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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Currently you can use classic with this URL:
https://www.google.com/maps?ou...
Since like, no one linked it or mentioned it yet.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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'.