Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Sunsetting Old Version of Google Maps

Posted by timothy on from the nothing-beats-mapblast's-vector-directions dept.

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."

24 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. The new version is terrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The old version has the zoom controls where they should be and has less zooming animations and is much clearer to use all respects.

    1. Re:The new version is terrible! by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I didn't even know that the old one was still available, so I've been forced to use the new one. And despite all of the usage, I still hate it. Do they not focus test these sort of things?

      The "clearer to use" thing is absolutely true, there's all of these buttons that do things that the vast majority of users are never going to want to do, and the functionality that people do all the time is buried. I've had to search online for how to do simple tasks way more often than I should have.

      At least it's not the worst revamp I've had to deal with - the worst has to be GIMP, no contest.

      --
      *Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
    2. Re:The new version is terrible! by edawstwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess I'll have to roll out my usual feedback to Google when they change something: "Stop fixing shit that isn't broken."

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    3. Re:The new version is terrible! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      They focus test for all the advertising spam that pops shows up instead of what you're really trying to search for.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:The new version is terrible! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do they not focus test these sort of things?

      I think they focus test it by showing it to all the other google employees and saying something like:

      a: Hey look at this it's really cool
      b: ooh shiny let me have a play
      a: yeah but checkout this cool animation
      b: sweet that's awesome
      a: yeah, oh and this we made the area for viewing cool ainmations bigger by removing all the ui
      b: so how do I...?
      a: yeah just type "OK Maps" into the search bar
      b: oh cool that's really clever
      a: so, ship it right?
      b: yeah! this is way better than the old one!

      So if you're on a permanent high speed wired connection (or 4G), have a very top-end computer and spend more time scrolling round and looking at pretty stuff than actually using it as a map (who needs to actually leave SF anyway?) then it's way better.

      For everyone else not actually located at Mountain View, it sucks.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:The new version is terrible! by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Informative

      To return to the old version:

      1. Go to maps.google.com
      2. Click on the ? icon in the lower right corner
      3. Click "return to classic Google Maps"

      But there doesn't seem to be a way to make it permanent.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:The new version is terrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone remember why they switched to Google for all of their internet searches? I do: Lycos, Altavista, and others had become bloated, ad-laden, pieces of crap, while google.com was a plain white page with nothing but a text box, a search button, and the google logo (the search also gave superior results). It is the same story with maps.google. The old maps are superior, not because I'm a whiny curmudgeon who hates change, but because this new version is bloated with 'cool' (useless) features and runs like a dog, even on high end hardware.

      Either google never understood why they became the dominant search engine, or they quickly forgot during their whirlwind of success. There must be something about power and money that makes people stupid. I wouldn't know.

    7. Re:The new version is terrible! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the Google Maps support forum, there was a long ongoing discussion about the "new" maps.

      People overwhelmingly hated it.

      It is harder to use, some features don't work anymore (or at least not as well as they did), etc.

      It seemed to faze them not at all. Google asked people details about just exactly they didn't like, and why... and changed none of it.

    8. Re:The new version is terrible! by ZipK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To return to the old version...

      Oh. My. God. I forgot how nice Google maps was without that awful, intrusive box in the upper left hand corner. Having all of my window real estate to look at the *map* is just incredible!

    9. Re:The new version is terrible! by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does anyone remember why they switched to Google for all of their internet searches? I do: Lycos, Altavista, and others had become bloated, ad-laden, pieces of crap, while google.com was a plain white page with nothing but a text box, a search button, and the google logo (the search also gave superior results).

      They fucked that one up too. Back then Altavista, etc searched by default with boolean OR, so typing more keywords resulted in vaguer results unless you added a "+" in front of each word for Boolean AND. When google came out the default was boolean AND.

      Some time in the past couple years they went to a fuzzy logic boolean OR / synonyms of words you typed. You could force the AND for your exact word with a "+". They removed that and now you have to put each word in quotes to ensure it only looks up exactly the words you type.

    10. Re:The new version is terrible! by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, gee, perhaps I should just mouseover to see what each button does? Oh yeah that's right, there's not even a bloody mouseover for half of the buttons. Gotta just try clicking them and seeing what happens.

      Lets look at your list. 5 bloody buttons for Google Integration. Which again, the vast majority of people using Google Maps want nothing to do with. "Gee, I need directions to my friend's house. I could really use a button to open up Google Drive right now!" And hey, let's put them in top of the screen where most people expect to find their most important controls!

      Hey, that view type? The one in the lower left, which is probably the least likely place a person would look for it? Let's make that only represent half of the possibilities for the view type! Let's put the other half in the upper left right near the directions button!

      Hey, pictures? Let's make them suddenly appear when you turn on satellite. But not on the map - my god no, why would you want to know where on the map the pictures are? Let's make them take up a massive thumbbar at the bottom of your screen, clearly people will want that! What, people are complaining? Okay, let's put a tiny line when you mouseover the image that only emphasizes how the ordering of the images has no correlation to where they are on the map.

      There's three buttons on the bottom right, to the right of the streetview person. Let's see what each of them do. PSYCH! Haha, gotcha, they're all just one button, and it's not even a button, just a toggle to the annoying "photo bar". The seemingly disconnected arrow icon is the same thing.

      Clearly we've now got too much stuff on the screen, so let's take away people's ability to choose their zoom level, because nobody gives a rat's arse about that, what they really want is a quick link to Google Drive!

      Language input is in the upper left. Language choice is in the setting bar on the lower right. Making a route is in the lower left. Sharing a link to the route is in the setting bar on the lower right. And of course, all of the stuff on the lower right is below a bloody link to what you've been searching for on Google, as if that has any bloody purpose in being there whatsoever. But a link to My Maps? No no, not there! It's in the bloody suggested searches entry on the upper left.

      Whatever flock of drunken geese designed the interface should never be allowed to touch design again.

      --
      *Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
    11. Re:The new version is terrible! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I started using bing.com for maps

      You bastard! You complete, utter bastard! Just out of curiosity I tried Bing maps and... it's everything Google maps isn't. I now actually like a Microsoft product.

      Some day, I'll get you for this.

  2. Worked well by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, the one that actually worked well?
    Thanks, Google!

  3. Artificial obsolence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Artificial obsolence by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. When Google Reader was shut down, I switched to Tiny Tiny RSS. I didn't want to just go to some other system that I didn't control and that would end up being changed or closed in a couple years. Now I have a system that works, and I don't have to worry about someone else shutting it down. As long as I can find a hosting service with Apache and PHP, it will work for me.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Meh, New-Maps. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Hope your hardware is this-year modern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Android by excursive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Missing features. by jaa101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But you can't choose the distance units any more. It defaults to where you are or you can say you're in the US and it will show you miles or you can say you're in Australia and you'll get kilometres, &c. Too bad if you want nautical miles, which the old version allowed you to select, along with many other units.

  8. Re:Confusing by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When new managers come in they want to make their mark. Therefore the MUST change/destroy previous managers' work and replace it with their own.
    If they don't, they have nothing to put on their resume.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  9. What's up: Sciuridae! by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Hey Mapquest! by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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.
  11. The current URL by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Currently you can use classic with this URL:

    https://www.google.com/maps?ou...

    Since like, no one linked it or mentioned it yet.

  12. Organizations are functional retards by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.