Newer stuff that isn't better

[Shocker]

Got any examples of newer stuff that is not only not a major improvement over the old, but also decidedly worse??? Post them here.

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Modern keyboards of the "non-clicky kind with limited key travel. They are quieter but they don't type as well.

Hard drives, quality wise. Except for Quantum drives and Death stars.

[Shocker]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Modern keyboards of the "non-clicky kind with limited key travel. They are quieter but they don't type as well.

I should have posted that but didn't think of it. Thanks

Hard drives, quality wise. Except for Quantum drives and Death stars.

Right. I'd trust an ST380011A with 50,000 hours over any ST1000DM003...you'd have to be a fool to not notice the weight difference.

[c_hegge]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Windows Vistrash, 7, and probably 8.

XP beats all of them

EDIT: Intel Stock coolers. They used to be over 3cm thick. Now, they're only like 1cm thick and get noisy on quad core CPUs.

[Shocker]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Right. The amount of awful, bloated commercial software and cheap-ass, badly made consumer electronics these days is sickening.

A little off topic, but I think some of us can agree that compact fluorescent lamps were much better built when they were specialty items.

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Hard drives, quality wise. Except for Quantum drives and Death stars.

Right as I posted that a badcaps.net buddy of mine had a Caviar Black die...

At least it was under warranty...

[mariushm]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Windows Vistrash, 7, and probably 8.

XP beats all of them

Windows 7 is quite good, better than xp.
Would you believe me that I never had Windows XP installed on my computers (apart virtual machines to test websites on the default IE that came with XP) ? Moved from Windows 2003 straight to Windows 7

Thought the same thing about XP as you think about 7 (ok, Vista was really crap, just like Millenium Edition), but the fact is an operating system like Windows is "optimized" for certain types of hardware, so new hardware will often have issues unless you upgrade.

Happened with Windows 98 (usb), happened with Windows 2000 due to pci express, will happen to xp due to usb 3.0, sata, ssd etc

EDIT: Intel Stock coolers. They used to be over 3cm thick. Now, they're only like 1cm thick and get noisy on quad core CPUs.

The stock coolers are never meant to be quiet, they're meant to work fine with their whole range of processors.

Newer coolers are thinner simply because the new cpus have lower TDP and have more states (older coolers were up to 95w or so, newer processors are 65w or around that value, newer cpus can go to sleep more often and reduce power, therefore cooler will provide adequate cooling)

Modern keyboards of the "non-clicky kind with limited key travel. They are quieter but they don't type as well.

They may be better due to audio feedback and maybe last long, but they're killer for your fingers if you type a lot. Read up on RSI. I'm glad they're no longer popular.

---

As for the subject of the topic... it pisses me off that the companies decided to stick with 1920x1080 when they changed to LED based back lightning.

It could have been a good marketing decision to use led lightning with just ~ 2600x1600 or higher panel sizes, as an incentive for people to buy low energy, slim, high quality panels and to bring down the costs in time due to selling volume.

Kinda sad a sort of device made of flash memory didn't catch on to replace dvd-rw discs. Sure there's usb sticks, but they're made nowadays with crappy flash memory chips which aren't reliable in the long term. A 4 GB DVD-RW disc is about 4$ - a 4 GB usb stick is 6$ , a 4GB SDHC card is 5$ ....

[Wester547]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

RoHS compliance (lead-free solder) pretty much guarantees that you'll never get the same quality again, especially as they continue to push the boundaries of hardware in performance and capability. IMO, though, Windows 2000 (NTFS/SP4) was the best, because it's as stable as XP (at least, in my experience) and takes up much less RAM (as well as CPU power), though it's obviously not as compatible with modern apps. Yes, though, for its time, XP was amazing. Neither Vista nor 7 had that impact upon me and I doubt 8 will.

I'm not surprised that hard drives aren't as sturdy. They pushed magnetic media too far and didn't care about the ramifications of that, which doesn't go into the above-mentioned issue of quality control. That applies for all hardware - older hardware lasted longer because not only was it not being worked as hard or stressed as much but because they were built to last, at least for a large part of you put aside shoddy capacitors and select defects (and maybe packages like BGA since it's as old as before this millennium). You won't get built to last with today's equipment, period.

I also noticed that OEM PCs seem to come more with plastic cases than steel cases like they used to way back in the day, at least it appears that way to me.

[ratdude747]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

I'll tell you why flash never caught on- For movies, it is too easily modded and hacked... not to mention that DVDs work and everybody anymore has a player... economically, there is no percived reason to change.

For other stuff, it come down to compatibility... DVDs have always worked, and in some cases, are more compatible, for instance in regards to booting.

[Topcat]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Windows 7 is quite good, better than xp.
Would you believe me that I never had Windows XP installed on my computers (apart virtual machines to test websites on the default IE that came with XP) ? Moved from Windows 2003 straight to Windows 7

Thought the same thing about XP as you think about 7 (ok, Vista was really crap, just like Millenium Edition), but the fact is an operating system like Windows is "optimized" for certain types of hardware, so new hardware will often have issues unless you upgrade.

News flash! Windows 2003 aka Server 2003 is XP....just server featured OS, IE Windows SERVER 2003....same user interface as XP though....so yes, you used XP before 7. Server 2003 came in 32 and 64 bit, and the 64 bit kernel was the test bed for XP Pro x64 on the x86 platform.

Vista was the worst abomination of code, moreso than winME....7 runs a little better, but its still the idiot-proofed bloatware smelly diaper mess that Vista was.... 8 will be good for a tablet, but on a laptop or desktop, be prepared for another vista-ish bellyflop.

I still rock XP and have zero plans to upgrade. High end hardware still well supports it, and the corporate world will also keep it alive for quite some time to come....so don't look for it to disappear anytime soon. I can denut XP to my liking in about 15 minutes.....I've spent days tweaking 7, and it still sucks.... Microsoft's motto these days is that of the US Govt: "If it aint broke, fix it till it is"....and that about sums up XP being replaced by 7....

I also concur on the Intel heatsinks....they've gone to crap. My RETAIL Nehalem Xeon CPU's didn't even come with them, cheap bastards!! I always bought retail because they came with good sinks....not anymore.

The only HDD's I trust these days are WD Blacks and WD Raptors.... I've got some Fujitsu SCSI's that have ran 24/7/365 for almost a decade, no bad sectors, no issues..... Nothing made now will beat that.

[mariushm]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

News flash! Windows 2003 aka Server 2003 is XP....just server featured OS, IE Windows SERVER 2003....same user interface as XP though....so yes, you used XP before 7

FALSE

Windows 2003 kernel is different than Windows XP 32 bit, they're different. They're two different "branches" in Microsoft's kernel development.

XP is merging of the 2000 and 98/Me branches, 2003 is improvement on the NT line.

Only Windows XP 64 bit actually uses the Windows 2003 64 bit kernel, they didn't bother porting the xp kernel to 64 bit. When they started development on XP, I think there weren't even 64 bit processors yet, except the Itaniums if I remember correctly. So the XP was initially 32 bit only, and the kernel still had lots of code from the Windows 98 times, therefore making it easy to just use the 2003 kernel for the xp 64 bit.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ows#Windows_XP

[Topcat]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

FALSE

Windows 2003 kernel is different than Windows XP 32 bit, they're different. They're two different "branches" in Microsoft's kernel development.

XP is merging of the 2000 and 98/Me branches, 2003 is improvement on the NT line.

Only Windows XP 64 bit actually uses the Windows 2003 64 bit kernel, they didn't bother porting the xp kernel to 64 bit. When they started development on XP, I think there weren't even 64 bit processors yet, except the Itaniums if I remember correctly. So the XP was initially 32 bit only, and the kernel still had lots of code from the Windows 98 times, therefore making it easy to just use the 2003 kernel for the xp 64 bit.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ows#Windows_XP

False.

Of course the kernels aren't identical, but the foundational codebase for them is. The interface is also the same, save for some trivial differences between versions.....but saying you've used S2k3 but not XP is folly....they were almost identical. Saying win9x and ME were the same as win2k is also bogus. Win2k was built on NT4 (aka NT5). Win2k didn't have an x86 64 bit version, only Itanium. S2k3 and xp pro x64 were the first ones for the x86 platform...as I said before... As mentioned in the wiki, a lot of the features of 9x/ME were implemented into w2k, but the kernels were not the DOS based crap that 9x/ME were. XP/S2k3/x64 were all derivatives of win2k. I'm not sure what black hole they pulled Vista out of...and probably dont want to know...

[lti]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

As others have mentioned, hardware quality has decreased. I guess they expect everyone to upgrade their computers as often as people upgrade their cell phones. The only new computer I have purchased only lasted three months.

Display technology has really gone downhill. Newer LCD displays keep having a progressively stronger blue tint and the native resolution has become lower. A couple years ago, you could buy a laptop with a 14" display that had a native resolution of 1440x900 and accurate colors. Today, you have to get a laptop with a 17" display to get a screen resolution larger than 1366x768, and the image has such a strong blue tint that it is almost monochrome.

Software is also becoming bloated instead of being able to utilize the hardware that is available. Many programs are written in a way that prevents them from running on older operating systems.

There are other things that aren't computer related that suck. On modern TVs, a standard definition image is extremely poor quality. For some reason, people can't stand to see speakers, so audio systems are made to be extremely small with a subwoofer to compromise for the small speakers. Then the "basshead" idiots decided that every sound system should have such a strong bass boost that you can't hear anything else, and they tell people that a subwoofer is required in order to listen to music.

[Shocker]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Regarding LCDs...they're also really bright and can't be turned down to a comfortable level.

Anything else to say???

[Phaihn]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Regarding LCDs...they're also really bright and can't be turned down to a comfortable level.

Anything else to say???

mine can i just did. it has 4 settings but i got it in 2007

[Wester547]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

The only new computer I have purchased only lasted three months.

Three months is an awfully short span of time... do you know what the cause of its death was, if I may ask? D:

[mariushm]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

False.

Of course the kernels aren't identical, but the foundational codebase for them is. The interface is also the same, save for some trivial differences between versions.....but saying you've used S2k3 but not XP is folly....they were almost identical. Saying win9x and ME were the same as win2k is also bogus. Win2k was built on NT4 (aka NT5). Win2k didn't have an x86 64 bit version, only Itanium. S2k3 and xp pro x64 were the first ones for the x86 platform...as I said before... As mentioned in the wiki, a lot of the features of 9x/ME were implemented into w2k, but the kernels were not the DOS based crap that 9x/ME were. XP/S2k3/x64 were all derivatives of win2k. I'm not sure what black hole they pulled Vista out of...and probably dont want to know...

False,again.

Windows 2000 64-bit is a branch different than the one for Itanium, because the architectures of amd x64 and itanium are not compatible.

The development was done initially on Alpha AXP servers :

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...fidential.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/...1/4155462.aspx

It was about the size of a small refrigerator and generated about as much noise as a vacuum cleaner. It contained four—count 'em, four!—Alpha AXP processors, each running at a mind-boggling 400 MHz. It had one gigabyte of RAM and thirteen gigabytes of hard drive space, striped over a dozen fast SCSI drives. This may sound puny today, but back in the 1990s, these Alpha AXP machines were the envy of the block and made you the popular kid at the lunch table.
[...]
The 64-bit Windows project was already well under way, and of the 64-bit processors under consideration, only the Alpha AXP was actually available in physical form. The Intel Itanium was still under development and ran only in a simulator, and the AMD64 architecture hadn't even been invented yet. As a result, 64-bit Windows was initially developed on the Alpha AXP.

As Compaq announced they're gonna retire Alpha AXP servers, Microsoft merged the code with the Itanium branch and continued development. But for a while, there was a Windows 2000 64 bit running on Alpha AXP servers.

The fact is the kernels of xp 32 bit and xp 64 bit are different branches. if you export the functions in the kernel and libraries, you'll see the xp 32 bit doesn't even have functions available in the 64 bit kernel.

There were teams working on XP and teams working on 2003, with years worth of fixes and changes between them (because the 32bit xp kernel was frozen at release), and in the end they just decided to add the features from xp to the 2003 64 bit kernel rather than patching the xp 32 bit branch to 64 bit.

Anyway, let's just drop it, it's pointless to argue about it.

lti : the blue tint is caused by the led backlight.

There's no such thing as white leds, all leds are actually somewhat light blue with a material covering the light emitter (phosphorus and other chemicals). Can't really get perfect white.

Blame the market, it demanded thin lcds so you got led based lights.

[Phaihn]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

the system i am useing right i now i built my self.
its has a gigabyte Motherboard amd 2.5 ghz dual core cpu 8gbs of ddr3

A75M-S2V MB
A4 3300 APU
Kingston Memory
Nvidia GTX 275

[lti]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

Three months is an awfully short span of time... do you know what the cause of its death was, if I may ask? D:

I don't know yet. The software I had installed on it started to do strange things, and Windows became unstable two months later. It is now six months old and still under warranty, so I keep sending it to Toshiba's repair center and having them replace a random part, fail to perform any long-term stability testing, and send it back to me without fixing the stability issues.

[mockingbird]

Re: Newer stuff that isn't better

LAPTOPS.

I'm looking at some older Compaq and Dell laptops from way back when... They were built like tanks with thick plastic that was meant to last... Today the laptops are flimsy, even those fancy new HP Envy or Dell XPS...

Now manufacturers are not building for men anymore... They have to appeal to women, kids, and emos... I liked when technology catered to educated, middle-class men with a disposable income. Stuff was ugly, but it lasted forever.

Marius, according to you, therw ould be some benefit of moving to W2K3 (If you could get rid of AD and all the other baggage)!? If the API and Kernel is different, why does W2K3 use the same exact drivers!?