Worst Tech Sequels Ever

[jamesedgeuk2000]

I mostly agree with this list however I would like to make a couple of points.

You shouldn't really include the saturn, after all it was technically superior to the playstation it just suffered from one of the worst advertising campaigns and pricing schemes ever lol

Secondly HD-DVD, ok it failed, it couldn't store as much as blu-ray, etc, etc however it should be cut some slack as it used a much much better codec than blu-ray and therefore made much better use of the space it had available, its not like it didn't try, but again poor advertising and high price...

finally vista, you noted alot of complaints from xp users, but do you remember all the complaints xp got from 98 users? that 98 got from 95 users? you cant judge a o/s by the day 1 release, vista with sp1 is much better than xp without a sp, and i'm sure if ME had lasted long enough it would have been improved too. considering the billions of combinations ppl can make from all the pc hardware on the market its amazing any o/s can run without a hiccup

one thing I would like to add here is the playstation 2, yeah you heard me, the games rocked and the system was pretty cool but from a tech pov it was a disaster, sony had redesigned the internals of the thing 13 times before releasing the silver one, its reliability was pathetic (I went through 5 and I didn't exactly hammer the thing 24/7)

 

[tipmen]

How about the nintendo Gamecube as a nomination?

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]article: part 4[/nom]The only release in the insanely popular Laura Croft-inspired series - Even the lovely Laura displayed less than her usual vigor[/citation]
ummm, is her name different in different parts? I always thought it was Lara Croft

 

[dmendenjr]

So Windows releases are like star trek movies; every other one is decent?

3.11 - good, stable, better than the MS-DOS shell.
95 - 1st "modern" windows, however many still hung on to Win 3.11
98 - much better
ME - Windows ME, saying it feels about as bad as works...
XP - much better
Vista - where's my copy of XP again (or 98, or even 3.11)
Win 7 - ??

Perhaps they should skip Win 8 and go straight to 9??

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]article: part 6[/nom]this predecessor to the DVD[/citation]
ummm, wtf? lol have I just not had enough sleep or shouldn't that be "successor"?

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]article: part 11[/nom]Nobody did tabbed browsing better than FireFox[/citation]
bah - I disagree - I much prefer Opera's tabbed browsing to FireFox's - I detest have to scroll sideways to find the tab I was looking for

and maybe it can be changed but by default FireFox doesn't revert back to the last tab opened always or revert back in order when you close a previous tab and I just verified that again (seems to only apply when more than 1 new tab is opened) - it reverts to the tab next to the tab you closed if you open enough tabs down the line (opening ONLY one tab in FireFox and it goes back to the last opened tab but doesn't seem to remember past 1 tab) - Opera handles this much better and goes back to the previous clicked on tabs in order - I just did the samething here in Opera and after closing the 3 newly opened tabs in the exact same order as I did in FireFox I ended up right back to this page - FireFox I ended up at the last tab next to the 3 newly opened tabs (again maybe there is a setting for this in FireFox but by default it sux in my opinion)

 

[xyzionz]

I used Windows ME and...I don't have any major issues like drivers couldn't be installed like what the author said, and not really always BSOD.
In my time using Firefox 3.0~3.5, it only crashed twice and I think is normal for software to crash, it a software doesn't get crashed is just like a car that doesn't get scratched..

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]xyzionz[/nom]I used Windows ME and...I don't have any major issues like drivers couldn't be installed like what the author said, and not really always BSOD.[/citation]
I user WinME for a long to and also my parents and I didn't experience any issues either. For some nagging reason I think it was because I used intel cpu's and intel chipset boards but I never tested that. just speculation from what I heard and read.

enough people though reported issues with WinME where I think we were the odd ones in a similar way to people today who report no problems with vista.

 

[crymsonpheonix]

I also have to disagree with Vista and Office 2007. I converted from openoffice to office 2007. and you know what? office 2007 blows it out of the water. it's the same thing with Vista, it wasnt just like the last one. right? what people don't like about vista, is it isn't XP. UAC? who the heck doesn't have user privilages? real OSs make you type your password, not just click "ok". And one more thing, the law of windows "wait until SP1", which everyone forgot in their rush to upgrade.

Nominations include the numorous and awful x-com sequals, WMP10, the iPod classic (the sound chip was not nearly as good at the iPod video's) IE7, the xbox 360 (RRoD), PS3 (expenisve and not that cool) Starcraft II and Diablo III (no LAN support) Nintenod 64 (it was fun, had good games, but why did they stick with the expensive and outdated cartriges?)

 

[thegh0st]

uggg - I found these posts in the forums but I could not edit them - I thought people said you could - anyways -

I meant - "I used WinME for a long time to"

 

[dingumf]

I AM PROBABLY SPEAKING FOR OTHER WHEN I SAY, MOST OF THESE ARE NOT THE WORST TECH SEQUELS.

FIREFOX? REALLY?

In the case of HD-DVD, its just lost the war against Blue Ray and just for that DOESN'T MEAN ITS ONE OF THE WORST TECH SEQUELS.



You're terrible, Linsey Knerl

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]thegh0st[/nom]ummm, is her name different in different parts? I always thought it was Lara Croft[/citation]
Yes--good call, Lara is correct, I fixed this in the article. Thank you.

 

[NewJohnny]

I'm disagreeing on Norton 360. Symantec has been producing crap software for years, Security Suite 2005 being the worst. The 360 product has proven itself to be fast and effective. I've been cleaning spyware everyday for three years and the Spybot/ad-aware combo does not work anymore. I haven't encountered a single virus-laden pc with Norton 360 on it. AVG, on the other hand, is brutally out of touch and I replace it as often as I can.

 

[the_one111]

I'm disagreeing with 75% of this article.

HD-DVD? Office 7? Firefox? REALLY?

Get off the Mary Jane please.

 

[darkguset]

I must be one of those lucky ones with WindowsME! I must admit that as a computer technician, i found several problems on other people's machines (including some friends), but on my hardware, it installed fine, it ran fine and had an improved performance and driver support to boot! All that had seen my PC were stating "amazing"! No blue screens, no nothing. I must have been one in a billion i guess since everyone else complained about it! lol

 

[darkguset]

Ahhh... all those bad memories from the past... as a computer technician i can't recall how many times people had problems and as soon i uninstalled the famous "Norton Antivirus" from their PC everything worked fine! LOL

 

[Guest]

i hate nortons antivirus soooo bad. its ok if you don't want to run anything else at the same time and E-bay sold something the buyer did not pay i could not leave bad feed back. all i could do is report him for nit paying were he got a mark to his name , then he left he negative feedback for all of my good work. how can you leave negative feed back for something you did not end up paying for. Thanks E-bay

 

[bardia]

Putting Vista on this list is idiotic. Vista was the single best software purchase I ever made.

 

[zodiacfml]

there's only one i disagree, HD-DVD. i don't how Sony did it, but they made sure they win. they don't want another betamax.

 

[mitch074]

Now, I wonder who wrote the article - FireFox doesn't exist, there's no browser by that name, there never was - who set a fox on fire?

If the article writer knew ANYTHING about his craft, then he'd have known that Firefox, the browser from Mozilla, takes its name and mascot from what is also known as the red panda - yes, the firefox. Thus, only one capital F.

Saying that Firefox 3 is a tech failure is really stretching it, as:

- it improved rendering speed across the board over Firefox 2, on all supported platforms (something no browser can claim, since only Opera covers the same platforms as Firefox - and Opera is slower and much buggier than Firefox on Linux)

- Firefox 3.0 came out at a time when we still only had Safari 3, an early Chrome beta, buggy Opera, and Internet Explorer 7 - on Windows.

- Firefox 3.0 actually used less RAM than any other browser out there (I could run it on a 256 Mb system without any problem, any other product caused swapping) while still being extremely fast and nimble; it reduced by half RAM use over Firefox 2.

- extensions are supported according to their popularity: FasterFox was very useful with Firefox 2, because Fx2 was slow; Firefox 3 actually implemented so much stuff from FasterFox that the extension became irrelevant in 3! A fex settings that weren't given a UI element can be found in about:config, but their use in FasterFox wasn't recommended because they compromized data integrity.

- Firefox 3 is the first browser widely available in native 64-bit OSes (Firefox 2 was available in 64-bit for Linux only and wasn't officially supported by Mozilla)

Only someone with a quad-core running Windows 7 RC1 64-bit on 4 Gb of RAM, having installed Firefox 3.0 32-bit and with medium-term memory troubles would find Firefox 3.0 "lacking"; someone running a 1Gb-equipped Vista machine would appreciate Firefox's nimbleness with little available RAM, someone running a Mac would find Firefox more secure than Safari, someone running Linux would find it more stable than Opera. And anybody not running Windows would find it better than Chrome or IE.

With that said, then:

- IE 8 is TEH FAILORZ: it's agonizingly slow, and not available outside of Windows XP+.

- Chrome is TEH FAILORZ 2: its UI is so reduced that it's unusable, and there's no official version outside of Windows 32-bit (since you complain about extensions disappearing...).

- Safari it TEH FAILORZ 3: you just have to snap your fingers to exploit its security (or lack thereof), and shoved-down-your-throat software bundles (Bonjour, iTunes, Quicktime) are so AOL-era!

- Opera is TEH FAILORZ 4: while it's available on multiple platforms and reasonably fast, it has so many bugs in its UI or rendering engine or interpreter that one can't use it for a long time.

In short, if Firefox 3 is a tech failure, all browsers are.