think Vista failed I think it was late to market. Had it been a year maybe 2 sooner and it would have exploded. XP stayed on the market too long. Users got lax and very comfortable with it. The market started to slow. Companies started grasping for cash and IT is the first to go. People will use at home whatever they use at work. Vista did not penetrate corporate so it did not penetrate the home. I believe that XP stagnated what would otherwise have been a good thing in Vista. The slow-down (even though when Vista released it was still young...) had rumblings that made many uneasy and spending just halted fast. When tech sectors crumble other sectors are 2 years behind. That's what killed Vista. 2 years after the technology sector tanked is when Vista launched.

It's all speculation but this guy is not at all on it. He needed to provide some proof and sources for his rankings and without it... just speculation on his part. It shows his distance from the world of IT to be honest.

[Pete Paxton]

I definitely don't agree about Ubuntu being an honorable mention. Ubuntu doesn't have the financial muscle that either MS or Apple have and yet it's a great stable, virtually virus and malware free OS. Not to mention it's free. I love the fact that I can take a decent $700 PC laptop and wipe Vista off and install Ubuntu. I have a stable secure laptop and I didn't have to give into Apple's ridiculous pricing scheme. Those who I've shown Ubuntu to have either put it on their computer themselves or asked me to help them. I agree that Ubuntu hasn't caught on as much as I would like but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's an awesome OS. I would use it any day over Vista.

[inteller]

Yea, and Charles Manson was just "misunderstood".

To be fair I think that Vista has been somewhat unfairly denounced. Every version of Windows prior to it has been just as terrible. Only now are people beginning to catch on to the upgrade train scam Microsoft has been pulling for so long now.

yes, too bad those same people don't understand how utterly ****ty and slapped together the underpinnings of XP are that they think is "just fine". I mean my god this is the OS that shipped with IE6!

Vista x64 is the best OS I have ever come across. As someone else mentioned if you run it on a modern computer it is great. If you try to put it on your old Pentium III that came with XP you deserve what's coming to you and you forfeit the right to complain about it.

[Rob Alexander]

I think the Wikipedia artilce makes it clear that all 10 items are considered "Technology." Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology)

You're just grasping now. By Wiki's definition, a pen and paper is technology. Of course that's true, but it's still not what we're talking about here. Everyone here understands the difference between a technology and a product that uses technology. So do you. I'm really not sure why you feel the need to go to the mat to defend these guys, but I really don't care enough to debate it at length. I've had my say; others can read what we've both said and make their own conclusions.

[Trastan]

I think the Wikipedia artilce makes it clear that all 10 items are considered "Technology." Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology)

Seriously? You're proven wrong repeatedly while blindly continuing to repeat your claims, and the best source you can cite in the end is Wikipedia?

And you're a contributing editor here?

Wow.

EDIT: I apologize for the overly rude wording, and for breaking the rules (which I admit to not having read prior.) Though my post was harsh, I do hope that it has nonetheless not fallen on deaf ears. I've valued a lot of articles from ThoughtsMedia in the past, and I'd hate for their journalistic integrity to devolve to reliance on Wikipedia articles.

Thank you for your time.

EDIT again: Hm, apparently you don't accept private messages. I'm not sure if you've just blocked me, or the ThoughtsMedia board as a whole, but I, nonetheless, am unable to apologize to you through it, so I will do so here. I appreciate your courteous correction, as I, likely, would not have been so polite.

I'm not sure why you won't accept PMs, but I would recommend that you, being a moderator, allow them as part of your duty to the boards. Unless there's some large problem that I'm not aware of (which is entirely likely), blocking PMs from the public places a barrier between you and the rest of the users. If there is some alternate method of contacting you directly that I have missed, please let me know.

Also, would you mind pointing me to the forum rules thread? I can't seem to find it.

Thanks.

[orchdork13]

alright, i have had my 8gb zune since about january. it has been worked perfectly until about the last month or so. Before it started freezing up. Then it started to randomly shut off in the middle of songs. Sometimes it will play and it will not shut off at all. Now it won't even turn on. I charged it a whole night and it will still not turn on. does anyone know how to fix this problem., if you could that would be great:)

[isilver]

Vista shouldn't be #1. Although initial acceptance was bad Microsoft managed to get into our lives by force. Most recent polls mention that Vista may be at 25% of the Microsoft computer market share. It has been out for 2 years so it can be deemed a failure. But that seems a far cry from a failure. I almost think this is the sort of adoption that is going to occur if Microsoft releases a new version every 2 years.

I agree with the thought that bluetooth adoption is slow. I don't know why every single MP3 player doesn't offer it and why stereo headsets are dropping below the $100.00 mark (in Canada at least). It's also not a common feature in cell phones yet when supporting the more advanced features like a2p2 (I think that's right) or stereo.

I'm not sure what people consider a failure. If they consider Zune to be a failure then I only wish I could come out with products that would fail like that. Apple owns the mark and it will be a very long time for anyone to top them. But the Zune selling millions in a few years (only in North America because I don't think it's sold elsewhere) is a success story. Maybe the publisher would have been happier if it wasn't branded as a Microsoft product, maybe that would make them see the light of day.