15 Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-01-02 07:40pm

I haven't actually noticed much change in Word for years. Or maybe I'm not that observant.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-01-02 07:47pm

Zablorg wrote:I haven't actually noticed much change in Word for years. Or maybe I'm not that observant.

Or maybe Word just isn't that important to Office as say, Excel or Access. Any major company will get much more use out of Excel or Access than they ever will from Word, so naturally those are the two which get the biggest functionality increases.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-02 09:22pm

In response to Darth Wong's above post, there are a number of improvements in Windows XP versus 2000.

-Windows, when moved, are visibly moved in their entirety (as opposed to a mere outline of them, as with Win2k and earlier).

-Like WindowsME, Windows XP supports alpha channels

-WinXP introduced Fast User Switching, facilitating improved multiuser operation (not to a desirable extent, however, and UNIX like OSes continue to pwn XP in this respect).

-With XP, you can detach a debugger from a running process without killing the process. In Win2k, you can't. (of course, 99% of users won't care about this).

-Windows XP is easier to multiboot with than Windows 2k, for various reasons, including better installation of the bootloader. XP also has a somewhat better installer than that of 2k, which is easily the worst OS installer I've seen.

Other improvements include support for multiple versions of DLLs being installed side by side, various improvements in terms of application compatibility, various kernel enhancements (including support for hyperthreading), better wifi support, et cetera. ACPI support and ClearType are a few additional "improvements" of somewhat dubious value.

On the negative side, XP introduced OS level DRM in Windows Media Player and in the form of Activation, and the default Luna theme will certainly go down in history as one of the ugliest GUI styles, ever.

XP is a decent operating system, but its rather dramatically obsolete, and in my opinion, is now completely outclassed by various versions of Linux and OS X. Microsoft was, IMO, quite retarded not to ship a desktop version of Windows 2003. Its deeply regrettable that XP has the largest installed base of any operating system in history (a trait that it will likely retain given the lackluster adoption of Vista and the emergence of OS X and Linux as the high end and low end OSes of choice).

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-03 09:32am

On the note of office 2007 it was wat I ended up buying when I realized that building your own computer means you have to load your own software too

. Anyway the only problme I had is that many of the menu shortcuts that I had memorized over years of using the old Office suddenly didn't work. That isn't to say that the functions aren't there but I had to spend a little time getting used to the new layout and location of all the features. The concurrent problem is that for work I have Office03 so basically I shuttle between the two versions and am perpetually in a hazy state of trying to do things on the wrong version. Still the layout and the functionality of 07 are clearly superior its just getting myself used to it that was the only holdup but such is the case with any new product.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2008-01-03 09:51am

Look on the bright side Wilkens: DoD's going to Office 2k7 soonish.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-01-03 10:20am

What the heck? Obviously I need to start getting more tech news. I just read about the "great new technology" of WiMax in Popular Science, and apparently it's already dead or dying?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-03 07:04pm

Beowulf wrote:Look on the bright side Wilkens: DoD's going to Office 2k7 soonish.

Bah I couldn't care less about that. My contract is up and if the wife has anything to say I will never having dealings with them again. In the meantime is cheapskating retail for me. Honestly I'm half suprised we aren't using Office 97 given the age of most of our software.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-01-03 08:02pm

Molyneux wrote:What the heck? Obviously I need to start getting more tech news. I just read about the "great new technology" of WiMax in Popular Science, and apparently it's already dead or dying?

WiMax has been standardized for a few years but hasn't really taken off.

RThurmont wrote:-Windows, when moved, are visibly moved in their entirety (as opposed to a mere outline of them, as with Win2k and earlier).

Earlier versions of Windows could do it, but the outline-behavior was set as default (for performance reasons).

-WinXP introduced Fast User Switching, facilitating improved multiuser operation (not to a desirable extent, however, and UNIX like OSes continue to pwn XP in this respect).

To what extent, though? XP's multiuser system is pretty decent, I'd say.

-Windows XP is easier to multiboot with than Windows 2k, for various reasons, including better installation of the bootloader. XP also has a somewhat better installer than that of 2k, which is easily the worst OS installer I've seen.

Er, W2K's installer is very similar to that of WXP's, IIRC.

ACPI support and ClearType are a few additional "improvements" of somewhat dubious value.

Well, CT can improve legibility in LCD (and to a lesser extent, aperture grill) displays. But how is ACPI of dubious value?

Microsoft was, IMO, quite retarded not to ship a desktop version of Windows 2003. Its deeply regrettable that XP has the largest installed base of any operating system in history (a trait that it will likely retain given the lackluster adoption of Vista and the emergence of OS X and Linux as the high end and low end OSes of choice).

As a minor nitpick, XP64 is actually based on the W2K3 kernel. That said, what would a desktop version of W2K3 buy the user?

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-04 06:03pm

Well, CT can improve legibility in LCD (and to a lesser extent, aperture grill) displays. But how is ACPI of dubious value?

ACPI would be of less dubious value if it were actually, you know, somewhat reliable. I have endless problems with ACPI functionality no matter what OS I use, XP, Linux, you name it. 90% of the BSODs I've had with Windows XP have been the result of power management-related activities.

I find ClearType to be the worst anti-aliasing solution for fonts, period. Windows fonts look alright with out it, with it turned on though, I personally find them less legible than on Linux (and Xorg admittedly has some real problems in terms of correct dispaly of screen fonts).

To what extent, though? XP's multiuser system is pretty decent, I'd say.

Yet pointless, when legacy apps provoke most users into running as Administrators. Linux has XP's fast user switching, but it also has su, sudo, Xnest, and other really useful tools for multi-user operation. It lacks UAC, alas.

Er, W2K's installer is very similar to that of WXP's, IIRC.

Albeit somewhat worse. The W2k installer is simply the worst I've seen. The only thing worse I suspect could be the disk-based install process for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, but I've never done that. The OSes I have insatlled include Windows 98, Win2k, Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS/2, many varieties of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, Plan 9, Inferno, ReactOS, OpenDarwin, FreeDOS, OS X Tiger and Leopard, and there are probably a few others. Of the above, Win2k has the worst installer. Which, IMO, is pathetic.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-01-04 06:09pm

RThurmont wrote:ACPI would be of less dubious value if it were actually, you know, somewhat reliable. I have endless problems with ACPI functionality no matter what OS I use, XP, Linux, you name it. 90% of the BSODs I've had with Windows XP have been the result of power management-related activities.

Huh. I haven't had an ACPI issue since around 2000 or so.

I find ClearType to be the worst anti-aliasing solution for fonts, period. Windows fonts look alright with out it, with it turned on though, I personally find them less legible than on Linux (and Xorg admittedly has some real problems in terms of correct dispaly of screen fonts).

Well, did you try the tuner to try and tweak it? Granted, you might just find it ugly, but I find its legibility boost rather nice.

Yet pointless, when legacy apps provoke most users into running as Administrators. Linux has XP's fast user switching, but it also has su, sudo, Xnest, and other really useful tools for multi-user operation. It lacks UAC, alas.

Well, there's XP's "Run As" feature if you run as limited user in XP. It's not perfect, I'll grant you, but it generally works well.

Of the above, Win2k has the worst installer. Which, IMO, is pathetic.

I mean how is it worse?

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-05 04:06am

The problems I've experienced with the Win2k installer include, but are not limited to, problems recognizing large HDs, problems installing on large HDs, absurdly long format times (it took something like 15 minutes to format a 20 gig partition), the installation apparently completing successfully, yet failing to run, problems installing on NTFS partitions created by third party utilities, problems with mysterious failures if Win2k was installed next to a pre-existing partition, including, but not limited to, Ext3 and extended partitions, problems with bootloader installation, problems with bootloader reinstallation, problems with the installer corrupting the partition table and destroying other installations, et cetera.

Not to mention the fact that the post-install Win2k still requires mucho configuration work in terms of driver installation, et cetera.

The UI on the Win2k installer was tolerable, but IMO, the installer itself is just too stupid and unreliable to be any good at all. This doesn't really matter, as the vast majority of Win2k deployments are/were corporate desktops installed from a master image.

Win2k itself isn't a bad OS at all IMO (I agree with Darth Wong that its possibly the best OS Microsoft ever made), its just that its installer is mind-blowingly awful.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-01-05 02:01pm

It's not like you install a new OS on your PC everyday. A long install time should not be a factor against an otherwise good OS.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-01-06 05:27am

RThurmont wrote:I find ClearType to be the worst anti-aliasing solution for fonts, period. Windows fonts look alright with out it, with it turned on though, I personally find them less legible than on Linux (and Xorg admittedly has some real problems in terms of correct dispaly of screen fonts).

ClearType's not that bad; it's just geared toward readability rather than accuracy. That works okay for current LCDs, but it's a strategy that won't really pay off with higher-DPI displays. When you get to a certain DPI threshold, you just don't need sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

Yet pointless, when legacy apps provoke most users into running as Administrators. Linux has XP's fast user switching, but it also has su, sudo, Xnest, and other really useful tools for multi-user operation. It lacks UAC, alas.

XP's multi-user system maintains separation among users' data, preferences and settings, so it's not pointless. Security isn't the only goal of a multi-user operating system.

Albeit somewhat worse. The W2k installer is simply the worst I've seen. The only thing worse I suspect could be the disk-based install process for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, but I've never done that. The OSes I have insatlled include Windows 98, Win2k, Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS/2, many varieties of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, Plan 9, Inferno, ReactOS, OpenDarwin, FreeDOS, OS X Tiger and Leopard, and there are probably a few others. Of the above, Win2k has the worst installer. Which, IMO, is pathetic.

Okay, you can stop waving your dick now.

But I won't disagree. Even the Linux people have managed to make OS installation easier than Microsoft has.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-06 08:31pm

XP's multi-user system maintains separation among users' data, preferences and settings, so it's not pointless. Security isn't the only goal of a multi-user operating system.

Fair enough, but still, it could do more to impress me...

But I won't disagree. Even the Linux people have managed to make OS installation easier than Microsoft has.

Well, that said, my remarks were specific to Windows 2000. In my opinion, the Windows Vista installer is roughly analogous to the OS X Leopard installer (with slightly better hardware detection, I might add), and a huge, dramatic improvement over the Win2k one.

Certain Linux installers continue to pwn the above, however, IMO. The ideal installer gives you a range of options, while reccommending a default, for various facets of the install, and also makes recovery easy. I like the SuSE yast installerr, which can serve as a bootdisk in the event you lose your bootloader (a very useful feature, yet a suprising number of installer CDs leave this feature out), and which provides excellent partitioning installs and a vast range of options, yet also provides generally sane defaults. The Ubuntu installer has also served me well, and Ubuntu, though certainly very far from being my favorite, is the distro I use in unusual situations (installing onto a Mac, for example).

There seem to be two opposing schools of thought, one being that options are bad as they confuse the user, and the other being that options are good, and all decisions should be left up to the user, and IMO both schools are fundamentally wrong. I like software that provides intelligent defaults, and, at the same time, also lets me customize it to the fullest extent, ideally providing multiple interface modes depending on what I need to do (or to be more precise, the depth to which I need to specify custom options).

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-01-08 04:46pm

RThurmont wrote:The problems I've experienced with the Win2k installer include, but are not limited to, problems recognizing large HDs, problems installing on large HDs, absurdly long format times (it took something like 15 minutes to format a 20 gig partition), the installation apparently completing successfully, yet failing to run, problems installing on NTFS partitions created by third party utilities, problems with mysterious failures if Win2k was installed next to a pre-existing partition, including, but not limited to, Ext3 and extended partitions, problems with bootloader installation, problems with bootloader reinstallation, problems with the installer corrupting the partition table and destroying other installations, et cetera.

Well, the large-HD problem is more that W2K predates the various techniques used to break the 127GB-barrier. IMHO, it's not really fair to ding it like that. The format issue is annoying, yes; pre-XP installers chose an exhaustive format for whatever reason. As far as the other issues are concerned, no, I haven't noticed them at all.

Not to mention the fact that the post-install Win2k still requires mucho configuration work in terms of driver installation, et cetera.

Well, what do you expect from an OS released in 1999 and installed on a modern system?

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-08 05:49pm

I didn't install it on a modern system, I installed it on vintage 2000/2001 Dell Dimension 8100 with 256 mb of RAM, an ancient NVidia GPU, and a Pentium IV 1.4 ghz processor. I do expect an OS released in 1999 to do a better job out of the box than vintage 1996 OS/2 on a vintage 2001 computer.

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2008-01-08 05:59pm

I'm not overly familiar with OS/2, but isn't it like Windows NT 3.x in that it installs generic drivers for everything at first, then lets you install optimal ones later on?

Also, the Pentium 4 and its supporting chipset didn't exist until nearly a year after Win2000 hit the streets. Neither did any nVidia card beyond the original GeForce.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-01-08 06:14pm

Most of his issues sound like "Windows 2000 didn't want to play nice next to my Linux install in a hard drive environment that Microsoft didn't anticipate" anyway, not anything related to vid card or motherboard chipset. Annoying, I imagine, but hardly surprising considering who wrote it and what environment Microsoft envisioned Windows 2000 running in (i.e. by itself or alongside other MS products).

It's not like MS made a huge pretense of all-encompassing hardware compatibility with Win2K though; I remember there being lists of "supported hardware", and anything else was at your own risk.

As for Win2K's installer being the worst, I'd be curious to see just how badly NT 4 (or 3.5/3.1) fail under similar circumstances.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-08 08:23pm

I'm not overly familiar with OS/2, but isn't it like Windows NT 3.x in that it installs generic drivers for everything at first, then lets you install optimal ones later on?

No, it attempts to autodetect, and prompts you for confirmation and/or assistance if it can't find a driver.

As for Win2K's installer being the worst, I'd be curious to see just how badly NT 4 (or 3.5/3.1) fail under similar circumstances.

I haven't used WindowsNT 3.1, 3.5 or 4.0. Playing with them is something I'd like to do someday, but I'd imagine their installer is probably horrific, moreso than the Windows 2000 one.

I have not installed Win95, ME or 3.x, either, so they could also be rather awful. I suspect a floppy-based install of any of the above would be fairly dramatically tedious, if for no other reason than the huge brick of floppies you'd find yourself swapping out every few minutes.

Now again, to be clear, I have no problems with Win2k itself, IMO its a rather nice Windows edition, all things considered. My problems are with the twisted nightmare that is its installer.

Edit: BBCode cleanup.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-09 02:09am

I had to administer an NT4-based network for a while. Win2k's installer was basically the same as NT4's installer. They looked, felt, and functioned very similarly. One might almost think that win2k was merely a more polished version of NT4

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-01-09 05:10am

Other than the fact it is not pretty to look at what is wrong with Windows NT / 2K installers ?

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2008-01-09 03:29pm

I had to administer an NT4-based network for a while. Win2k's installer was basically the same as NT4's installer. They looked, felt, and functioned very similarly. One might almost think that win2k was merely a more polished version of NT4

I'd assume also you had nothing analogous to the Windows OPK that is presenstly offered for XP and Vista, to make the process less nightmarish?

Other than the fact it is not pretty to look at what is wrong with Windows NT / 2K installers ?

Dang it man, read my above posts. The OpenBSD installer consists of a CLI dialogue, with not even a curses UI, but it does not leave me in a state of insane, homicidal rage. Likewise, the OS/2 and Mac OS X installers, by virtue of not detecting the screen resolution properly, are very unpleasant to look at on LCD monitors, but manage to get the job done properly.

Isil`Zha · Post by **Isil`Zha** » 2008-01-09 08:11pm

Flagg wrote:and ME.

Fuck, Windows 3.1 or DOS is better than the horrible failure that was ME.

Isil`Zha · Post by **Isil`Zha** » 2008-01-09 08:17pm

RThurmont wrote:
Yet pointless, when legacy apps provoke most users into running as Administrators. Linux has XP's fast user switching, but it also has su, sudo, Xnest, and other really useful tools for multi-user operation. It lacks UAC, alas.

Shift+Right click > Run As...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-01-09 08:52pm

RThurmont wrote:I'd assume also you had nothing analogous to the Windows OPK that is presenstly offered for XP and Vista, to make the process less nightmarish?

W2K has an unattended installation mode, though not as sophisticated as new OSes.