Slashdot Mirror
Google Sunsetting Old Version of Google Maps
New submitter Robertgilberts writes with word that Google is dropping the old version of Maps. The new version of Google Maps came out of preview back in February 2014 and was in beta for several months before that. The only way to access the old version of Google Maps was via a special URL or if you had a very old browser that did not support the new version of Google Maps. Consolation prize: There will still be a lighter-weight version, which "drops out many of the neat Google Maps features in exchange for speed and compatibility."
The old version has the zoom controls where they should be and has less zooming animations and is much clearer to use all respects.
Oh, the one that actually worked well?
Thanks, Google!
This is one problem with web apps. I do not have any ownership of the product and it can be obsoleted arbitrarily by the manufacturer. It's even worse than with closed source apps.
The vectors are shiny but the user interface looks like it was designed by a team of managers more concerned about slickness than usability. Moreover it's only fractionally as powerful as the old system. (Among other things, I bet several people in places like San Francisco are really going to miss the combination bicycle/terrain maps.)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The new version still does not have the Distance Measurement Tool. I still switch to the old version for that feature.
> Consolation prize: There will still be a lighter-weight version, which "drops out many of the neat Google Maps features in exchange for speed and compatibility."
Stop trying to be my best butt buddy, Google, talk like an adult, and we'll get along fine. I don't want to be your fucking friend.
I just wish on the new one you could toggle Traffic on / off without entering in Traffic: and messing up whatever it was you were searching.
Probably a mistake considering the "new" one is next to impossible to use.
Or maybe Evil Google just felt like making it hard for people to look shit up.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
The old version of Google Maps works for the majority of users. The new version of Google Maps has quirky bugs for lots of users who haven't bought a laptop/tablet this month, such as the entire map appearing upside down and/or backwards depending on your hardware. Google is (ab)using OpenGL tweaks that aren't universal by a long shot. So, if you're one of the millions of folks with a graphics card that Google decided not to support anymore, good luck and have fun. Kinda like their support of millions of Android phones - nil, zero, no upgrade for you! Go pay for tomorrow's bleeding edge hardware or be left in the dust, this seems to be Google's new motto.
Attention Google, you and your employees might be doing great financially, the rest of us can't necessarily afford to buy or be given the latest greatest hardware. How about some legacy support.
I still switch back to the old version - on my desktop computer - to (a) print a usable map (the new version has insufficient control of what gets printed); (b) for some distance measurement things, and (c) for simpler toggling between map and street view. What are the features that you find missing in the new version, and is that problematic on a desktop, tablet or phone (I suspect the gaps are different for different interfaces)?
Also by RobertGilberts...
U.S. Stock-Index Futures Drop Before Goldman, Citigroup Earnings
Online Business Accounting Bookkeeping Service
Congratulations on approving an SEO spammer who just happened to submit something on-topic!
Google has "improved" the Android version of Maps so much that I switched to Nokia's Here maps app. It's much easier to use, faster, and I can download maps for offline use.
I haven't seen the new version, but did see the announcement. It looks like I will be switching to another map service since I don't use one of the browsers or OS's on their list of requirements. Too bad I used them often, but when pointy hair managers start making the decisions on what their customers want then end is in sight.
I use open street maps and never looked back. https://www.openstreetmap.org/
Tourist Mode - "Ooooh, a 3D view of Paris! Let's see what our hotel looks like!"
Resident Mode - "I need to confirm the directions to the restaurant I'm meeting my wife at in fifteen minutes and see if my bank has an ATM nearby and I need it right f*cking now."
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I don't understand it. Can someone explain why so many companies intentionally? destroy the usability of their products? The newer version is much more difficult to use when browsing through bus routes.
That is all.
Will anyone be willing to create a working "theoldmaps.com" to go along with "theoldreader.com"? Because the new and nominally-"improved" google maps definitely doesn't work particularly well on my home computer, and having a working google maps is pretty much necessary.
Because it sucks, because it's all the same controls you've come to memorize and then scrambled. It is SLOW and the their new print dialog SUCKS. i encourage anyone bothered by the slowness of new google maps to go to leaflet and just try their demo app on the front page. Google maps data may be more robust but holy shit why can leaflet run so much faster? why do i need a discreet video card to use the new google maps. I've always contributed corrections to google maps. Now I think i will just switch to leaflet and openstreet maps and contribute there. Keep on fucking up google, you literally cannot help yourself anymore so many fucking failure changes and failure new products.
We were already locked out of "Street View" because we refuse to allow Adobe spyware on our computers.
We continued to use the old version of maps until we tried Bing Maps.
Even if you use Street View, you should try Bing for all other mapping functions.
Yes, Google has their collective head firmly lodged in their tight ass.
This became obvious when they killed "Map Buddy".
When you ask for it to draw up directions, the blue line covers up the street name.
You must zoom in (a lot!) to see it.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Accouncement from Google: https://productforums.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!category-topic/maps/Zgqoqsvfipc
Link to use the old version that will shortly no longer work: maps.google.com/maps?output=classic&dg=brw
Does the new lite version of Google Maps work with browsers that don't run javascript? (Hint: the answer is "No".)
Google has a huge interest in forcing people to enable javascript, so they can track users using browser fingerprinting. If users disable javascript and only accept session cookies, they can't easily be tracked; and if they can't be easily tracked, then advertisers like Google can't profit from them.
If you look carefully at the NEW version, you will see that it was designed to support a future PAID subscription version.
Of course they did Focus Testing! So many people complained about the NEW version that Google is confident about the features that will make the PAID version a success.
The PAID version will allow you to configure Maps to funtion like the old version. For legal reasons, the PAID version is not expected to debut until mid 2016.
The old maps satellite image is months more up-to-date than the cute one where I live. But it's ugly! Who wants that on a map?!!
They aren't doing this to improve the user experience with the software. They're doing it to address the perception that "new and shiny" is what people want -- not functionality per se. They're aiming at the user experience of getting something new.
You know that marketing slogan, "sell by showing what problem you solve"? The "problem" that marketers have identified is the public's disinterest in things not new and not shiny -- and lately, not thin.
In my view, incompatibility is a sign of poor vision, poor support, and a lack of respect for those people who have come to you for what you offer. Speaking as a developer, if I come up with new functionality that is incompatible with the old, I add the new functionality without breaking the old. There are almost always many ways that can be done. I never did find a worthy excuse not to do it, either.
It isn't Google, or Apple, or whatever vendor that needs to learn a lesson. It's the public. I don't think it can be taught to them, either.
Squirrel!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Consider these 2 Google Maps views of the same location.
Old Google Maps:
http://i.imgur.com/qtJHOVM.jpg
New Google Maps:
http://i.imgur.com/Yop9CEJ.jpg
The old Google Maps had far higher quality imagery, at least around me.
"Where you been all these years? Looking good old friend!"
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Slashdot was only Beta for a while. Google is Beta all the time.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Currently you can use classic with this URL:
https://www.google.com/maps?ou...
Since like, no one linked it or mentioned it yet.
They have a feedback feature on the new version of Maps. Click on the question mark symbol at the bottom and send them a polite, short note saying that you prefer Classic Maps and ask them not to get rid of it. Maybe if they get enough actual user feedback it will change their minds.
It really is quite incredible how many bad decisions Google makes !
From where I sit it seems it simply MUST be deliberate because even
fools get things right by accident, every so often.
In the old map you could access your "My places" to your bookmarked places. Where is that in the new map? Nowhere. That's right, the one usage of a map is to have your markers on a map and Google managed to fuck that up. Thanks Google your developers sure are smart.
The part I find particularly most frustrating is when you're just messing around, and they have that "predictive" thing going on, that's supposed to show you what they think you're most likely wanting to see. (e.g. larger streets and landmarks have labels, whereas smaller side streets or whatever have been left blank for better overall legibility.)
However, there are times where I have simply wanted to see the street name of an unlabeled street, and the amount of zooming in, out, and panning around just to HOPE the renderer fills in the name is ridiculous.
Dammit, I use the 'measure' tool in classic all the time.
I no longer use Google Maps. On my desktop, the dropdown covers the parts of the map I want to look at, and when I close the dropdown the marked location disappears. What are they thinking!
The 'new' Maps is pretty widely disliked. Google's product forums are littered with threads begging them to not implement this change A couple examples:
Thread 1
and
Thread 2
The new version of Google Maps is erratic. Mouse zoom is sporadic and inconsistent. Sometimes when you search specific business by name, it still gives you the "sponsored" results first. The problem is not that it gives "sponsored" result, it SOMETIMES gives "sponsored" results. It's trying to trick you into clicking on the "sponsored" results and it's really annoying.
It's both too much information and not enough information at the same time. Search for something and it gives you too many irrelevant results. Look on the map and it's doesn't show enough information for me to make a decision. It's everything I hated about Bing Maps when that first came out.
One of the best features of the "old" maps was the historical traffic times. Say I need to be somewhere at 10AM; I can get my route, then some clicketty-click and get what the normal transportation time, with traffic, is. Use that as a guess, with some extra slop and you;ll probably get there on time. I haven't seen this feature in the new maps.
Though hard to bitch about "you get a pretty useful GPS as a (pseudo) freebie*" I hate when Google thinks "yeah, you really want this" when I really don't. Their idea of "you really want this" tends to not be as often as they seem to think. Eg: my distaste for all things Material Design now. Too much wasted space, a big saturated color header with a thin white font inside making it hard to read, too much effort to make that little circle at the bottom right do too many things.
Anyway, rant over.
(*) Free as in "Every google app wants access to your location every second... from Maps (makes sense) Google Now (a bit more sense, but location turned off) to GooglePlus (only google engineers go there anyway) to Google Hangouts (no thanks)"
I've stuck with the old version cause the new one is awful. I don't care about "new features" I just want something that functions, and the newer version kinda sucks.
The new version STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN AND I HATE IT.
It's slow, obnoxious, cluttered and distracting. It behaves oddly, and lacks basic features like putting transit on the map at the same time as search.
It's utterly hateful.
A similar problem besets Google Hangout, which I've been using for a few months now for work. The UI is a catastrophic failure.
Google have totally lost the plot for UI. Maybe all their good people are working on autonomous car driving?
I stayed with classic. I will use it until it goes away. I will try the light version and - as I rather expect - if it stinks like current Maps does, I will change map provider, as the current version of maps is utterly, actually, genuinely unusuable. I *cannot* use it, whether or not I want to isn't even a part of the question.
Keep It Simple Stupid
I have a dual core i7 2.8Ghz laptop with 8Gb of RAM with 2x256 SSD in Raid 0 configuration. Every app runs blazingly fast... except the new Google Maps, which slows the computer down to a crawl. I just ran a set of comparisons and the "new and improved" google maps load times were 3-5x slower than the old google maps.
Moreover, I have yet to find a useful feature in the new maps that is not present in the old version.
This boys and girls is how companies come to be functional retards: anyone can tell the old version is better and it is just a switch of a button away from coming back, but internal politics and committees stop this from happening... as if this wasn't enough, now the company doubles down and makes an even stupider decision: removing the previous, faster and superior version.
This phenomena has been studied by Organizational Management types. Decisions taken by committees often match those taken by a person with an 80 IQ level. In this case, that number would be generous.
Then it's probably not a great time to tell you that the next version of Google Maps will take its inspiration from the new Wired.com, HuffingtonPost.com and Medium.com
(1) my old personal maps (MyPlaces)? I've generated a few over the years that I still refer back to once in a while. I didn't see any migration path to the new version for those.
(2) the custom tools in the old version? One of the most useful for me personally was the distance measuring tool which gave a straight line distance between 2 points (or a series of points) that you marked on a map. Don't think that's there in the new version either.
Loss of these functionality alone means that being forced onto the new version is going to suck.
licet differant, aequabitur
I don't think I have time to list all the ways in which the new Google Maps is broken and inferior to the old one, so I'll just post the one I most recently discovered. Try this in the old version:
1. Search for a location.
2. Watch it place a pin in that location.
3. Switch to satellite view, so you can get an idea of the landscape you'll encounter when you arrive.
4. Watch it do exactly what you expect.
Now try the same thing with the new version. The pin is gone! I guess it might not matter if your location is a main intersection, but when it's someplace like a large park, it matters.
It is really impressive that the phone version of maps can smoothly rotate a map and show a 3D view, but I almost never want this. I do want to scroll to my destination and zoom in, but I invariably get the 3D mode or rotated map. Stop adding cool features.
Over the years I wrote a bunch of applications that generate KML files to be loaded in Google Earth and [if they weren't too big] in Google Maps. The old Google maps made this really easy because you could just put the KML file's URL in the search field and it would load it. The new version makes sharing these a lot harder because you can't just share a URL, you now have to go through importing into My Maps or setting up additional custom displays using the Javascript API.
If anyone knows an easier way to give people a link with which to display render a KML file as an overlay, I'd love to hear it.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
Poor web sites appear to be the norm now. Just look at what they did to the BBC news & sport web sites, the Garmin Connect web site, there are many others. I think website authors & designers are ignoring what users want or need and instead make something that keeps them involved.
Most of these site are now heavily laden with Javascript. All that uncompiled event driven code takes its toll. We need to find a solution and consign Javascript to hell.
New Google Maps doesn't print well, making it undesirable for it's most important use -- taking a map with you.
Of all things, Bing Maps is looking good. I've been using it some already, and will probably fully switch unless Google makes its product properly usable again. Yes, Google is driving me to a Microsoft product. Pigs have grown wings and Hell is looking a bit frosty right now.
I have never successfully printed a map on one page with the new google maps. It makes a godawful mess of it. Most commonly, the map prints in teeny tiny mode that is completely useless.
Clearly, they are favouring smartphones over printed maps which is a real shame because their old product printed maps perfectly. I have tried other maping programs such as mapquest and bingmaps however the address is frequently in the wrong place on both of those.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
If the old Google maps is not available, I will not use Google maps anymore, ever. For a while I played their little game, dutifully giving feedback about all the things that sucked about the changes. Then, I said screw it, if they were listening, this thing would have been removed already. There's probably someone at Google saying "look, there are fewer people complaining about it now, so everyone must have changed their minds". Idiots. Google is not to big to fail, and if they don't start paying attention, someone is going to eat their lunch someday. Oh, and as others have mentioned, their search isn't what it used to be (or should be) either. "How about we put the search box right in the middle of the screen, and then, get this, when they type the first letter in it, we'll make the box fly away into the upper left side of the screen!!! People will love it!!! ". Idiots.
Sorry, there is no closing tag on this rant, at least not until someone understands that the emperor has no clothes.
Wake me up when they support satellite and terrain modes so I can use it outside the big city.
I usually want to type in: a to b. That's it. It's takes so LITTLE TIME. I can 80 words a minute.
Like: Berkeley, CA to Palo Alto, CA.
Done. No drop downs. I type fast. Done. The screen is not covered with ugly things covering up the MAP I want to actually see.
Why do products get worse? Is some moron trying to justify keeping his job so they can fix the new google maps to turn it into some even worse version, or get back 30% of the functionality that has been lost? Every time I log in, I reset to the old maps and fill out the query form saying WHY. I would say that 23 out of 25 of my closest friends feel the same way. Thanks for not caring about what actual people want, Google.
Amazingly but unsurprisingly, Google Earth the 3D package that does about the same thing as the 2D Google maps is like an order of magnitude less demanding on hardware resources. It even requires little GPU performance (a geforce 6100 is more than fine for instance)
So I may recommend it as an alternative if Google Maps is too slow, or if you need something to run on old or very slow hardware. Roads/streets can be enabled with one click - you end up with something that looks like a superposition of plan and aerial photos, and street view is available.
Yet it may fail to display the damn little pictures. At least on linux (ubuntu 14.04 derivate), the embedded browser seems to fail depending on what version you use. Had to rip out "google-earth-stable" from my system, then install "googleearth-package" which is kind of like setup.exe files that act as downloaders for Windows software. Then run "make-googleearth-package" which you can helpfully find by typing "mak" and hitting tab, tab, or by searching for it with such thing as " find /usr -name '*google*' ". How wonderfully user friendly is that!
But unexpectedly, I've just fixed the problem.
It went from version 7.1.2.2041-r0 to version 6.0.3.2197, go figure. It seemed slow at first but that's a matter of repopulating the cache.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Celeron users suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
It's a shame that Google abandoned its motto of "Don't Be Evil"
Fwiw I love the new maps. The new map updates itself as you search and lot more of the screen is used by the map. Plus it's got a version of Google earth that loads instantly which is pretty nice. But people who like the new thing rarely yell about it.
It is not hard to get classic mode in the URL. Just add: .../maps.google.com/maps?output=classic
output=classic
As in my book mark:
To bad this will not work for much longer because the new maps really suck under Linux when you don't enable ALL the google java crap.
Where is Labs? Distance measurement? All those cool add-ons? Where's lat-long tool tips? I find myself using Google products less and less. When they took Reader away I realized that anything and everything can and will be taken away at anytime so I stopped using GMail, Calendar, Tasks, ....
So now I'll be looking for a new Maps replacement. Google's a real buzzkill these days.
J
The new version of maps is slow, half the time it doesn't work, satellite imagery is decades old, streets are shown that don't exist anymore for eons...and no matter how often you send them feedback on this, nothing changes. Yes, I know it is a free service, but free does not have to be 'sucky'.