# 25 Worst computer products of all time!



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I thought this was pretty interesting. Laughable that AOL made #1 on the list especially considering their recent plight.

Full Article

1. America Online (1989-2006) more
2. RealNetworks RealPlayer (1999) more
3. Syncronys SoftRAM (1995) more
4. Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000) more
5. Sony BMG Music CDs (2005) more
6. Disney The Lion King CD-ROM (1994) more
7. Microsoft Bob (1995) more
8. Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (2001) more
9. Pressplay and Musicnet (2002) more
10. dBASE IV (1988) more
11. Priceline Groceries and Gas (2000) more
12. PointCast (1996) more
13. IBM PCjr. (1984) more
14.Gateway 2000 10th Anniversary PC (1995) more
15. Iomega Zip Drive (1998) more
16. Comet Cursor (1997) more
17. Apple Macintosh Portable (1989) more
18. IBM Deskstar 75GXP (2000) more
19. OQO Model 1 (2004) more
20. CueCat (2000) more
21. Eyetop Wearable DVD Player (2004) more
22. Apple Pippin @World (1996) more
23. Free PCs (1999) more
24. DigiScents iSmell (2001) more
25. Sharp RD3D Notebook (2004) more


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I worked closely with the Microsoft people who were developing Bob. Its worst sin was being Windows 3.1-and-a-half just as Windows 95 caught on like wildfire, so it became instantly obsolete.

I'm disappointed that the article didn't mention Bob's innovations as the article did for most of the other "worst"s. I learned a lot about usability from the team that thought long and hard about what the perfect 3.1 interface ought to be, and I see nuggets of what they came up with in Microsoft products even now. 

For example, when users want help, it's because they want to do something in particular. Putting popular questions in a menu makes it easier for more unsophisticated users to find the answers they need. Now you see menus for common tasks and other suggestions in just about every Microsoft product.

It's ironic that the "worst" before Bob is the WinG debacle caused by The Lion King CD-ROM. Bob also relied on WinG, and that was another reason Windows 95 was better.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

They forgot Windows XP Professional 64 Bit (2006). :barf:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

CueCat (RS) was a disappointment. I thought it had potential.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I had several Iomega zip drives including one that died from the click of death. Thought they were cool at the time and didn't mind paying $10 for a blank disk. I never could make any of them work with WinXP. I still have an external MAC version in a box somewhere. I'll ship it free to anyone here who wants it. (really):lol:


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

The article is actually entitled worst _"tech"_products of all time. I was surprised to see IE6 on the list but contrary to my initial belief that it was OK, as so many were happy with it, the article made it clear it got the black mark due to the number of security issues. I really never had any problems with it and still use it but absent a popup blocker, spyware detector one could suffer all the claims of the article.

In the early days, I'd also place the PC incompatibles on the list, especially those that claimed to be PC compatible 90%. Funny how I was always the one to pick most of the software I wanted to rn classified in the 10% that didn't work. I had the Tandy 1000 that was said to be 90% PC compatible.

CPM OS was another that drove me nuts in the early days.

Thanks for the interesting read dude.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I don't think many of the early dot matrix printers were PC compatible although they claimed to be.:lol: I remember the old Okidata and Panasonic models that took three days to figure out and resolve the IRQ errors. We were reading the crappy support manuals and spending hours on the phone trying to get the stupid things to work and learning all the while. Thank goodness MS finally got the plug-n-play interface down. I'm not afraid of a challenge but I like that big red "easy button" as well.

I went through growing pains in the mechanical engineering realm as well. We used old DOS and Unix based software that was somewhat powerful but incredibly stupid in the same breath. Today, I use 100% PC compatible stuff that, right out of the box, works and is more powerful than what NASA used just 25 years ago.

Don - sorry for the thread title error.

Be sure and read the dishonorable mention page too!


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

The reason why most PnP devices work today with windows, is that MS has made a huge collection of drivers available in the OS. In the old days one needed to install the drivers manually and often these were not compatible with current version of the OS, in addtion, many used duplicate file names that conflicted with other devices you installed. Today, with MS managing the driver files, they can control duplicate file names as one of many trouble sources.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Showing my age, I'll say DOS4.0 is the worst OS ever.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

DonLandis said:


> The reason why most PnP devices work today with windows, is that MS has made a huge collection of drivers available in the OS. In the old days one needed to install the drivers manually and often these were not compatible with current version of the OS, in addtion, many used duplicate file names that conflicted with other devices you installed. Today, with MS managing the driver files, they can control duplicate file names as one of many trouble sources.


I agree. The other day I plugged in a Brother laserjet to my home PC. In less than a minute XP found it, configured and popped up a message saying it was ready to use. I didn't even use the driver disc that came with the printer.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

My mother installed a new printer this week, and she is in the running for being the least tech savvy person in the U.S.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Bogy said:


> My mother installed a new printer this week, and she is in the running for being the least tech savvy person in the U.S.


My congrats (not congrads ) to Mom for her achievement.

She has a lot of competition for _that_ title.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

ntexasdude said:


> 14.Gateway 2000 10th Anniversary PC (1995) more


:lol: Yeah, I got suckered into buying this POS.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I have been using Windows ME on my Tecra 8100 notebook for over five years. I even developed Windows software on that machine and I still use it almost every day without experiencing any major stability problems. In fact, that 650 mHz machine runs almost as fast as my 3GHz Thinkpad G41 running XP.

So I can't find any reason to bash Windows ME.

--- CHAS


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I would have added internet appliances (Audrey, iPaq, etc), Divx, Sony Clie, colored PCs, and the Dishplayer. 

Honorable mentions due to poor marketing and low demand, Mini Disc and 802.11A


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

HIPAR said:


> I have been using Windows ME on my Tecra 8100 notebook for over five years. I even developed Windows software on that machine and I still use it almost every day without experiencing any major stability problems. In fact, that 650 mHz machine runs almost as fast as my 3GHz Thinkpad G41 running XP.
> 
> So I can't find any reason to bash Windows ME.
> 
> --- CHAS


I think the main reason ME was considered so bad was because it was too limited in what it could do. 3rd party support is one area of concern. Even Microsoft, today, admits ME was their worst OS for support issues where stuff just didn't work. Because you didn't have any problems, indicates you were either just lucky or weren't a "power user" I, too have a friend who had ME and was fine until he tried to use it with a new printer and USB. His son, an MSCSE finally installed XP and all his USB and printer issues went away!


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I remember upgrading to ME because Win95 version B didn't have USB support and I needed it for my Sony minidisc player.

I loved my minidisc and I still have it and it still works just fine. However flash memory players are a more elegant solution now.

BTW, I never really had issues with ME either. And to be honest, I remember buying an upgrade copy of XP at Wal-Mart but I can't remember why.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> I would have added...Sony Clie...


I love my Sony Clie. I've had two of them and my wife has one. It does everything I want, including functioning as an MP3 and video player.

I never had any real problems with ME either. I upgraded to ME because the ICS worked much better on ME than it did on 98.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Bogy said:


> I never had any real problems with ME either.


Same here. I have yet to have had any trouble installing anything, hardware or software on ME. In the meantime, my friends with XP are constantly calling me to fix their "broken" systems.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

I thought I would skip XP (went from 95 to ME, waiting for Vista), but upgraded from ME to XP SP2 a couple months ago. With ME, after some seemingly random amount of time, I wouldn't be able to use any shortcuts (Start>Programs, Start bar Quick Links, desk icons). I had to get to the source folder, use Start>Run, or somtimes a SysTray icon to do the same. Also, clicking a file without an extension would frequently, but not always, take well over a minute to bring up the list of applications to open the file with. Both problems solved, and boot-up is much faster too. One snafu though - my SCSI-2 card isn't supported by XP and the only drivers I could find caused lockups. Managed to find a replacement card at a very reasonable price that should be compatible but haven't had time to put it in.

I carefully read each of the 25 entries and didn't see the Commodore 64 anywhere :scratch: ::ducks and runs::


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

BobaBird said:


> ...................I carefully read each of the 25 entries and didn't see the Commodore 64 anywhere :scratch: ::ducks and runs::


Wasn't that a rock band back in the 70's or something?:lol:


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Okay, where are all the rest of the gadget guru moderators? Surely they have a comment or two.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HIPAR said:


> In fact, that 650 mHz machine runs almost as fast as my 3GHz Thinkpad G41 running XP.


Me never slowed down because Microsoft bailed on it before it had a chance to get mired in updates. If you like Me, you'd really like 98se as it is in almost all ways superior.


> So I can't find any reason to bash Windows ME.


You don't get out much do you?

Here's a few of the most popular problems with Me:

1. That damned System Recovery feature that took up lots of space and rarely worked (the same can be said of Windows XP's version).
2. Exceedingly limited driver support
3. That Microsoft declared it dead two years ago while supporting Windows 98 up until two months ago.

I've seen a canonical list on the www that lists over 1000 "issues" with Windows Me. I think they may have renamed the Me list to the XP list and taken out the driver related issues. Me was borne out of the recognition that XP was too resource intensive to run on the existing desktops of the day. They should have left well enough alone and designed the Third World version of XP instead.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Bogy said:


> I love my Sony Clie. I've had two of them and my wife has one. It does everything I want, including functioning as an MP3 and video player.
> 
> I never had any real problems with ME either. I upgraded to ME because the ICS worked much better on ME than it did on 98.


I agree about the Clie - mine's worked flawlessly - now the Palm M500 - now THERE'S a piece of crap.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

harsh said:


> .................1. That damned System Recovery feature that took up lots of space and rarely worked (the same can be said of Windows XP's version).................


Was that all MS's fault, didn't they buy that kernel from Roxio?


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Regarding Windows ME -- I upgraded to it from 98 because I was assured by a MS marketer that it corrected USB issues that 98 had. She was dead wrong, and I had worse stability issues with it. I reverted to 98 very quickly.

As to the PCjr. I wouldn't put it on the list for a number of reasons. It actually was quite innovative for the time. The PCjr was cursed because of the "chiclet"keyboard that IBM released with it. The heads at IBM thought it would make the jr. more attractive for children. aIBM took a lot of lumps for that, andeventually came out with a better keyboard that they offered for free to owners of the "chiclet" keyboard. At the time the jr was released, it had better color and graphics capability than its big brother. The idea of cartridge based software was sheer genius, but was limited by memory addressing at the time (Electric Desk was cartridge based and included a nifty word processor, spreadsheet and flat database). Andrew Tobias" Managing Your Money was a very useful financial management tool. The biggest problem with cartridges was one of handling patches and software updates. The PCjr had good expansion capability, with expanded memory capabiliity and a DMA interface that was never put to use (the lines were all available at the expansion interface). IBM subcontracted the design and development of an expansion unit that would take advantage of the jr's capabilities, but it never went to market, partly because it was taking long to develop, partly because it would have hurt PC sales and partly because it was felt that people wouldn't buy enough to make it a profitable product. There were lots of hacks for the jr, including memory expansion, second disk interfaces and hard disk controllers. I had two PCjrs at one time -- with 640K of memory, 2 disk drives. When I was still working with IBM, I ran a corporate PCjr users' forum and exchanged a fair amount of info with the subcontractor (whose name I forget) and with a scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University who had developed hacks including the second disk interface and modification of IBM's addon memory modules to allow expansion to a full 640K of memory (64K internal and 512K in the expansion module).

The zip drive was bad news -- slow speed and limited disk capacity. Iomega came out with a faster drive with greater capacity, but it never really caught on. 

I would have added QIC tape backup units to the list.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

I'll add one to the list but this may not quite qualify. You all be the judge of that but this is one that has bothered me for as long as DVD's been out!

I hate it when a DVD maker puts a 4:3 version on one side of the DVD and then puts the uncut OAR version on the other side. Then they don't have space for a clear label on which side is which. You have to dig out the magnefying lens to read the 2 point text on the hub that reads- This side for full screen, Other side for widescreen. OK, I can figure out which version I want but some DVD's label the full screen on the same side while other makers label it on the opposite side thinking you put it in with the label up. About half the DVD's I get have the label for full screen on the actual side of the wide screen. 

To make matters worse, they go one step more in the road to confuse and deceive. They start out the previews in full screen or letterboxed on the widescreen side and then switch to anamorphic for the feature and then the added features are in full screen on the wide screen side. I'm having to reset my monitor as I progress through the DVD's content. The other night I rented a DVD that I had to switch first to full screen then to letterboxed wide screen then to anamorphic, then back to full screen for the features, all on the same side as labeled "other side for widescreen." The full screen side was all the same 4:3 cropped stuff.

There is a simple solution to all this- ALL DVD feature movies should be in OAR and preferably anamorphic widescreen. They should be made one side only with a full label printed on the DVD. Made for TV videos can be full screen since many were produced that way6 but if produced for widescreen TV, then that should be the way it should be presented. If the makers are so compelled to do "Full screen" then sell a version like that separately and charge for all that additional editing to get the full screen edited version. If people had to pay for all that additional editing, then they would soon buy the right monitor to watch DVD's.
Finally one more gripe- Language: ALL DVD's sold in the USA should be required by FTC regulation to have English Language audio, even if dubbed. IF NOT then the DVD MUST be clearly labeled on the front cover what language the DVD is in. I hate it when I rent a DVD and get home to discover the Language is Polish and it is not mentioned anywhere on the cover. ( I said Polish but in reality, I have had the experience more with French films than any other producing country. Yiou want to sell your cheap low budget movie in the US then state very clearly that it is in French language only. At least the Asians will 99% of the time dub the voice track.


I have more but, the summary is DVD's that do not follow any normal acceptaed practice for sale in the USA. 


Note- Please do not argue about bars and not filling your TV screen. That is old hat and doesn't fly. You want to watch a feature movie made for the big screen on an oldfashion analog TV set then you need to make some sacrifice to watch something that was not designed for your TV set. Let the rest of us who installed the proper display devices for DVD version of feature films see them as they were intended to be seen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Cholly said:


> As to the PCjr. I wouldn't put it on the list for a number of reasons. It actually was quite innovative for the time. The PCjr was cursed because of the "chiclet"keyboard that IBM released with it.


It was precisely the Freeboard that made the PC Jr. what it was!


> At the time the jr was released, it had better color and graphics capability than its big brother.


But not a whole lot better than the competition from Tandy, Apple , Commodore, TI and Atari.


> The idea of cartridge based software was sheer genius


It isn't like the PC Jr. introduced cartridges. The PC Jr. was too little, too late. If they had marketed it through Radio Shack as an advanced Coco, they may have had something.


> I would have added QIC tape backup units to the list.


QIC tape drives were where the lie of 50% compression was born. If the goal is blistering speed, the answer lies in running the device off the floppy interface... shyuh!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> I would have added internet appliances (Audrey, iPaq, etc), Divx, Sony Clie, colored PCs, and the Dishplayer...


They say you always remember your first love. :sure:

I got my first PVR, the DishPlayer in 2000 and was still a fan when I retired it last year in favor of digital cable. I would agree with adding the DP to the list based on the experiences of quite a number of unhappy DP users early on, but once Dish got the software right, it transformed from a frog into a princess, so to speak. I still remember the DishPlayer with fondness, with her elegant EPG and the versatile on-screen search feature with that nifty wireless IR keyboard.

Sure, the SA Explorer HD DVR I have now is rock-solid and has a bigger HDD, but the EPG is a bit clunky. It could learn a few lessons in style from the DP. Living in a perfect world, I would have an HD version of the DP with a 1000Gb hard drive, but then Tivo would probably come after my ass. 

Oh, and a 100" plasma display!


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

DonLandis said:


> I'll add one to the list but this may not quite qualify. You all be the judge of that but this is one that has bothered me for as long as DVD's been out!
> ..............


I agree Don, the DVD format debacle is truly maddening. Even *IF*you can find the exact format on the case, it's usually in print so small you can't read it.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Yeah, the DP is definitely the subject of a love/hate relationship in my house. I hear that the Standard/Daylight time change is now handled ok from others, not in my house. And 10 days ago it lost *all* of my events as I was wondering why the 200th Stargate SG-1 episode hadn't recorded. Looking at the PTV listing I saw it end, to my horror, at the earliest recording - no future events AT ALL. Had to redo every show. 

The nastiest part about the DP is that you can't predict it. I mean, if there was a "If you do A, B, then C, the resulting Bug Z will happen", I could live with that...


----------

