4 ms·

What makes Google Maps bad? My computer in 1983 didn't have a map application at all, how can Google Maps possibly be bad compared to that? And if I had had a

by Arnt 7y ago

What makes Google Maps bad? My computer in 1983 didn't have a map application at all, how can Google Maps possibly be bad compared to that? And if I had had a map application (I'm sure they existed) it would have taken several minutes to load from cassette tape. That's not faster than Google Maps, either perceptually or objectively.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The article explains all the ways that make Google Maps' UI bad. Your paper map or driver's atlas in 1983 offered better xref functionality. As they do in 2020, if you can still find them. Sure, hardware progressed in the past 40 years. CPUs are faster, storage is larger, we have a global network. But it's all irrelevant to the point that Google Maps UI is optimized for being a point-by-point nav/ad delivery tool, not a map. That's an absolute statement, not relative to last century's technology.
- Arnt 7y ago
  I have several atlases and IMO they have considerable advantages over Google Maps. As does Google Maps over them. But none of that is relevant to the matter at hand: "Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than in 1983".
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    Thus far in this thread nobody has offered any counterpoint to the speed argument. The first PC we bought at home was a 133MHz Pentium. My current box is a Ryzen 3700 at 16*3.6GHz. It doesn't feel like I have that much more power at my disposal doing everyday things. Web browsers aren't 400 times faster today than Internet Explorer was in 1995. They should be. Even if you account for all the extra stuff that's going on today things should be at least 50 times faster. Why aren't they?
    - welly 7y ago
      Try running Google Maps on your 133Mhz Pentium.
      - gsich 7y ago
        I am sure that Microsoft Autoroute was available for that era. It probably was also faster then Google Maps is today.
        Arnt 7y ago
        Apparently Microsoft Autoroute was first released in 1988, covered several dozen countries, and could be obtained by ordering it. Thus using it for the first time would involve a delay or at least a day in order to order, receive and install the program. After that, starting it should be quick, but I can't tell whether it required inserting the CD into the drive. Even if the appliocation is already installed on the PC and not copy-protected, looking something up doesn't sound obviously faster than opening a web page, typing the name of the location into the search box, and waiting for the result.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        It's not the "looking up a thing" part that would be faster. It's the "looking up the next thing", the "and the next after that" parts that would be.
        dragontamer 7y ago
        And you had to wait for new CDs to arrive by mail whenever roads changed. And I'm not talking "2 day delivery Amazon with UPS updates" here, I'm talking you send an envelope + check into the mail and maybe a month from now you get a CD back. It didn't actually work that well. The internet is the only real way you can get a Google-maps like autoroute feature with reasonable update times. Constantly buying new CDs and DVDs on a subscription basis is a no-go for sure. I don't think anyone's 56kb modem was fast enough to update the map data. Even if you bought the CDs for the updated map data, it only was updated every year IIRC. So there was plenty of roads that simply were wrong. Its been a long time since I used it, but Google Maps is better at the actual core feature: having up to date maps, and an up-to-date route information. Hint: Microsoft wasn't sending around Google cars to build up its database of maps in the 90s. Nor were there public satellite images released by the government to serve as a starting point for map data. (Satellite imagery was pure spycraft. We knew governments could do it, but normal people did NOT have access to that data yet). The maps were simply not as accurate as what we have today, not by a long shot. -------- Has anyone here criticizing new software actually live in the 90s? Like, there's a reason that typical people didn't use Microsoft Autoroute and other map programs. Not only was it super expensive, it required some computer know-how that wasn't really common yet. And even when you got everything lined up just right, it still had warts. The only thing from the 90s that was unambiguously better than today's stuff was like... Microsoft Encarta, Chips Challenge and Space Cadet Pinball. Almost everything else is better today.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
It's worse than Google Earth.
pjc50 7y ago
There was the BBC Domesday book that let you scroll around annotated maps on a BBC micro. They loaded in near-realtime from laserdisc. It was fantastically expensive, and also so tightly tied to its technology that it was impossible to emulate for years. I believe around 2010 the BBC managed to get it on the web, but this seems to have died again.
sixothree 7y ago
I did have map applications in 1993.

by Arnt 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The article explains all the ways that make Google Maps' UI bad. Your paper map or driver's atlas in 1983 offered better xref functionality. As they do in 2020, if you can still find them. Sure, hardware progressed in the past 40 years. CPUs are faster, storage is larger, we have a global network. But it's all irrelevant to the point that Google Maps UI is optimized for being a point-by-point nav/ad delivery tool, not a map. That's an absolute statement, not relative to last century's technology.

Arnt 7y ago
I have several atlases and IMO they have considerable advantages over Google Maps. As does Google Maps over them. But none of that is relevant to the matter at hand: "Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than in 1983".
- kungtotte 7y ago
  Thus far in this thread nobody has offered any counterpoint to the speed argument. The first PC we bought at home was a 133MHz Pentium. My current box is a Ryzen 3700 at 16*3.6GHz. It doesn't feel like I have that much more power at my disposal doing everyday things. Web browsers aren't 400 times faster today than Internet Explorer was in 1995. They should be. Even if you account for all the extra stuff that's going on today things should be at least 50 times faster. Why aren't they?
  - welly 7y ago
    Try running Google Maps on your 133Mhz Pentium.
    - gsich 7y ago
      I am sure that Microsoft Autoroute was available for that era. It probably was also faster then Google Maps is today.
      - Arnt 7y ago
        Apparently Microsoft Autoroute was first released in 1988, covered several dozen countries, and could be obtained by ordering it. Thus using it for the first time would involve a delay or at least a day in order to order, receive and install the program. After that, starting it should be quick, but I can't tell whether it required inserting the CD into the drive. Even if the appliocation is already installed on the PC and not copy-protected, looking something up doesn't sound obviously faster than opening a web page, typing the name of the location into the search box, and waiting for the result.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        It's not the "looking up a thing" part that would be faster. It's the "looking up the next thing", the "and the next after that" parts that would be.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        And you had to wait for new CDs to arrive by mail whenever roads changed. And I'm not talking "2 day delivery Amazon with UPS updates" here, I'm talking you send an envelope + check into the mail and maybe a month from now you get a CD back. It didn't actually work that well. The internet is the only real way you can get a Google-maps like autoroute feature with reasonable update times. Constantly buying new CDs and DVDs on a subscription basis is a no-go for sure. I don't think anyone's 56kb modem was fast enough to update the map data. Even if you bought the CDs for the updated map data, it only was updated every year IIRC. So there was plenty of roads that simply were wrong. Its been a long time since I used it, but Google Maps is better at the actual core feature: having up to date maps, and an up-to-date route information. Hint: Microsoft wasn't sending around Google cars to build up its database of maps in the 90s. Nor were there public satellite images released by the government to serve as a starting point for map data. (Satellite imagery was pure spycraft. We knew governments could do it, but normal people did NOT have access to that data yet). The maps were simply not as accurate as what we have today, not by a long shot. -------- Has anyone here criticizing new software actually live in the 90s? Like, there's a reason that typical people didn't use Microsoft Autoroute and other map programs. Not only was it super expensive, it required some computer know-how that wasn't really common yet. And even when you got everything lined up just right, it still had warts. The only thing from the 90s that was unambiguously better than today's stuff was like... Microsoft Encarta, Chips Challenge and Space Cadet Pinball. Almost everything else is better today.

BlueTemplar 7y ago

It's worse than Google Earth.

pjc50 7y ago

There was the BBC Domesday book that let you scroll around annotated maps on a BBC micro. They loaded in near-realtime from laserdisc. It was fantastically expensive, and also so tightly tied to its technology that it was impossible to emulate for years. I believe around 2010 the BBC managed to get it on the web, but this seems to have died again.

sixothree 7y ago

I did have map applications in 1993.