Discussion on:

10 MORE technologies that are just plain broken

nt

Interesting. All you can get Down Under are the more advanced units?

on or two stores in the bigger capital cities that will offer something cheaper. Nearly all the phones here are sold via shops linked to the networks and they all try to sell you the latest and fanciest phones with phones plans. The sales staff get a might upset when you ask for something cheap you can buy outright as they get less commission.

Here you can by standard cell phones at the Dollar stores, at the drug stores, and even at the supper markets. Of course every Walmart and Target, will carry a wide selection. The various phone stores are having trouble competing with all the other places to get phone and usually will have no more than one or two customers. There will usually be more in the business of selling plans because they can't compete on phones.

not everyone else in the world has the same access to everything they have in the way of goods or services for sale or hire. The USA has over 300 million people, Australia has bout 21 million people over a landmass that's very much the same. We don't get the range of products that you do, especially in gear that's fully imported.

We are at the point of the "instant on" machines. I realize the storage capacity issue is still a bit of a problem, but if you have a desktop unit there's tons of space inside the box going unused with the advent of terrabyte hard drives. Why not a burnable EEPROM OS? I know M$ is sending updates almost weekly but if you mirrored the OS on a hard drive and then 'burned' the latest into some sort of fast ROM you'd have "instant on".

I have an old digital camera that takes several second to save a picture and a new one that does it almost instantly so the memory chip technology seems to have come a long way in a couple of years. I'd gladly add twenty or thirty seconds to an update for the instant on ability.

I would add user specific data to the instant on as well so that as soon as I log on I'm up.

You know? Those seven and ten inch tablets that come on instantly you press the button?

You want somethin' that does a bit more than that, you have to wait for it to start up.

Growing up you would walk in the door turn on the TV, go to the kitchen and fix a snack and still be back in front of the set to watch "Dark Shadows." When they upgraded Black and White TVs to instant on then the color ones still took time. Now everything no matter how capable is instant on. I look forward to the advance of OS and hardware technology to match the advance of TVs in this respect.

Wow, someone had a bad weekend. I agree with some that are actually broken, printers being #1. A lot of the others are a matter of taste (Windows 8), and not being broken. A lot of research was done for Win8, so just because you hate it does not mean everyone else does. The system works fine so far, no major bugs like ME that basically destroyed computers upon install. My wife tried out the Surface last week and thought it was the greatest thing ever (and she loved she could go to desktop UI if she felt the need), and she usually HATES new technology. Seriously, bad article, just call it 10 things I hate, not 10 broken tech.

Surely Oracle should be at number 1. It produces the most bloated, ugly, inefficient, non-standard UI software on the market. The databases are always huge and ridiculously difficult to get running correctly, In 100% of the projects I've worked on in the last 15 years where Oracle DB's were used, they were always the source of any performance and stability problems. It made no difference whether they were installed by Oracle engineers or in-house DBA's. The Windows machines running SQL were always far more stable and easier to install and tune.
Java is just hideous, with updates every time you boot. When I need to download Java to a new machine, I always end up on some download page with 8000 different flavours of Java to select from.

I HATE printers...period...end of story

Basically, this is the downside of what you get with a free enterprise system. Not that I am against it, its just what you get. Let get even simpler that what you have listed:

Cell phones: Why don't they all use the same plug to charge them? The chargers all do the same exact thing.

Oil Filters: There is absolutely no reason that there cannot be about three oil filters that will work in all the automobiles and trucks we use. This would really reduce inventory for auto parts stores and the price per filter, since they would make so many of the same.

Networking: Mac has been doing this better that Microsoft ever since the Mac Plus came out. Microsoft networking is STILL not simple after 20 years, WHY???

I believe that in GB it has been mandated that all cell phones use the same plug. Now I dont want more government regulation any more than the next guy, but this seems to make sense to me.

Most of this doesn't make sense since every engine is different (even if they are all four stroke). But as for Microsoft networking not being simple.... Homegroups have fixed that I think. Although I am a tech so I can make anything work haha I like the idea of universal things but I think you say it right "I dont want more government regulations" It restricts ideas when you are stuck thinking in one way. The Bugatti Veyron would have never been made if every car and engine had to be a certain way so you can put the same oil filter on all of em what you wrote makes me think. Thanks!

...Microsoft appears to be OS-myopic... ever try to network Win7 Home Edition with *anything* else? like Mint? PITA... you cannot enable no-password login on the Windows machine. It appears that Microsoft feels that networking is not part of the usual home computing environment. And that it should remain so. :-/

i agree ....its broken....just installed it and spent 30 min looking for restart ...hate it ....it will go away faster than vista

So, uhm, you realize that when people reference "exchange logs" that they're not talking about the "johnny connected" .. "oops, johnny disconnected" type of log, right? When people talk about exchange logs they're talking about what is basically a database journal... which unix doesn't have a generic solution for, because unix doesn't have a standard transactional database.

... and I promise you that the mysql binlogs (a rough equivalent, and needed for point-in-time backups, just like the exchange logs) can devour space with the best of them...

Talking about a Linux interface that you don't like, and in the same article slamming Win 8 is like comparing avocados to pears. They are both fruit and some pears have the same shape and color as an avocado but they are entirely different. This article is a lame attempt to group together a bunch of software renditions, not "technologies" that the author finds annoying or not as good as he hoped. Win 8 is stable, easy to use, fully tested and ready for prime time. If you don't like the tiles UI on a desktop, don't use it. It's easy enough to switch to the Win 7 UI. Also, the ease of upgrading from Win 7 to Win 8 is a first for Microsoft, i.e., upgrading to a new version without any glitches, incompatibilities or driver problems. As for office suites, Open Office is free and friendly with Word documents. There are plenty of other choices of Word friendly software and plenty of apps that convert or read doc files. I have been in business (law office) for more years than the author has lived. Windows is the OS leader whether Apple or Linux lovers like it or not. If Win 8 becomes a historical misstep for Microsoft, at least it shows an effort to link mobile devices and desktops and servers all into one OS. In an age when there is nothing really revolutionary to develop in the software world, evolutionary changes have to be done with some artistic flair that separates the products of one company from another. That's capitalism. Methinks the author doth protest too much.

The vast majority of my wasted time due to IT is dealing with problems with printers, printer drivers, spoolers, on and on. A particular area of dismay is that when Epson the waste ink pads in their ink jet printers fill up, the user cannot replace them without dismantling the printer, and the cost of replacing them from an "Authorised" Epson repair shop exceeds the cost of a new ink jet printer. Hence we have a horrendously wasteful contribution to a rubbish dump. Why not a simple slip out slip in pad. It would slow ink jet sales, but every now and then we all need to think about the environment. Hard plastic cases and metal innards do not decompose.

I'm kinda aware of the problem, but I don't know much about the solution. I like the goals and apparent viability of CUPS (formerly Common UNIX Printing System), pretty much a no-brainer on Mac and *nix, and apparently supported "well enough" on Windows (my Win 7 boxen have no trouble printing to and from my Mac and Linux ones). Comments, please. Add a new Reply Thread for each proposed solution path, please.

Jim-MN

Fax just needs to go away, thats what Email, PDF, and Scanners are for.

When will calculators and numeric keypads arrange themselves in the same formation as telephone keypads? I know, as a blind person, I'm biased, but what possible advantage is there in having two different formats? It has to be the telephone layout which wins, the other seems to me to be counter-intuitive. I presume it's some historic thing like the qwerty

Very true... What is up with that lol

I believe the reason for the difference is usage. Telephone keypads use Numbers but they also represent letters 1 (Long Distance), 2 (ABC), 3 (DEF), 4(GHI) and so on.

The reason for this is way back in the day (like 60+ years ago) You would dial an exchange by it's name shortcut For instance you would dial "BR" (27) for BRoadway. then the rest of the number. So a number might be BR4-1234.

Of course math people setup the cash register and counting machines lowest value to the highest, hence 0 at the bottom, then 1, 2, 3, then 4, 5, 6...

I agree it would be nice to have consistency. Fortunately my VOIP system allows me to dial from my computer, so I am very accustomed to 123 at the bottom.

separate design groups who never spoke to each other. You forget that the telephone keypad grew out of the dial phone and when they assigned letters to that they started with the number 2 as it ran one through to zero in a right to left pattern as that was easier for people to use. Thus the phone pads run alphabetically while the calculator and computer keypads were set up with the most common used numbers at the bottom where they'd be easier to get at.

What is interesting is how hard it is to get a keyboard without a number pad now despite most people rarely using the number pad that much outside of an accounting area.

is used by more than accounting types. As a (semi-casual) gamer I've been having a rough time finding a good bluetooth keyboard with a number pad. I map all sorts of stuff to it since I mouse left-handed. It's real handy for that. I have yet to find an RF wireless keyboard or mouse that works farther than 3 feet away and that's too close to use with my large TV. Far Cry 3 is much more fun on large-screen from the couch 8 feet away.

spending a good part of that in financial administration. I just wish that they keyboard came like they originally did - keyboard with a separate number pad. Then we had them with a detachable number pad, which was good for the lefties as they put the pad on the other side. Today both are very rare.

I thought that the invention of the number key pad was the greatest invention since Wonder bread. I use it exclusively except when working on the laptop with that damn touch pad. Ever since I learned to type I have always rested my hands on the desk so that reaching the top row of keys is difficult. It is much easier for me to reach the number key pad.

And you are right about the telephone key pad and computer number key pads have different derivations. the computer key pad came from the calculator key pad which came from the old mechanical adding machines. The phone's design derived from the old dial (which we still use on our old style candlestick phone). No common design history. It's like asking why does a plane use a stick, a throttle lever, and rudder pedals while a car uses a wheel and accelerator pedals. (Interestingly enough the original cars used tillers like ships and accelerator levers.)

is to type text of various amounts and the next is to work with graphics manipulation software - thus the numbers rarely come into usage with me. Not enough usage for me to lose the extra more than a hand width of space on the desk for the number pad.

The dial phone never started assigning letters with the number 1. ABC have always been assigned to the number 2. (Here is a link to an image of a phone manufactured in the 1920's) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Model500Telephone1951.jpg

Hate to say it but when I grew up that is all there was, no 'tone' dialing. I used that very phone when I was young.
---

Also I am not an accountant, but I use a numeric keypad all the time. In fact I have a USB one for my laptop that doesn't have one built in. In fact most people I know will use the number pad rather than the numbers above the keys.

I agree 100% with Fidelista. Why do calculators and numeric kepads start at the bottom and work upwards? It makes no sense. Which came first, the calculator keypad or the telephone keypad? It would be interesting to know which switched the order and why.

Number keys pads were first developed when calculators started being used. The numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3, are used more often than any others, thus they were put at the bottom of the keypad where they were easy to find and use. At the time the phones were all dial style.

Phone keypads are the late comers to the situation, but they grew out of the telephone dials. Due to the simple mechanics of the situation, and again the higher use numbers being first, the number 1 was the one closest to the finger stop. As people tend to put things in order and they tend to move from left to right, the dial moved to the right, clockwise. Thus the numbers counted down in an anti-clockwise direction from 1 to 0. When they decided to incorporate letter as part of the system they assigned the letter in alphabetical order to the numbers in numeric order, thus number 2 and A, B, and C assigned to it and the rest progressed from there; the number 1 was left unassigned as it was already being used for other assigned tasks within the phone system. When they moved to using number pads on phones and not dials they set them up in alpha-numeric order with A, B, and C etc at the top and number 1 prior to number 2, and the rest coming along in order. At that time no one even thought about the two even being done the same way.

So, in short, no one SWITCHED the order as there was no interaction between the design teams. What happened was each was independently developed in different ways due to different use and design imperatives.

They were used on mechanical adding machines even before most phones used dials. You had to pick up and ask the operator to connect you. ("Hello Mabel, can you connect me with Drucker's General Store.")

nothing more to say....

i think writer did not used windows 8

I understand that the reason for different drivers for different printers is because different printers have different resolutions and different command sets. The command sets could be harmonized just as all modems worth considering use the Hayes standard command set. Resolutions could be harmonized because it's already been done for screens of differing resolutions. So why not have a single printer command set and a driver that can easily handle different resolutions? If 2 (or preferably more) major printer manufacturers got together and designed such a system, others would have to follow to be competitive, so come on Canon, Epson, HP, Brother, Kyocera, etc., who's going to make the first move?

Another Jack Wallen article mostly dissing Microsoft again. I've just given up reading them now. He could have a lot of useful stuff to say but he prefers to just roll out the same old MS bashing everytime. Oh and I bet his annual list of "Technologies that will be big new year" will contain the Linux desktop again, as usual, every year.

I really, really wish Techrepublic could find a Linux advocate who wasn't an MS hater and could provide some balanced coverage.

... but number one on his list was a linux desktop GNOME 3. If he wasn't being balanced, that would have not been there.

I think he is pretty well balanced in his coverage. Windows has a LOT of issues that most just turn a blind eye too. The concerns about Windows 8 on a Desktop are certainly valid. I have tried multiple times to use Windows 8 on a desktop and for serious users it just falls flat. For recreational use it may be ok. I use a computer for my living, about 15-17 hours a day, and I don't like it at all, despite having used it (preview and final release for more than 3 months.

Office has been a problem for years. I have one shop that uses Word Perfect and several that use Open Office ... All have problems interfacing with Microsoft at some point and there really isn't a good reason for it.

Anyone who has ever managed exchange knows it is a nightmare. There are other solutions out there which are far superior to Exchange. Novell's Groupwise for example, is far cheaper has about 98% of the features and can even be used with Outlook so that the end user doesn't even have to know the difference.

Secure boot is nothing more than a last ditch effort to avoid people dumping Windows for Linux. Especially with the Windows 8 interface and Steam working on a Linux platform for gamers.

Maybe if you weren't a rabid Microsoft Fan Boy you would see that Microsoft's products (as with most products) have issues that should be addressed. Jack's list seems pretty spot on to me.

TR is chock full of the M$ fan boys, and they love to spout off anytime anyone has anything bad to say about ANY Microsoft product.

Printers are bad enough, but usually I can find a pilot to install one, but scanners are something else. The very thought of Twain almost gives me nightmares. How many customers have a scanner that they don't use very often - "its almost new, it can be obsolete!!" but for which we can never find a pilot to make them work on Vista or 7- especially on 64bit.
Alternatively they use it all the time and can't be without it, and they don't want to change because it works just the way they want, they know how to do what they need.

No mention of Project Management?

As I understand it, solid state 'discs' have similar reliability to traditional spinning hard discs because, whereas moving parts do wear out and break down, so do solid state storage devices because they have a limited number of write cycles before failure. Add to this the need for complex software to ensure that every byte of an SSD gets a similar number of write cycles and the reduced security of an SSD - even after formatting some SSDs still contain accessible information - and I prefer the traditional hard drive, not forgetting the cost per gigabyte. OSs should be in EEPROM, not on a hard drive, so that the OS doesn't need 'loading' as it can run where it is in the EEPROM, thus seriously reducing the need for SSDs. And when it comes to moving parts, do you own a car? Is it reliable? How many moving parts does it contain??? I have a 22 year old Toyota that's still running well and has been totally reliable in the 9 years I've owned it. I think that says a lot for the reliability of moving parts - does anyone own a 22 year old computer that's still in daily use and totally reliable?

This comment about Windows security being broken just smacks of old fashioned thinking to me. In fact, not one of Microsoft's products feature in Kaspersky's recent list of products with vulnerabilities, which suggests that Microsoft have got a far better handle on this than most others. If Windows security is fundamentally flawed, then surely you are saying that all security is flawed since all code can have vulnerabilities in it - and regularly do - but Microsoft I would say have done a better job of recognising this and dealing with it.
So I'd be interested in knowing which company/product has a security solution that isn't fundamentally flawed according to your definitions.
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/11/02/microsofts-security-team-is-killing-it-not-one-product-on-kasperskys-top-10-vulnerabilities-list/