Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[Michael]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome.  I tried spoofing my useragent to the newest version of Chrome, but I still got the redirect, so it's more than a simple useragent check.  Based on looking at the developer tools, it looks like some sort of JavaScript test that fails.  I hate programming, so I can't write a userscript to force it to work.  I tried looking up code snippets to block the variables from being set, but that didn't work.

The thing that annoys me is that there wasn't any visible change on Maps itself.  It seems to use more CPU on the browsers it does work on though. In addition to the change with Maps, the scores at the top of search result pages for sports are gone unless I use a newer browser.  Facebook has made similar changes in the past, and those annoy me too.  I'd understand not supporting old browsers in a redesign, but in both cases, there hasn't been any visible design change!  It's as if people with old browsers are being "punished".  I've used the "your car is no longer compatible with the road network" analogy before, but after this latest issue, I'd expand that to include the fact that there wasn't any change in the road.

[vdeane]

Just because there wasn't a design change doesn't mean there wasn't a back-end change in the code.  Large programs, apps, and websites have pretty much constant bug fixes, library updates, etc.  That said, "punish people with old hardware/software" seems to be a thing these days now that hardware upgrades aren't spurring people to get new computers and phones as often as was typical in the past.  Amazon just discontinued the ability to watch CBS All Access in their app on my smart TV for no good reason, for example.

[jakeroot]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome..

Why not upgrade your browser?

Chrome certainly isn't a "lite" browser, but I would never consider any version from the past two years as being any better than the current version.

[Eth]

Just because there wasn't a design change doesn't mean there wasn't a back-end change in the code.  Large programs, apps, and websites have pretty much constant bug fixes, library updates, etc.

Exactly this.

I'm a web developer in my day job, and I can promise y'all that we don't just tell you to upgrade your browsers for the hell of it. (Indeed, not infrequently I have to scrap or significantly alter plans for new features specifically because we have to accommodate some customer out there who's still using IE8 or something like that.) It really is a last resort.

[MNHighwayMan]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome..

Why not upgrade your browser?

This. Especially for security reasons. There are very few good reasons to use an old browser these days.

[jakeroot]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome..

Why not upgrade your browser?

This. Especially for security reasons. There are very few good reasons to use an old browser these days.

I can't even think of one reason.

[sprjus4]

Because maybe some people don't want to upgrade their browser?

[MNHighwayMan]

Because maybe some people don't want to upgrade their browser?

Which is idiotic, if it's mere preference.

[sprjus4]

Because maybe some people don't want to upgrade their browser?

Which is idiotic, if it's mere preference.

It's just your opinion. It's not really always "idiotic" .

[ozarkman417]

Because maybe some people don't want to upgrade their browser?

Or they can't upgrade their browser. I'm mainly referring to Windows XP users here, as most if not all the major browsers have cut support for the OS.

[Michael]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome..

Why not upgrade your browser?

Chrome certainly isn't a "lite" browser, but I would never consider any version from the past two years as being any better than the current version.

I'm not a fan of the design changes in newer versions.  If I were a programmer, I suppose I could compile a custom version with the older GUI.

Just because there wasn't a design change doesn't mean there wasn't a back-end change in the code.  Large programs, apps, and websites have pretty much constant bug fixes, library updates, etc.

Exactly this.

I'm a web developer in my day job, and I can promise y'all that we don't just tell you to upgrade your browsers for the hell of it. (Indeed, not infrequently I have to scrap or significantly alter plans for new features specifically because we have to accommodate some customer out there who's still using IE8 or something like that.) It really is a last resort.

I'm suspicious of there being a major under the hood change that actually breaks older browsers because it actually starts loading before it redirects.  As it starts to load, it looks the exact same as it did before the redirect.  Instead of forcing a redirect for browsers older than a certain version, they should have a message bar or popup like YouTube has.  Just because a browser is old, that doesn't mean it won't at least somewhat work.  Before this latest change, if I didn't spoof my useragent, Maps at least gave me a basic map view that I could pan and zoom.  When this latest change happened, I tried Firefox 2 (yes, 2) just to see what would happen.  I got a blank white page, but hey, I guess at least there wasn't a redirect!

As I was typing this post, I thought I'd try a version of Firefox that was released around the same time as my version of Chrome.  I got the redirect, but when I tried to spoof my useragent in about:config, I somehow got Maps to work with just a few CSS glitches.  Even Street View worked!  When I tried again, I couldn't get it to work.  This tells me that it's just a blanket block without any consideration as to if an old browser actually supports the necessary standards.

[MNHighwayMan]

Because maybe some people don't want to upgrade their browser?

Which is idiotic, if it's mere preference.

It's just your opinion. It's not really always "idiotic" .

No. Running older browsers just because you prefer that version is allowing yourself to run a browser with known security exploits. If you want your banking info or other personal information stolen, that's on you. It's still idiotic, though.

Besides that, technology changes, evolves. At some point people need to stop using ancient software.

[J N Winkler]

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

[jakeroot]

I'm not a fan of the design changes in newer versions.  If I were a programmer, I suppose I could compile a custom version with the older GUI.

What design changes? It's looked virtually the same since release.

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

Shortest post ever!

Do tell more. There are Chrome extensions having to do with Tamper Data, but I don't know much about it.

Do you think the negatives of upgrading outweigh the positives? I'm sure there might be a few good reasons, but certainly they don't outweigh the benefits of upgrading. I can understand not upgrading software if the device is never connected to the internet. But for an internet browser itself? Seems like a stretch to try and keep that one out of date.

[Verlanka]

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

Shortest post ever!

I'm sure there are shorter posts out there.

[7/8]

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

Shortest post ever!

I'm sure there are shorter posts out there.

I think Jake meant "shortest J N Winkler post"

[US 89]

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

Shortest post ever!

I'm sure there are shorter posts out there.

yep

[LM117]

I can't even think of one reason.

I can.  Tamper Data.

Shortest post ever!

I'm sure there are shorter posts out there.

yep

Sí

[english si]

Sí

[MNHighwayMan]

 

[Big John]

Short post:

[ftballfan]

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1937941,-86.1845789,14.75z?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1856518,-86.1671143,1103m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1910698,-86.1782038,1094m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

This has been like this on Google Maps for years! Google Maps is way off in this area:
Little River Road and Six Mile Bridge Road are through roads (neither dead end in real life; the paths can be seen from satellite imagery)

Not far from these areas, Carty Road and Lindeman Road, although both dead ends, are short-changed compared to the satellite imagery. It goes double as both roads are paved and county maintained!

[Michael]

I'm not a fan of the design changes in newer versions.  If I were a programmer, I suppose I could compile a custom version with the older GUI.

What design changes? It's looked virtually the same since release.

Even though it was a minor change, my initial compliant was the change from a wrench icon to an ellipsis for the menu icon.  Looking back, that's not a huge deal compared to the changes since then.  I'm one of those people who browse in incognito mode to keep my history from being clogged (from what I've read on the forum, I'm not the only one who does that).  Older versions of Chrome have a clunky "hidden" way to delete incognito cookies without closing all incognito windows.  In an incognito window, I can press [CTRL]+[H] to open my history, but unlike newer versions of Chrome, it opens in the current incognito window instead of opening a regular window.  From the history page, I can click Settings, and ultimately delete individual incognito cookies.

The other design change I don't like is the new Developer Tools.  The old icons for the panes were bigger and easier to click.  In the old Developer Tools, you could click the gear icon at the bottom right to get a screen where you could disable JavaScript and change your useragent.  In newer versions, you can disable JavaScript from the favico in the Omnibox.  To change your useragent, you have to click the ellipsis at the top of the Developer Tools, go to More Tools, then Network Conditions.  Clicking that opens a pane where the console would normally be, and that pane has the option for changing your useragent.  To me, adding more steps to a task is not "improvement".  Also, I prefer having the document tree and CSS side by side instead of above and below each other in the Elements pane.

EDIT: I just found the option to change the Elements pane layout in newer Chrome versions, but the default option is the above and below layout.  I found this setting before, but I forgot about it.

[kphoger]

Sometime within the week or so before September 26th, Google changed something that now forces a redirect to an "upgrade your browser" page when I use my old version of Chrome..

Why not upgrade your browser?

This. Especially for security reasons. There are very few good reasons to use an old browser these days.

I can't even think of one reason.

The computer I'm using isn't mine, so I can't very well just decide to upgrade the browser.  I'm on lunch break at work.  Certain programs I use for work have serious issues with newer versions of both OS and browsers.  For example, in order to get one of my work VPNs to function correctly, I have to use IExplorer (no longer supported) and run it in emulation mode at document mode 8.  Running it in normal IE11 makes absolutely nothing on the internet work as soon as I lock down the VPN–even programs that I access inside of the VPN won't work.  People in other offices (and at other desks in my own office) who never upgrade anything unless they have no choice don't tend to have this sort of problem.

[J N Winkler]

Shortest post ever!

Keeping it short is one way to set the hook . . .

Do tell more. There are Chrome extensions having to do with Tamper Data, but I don't know much about it.

Tamper Data is a Firefox plugin (now no longer being updated and not compatible with current versions of Firefox) that allows inspection of traffic between the browser and the server.  It runs in a separate window and each transaction (client transmission/server response) is on one line.  I use it for writing wget wrapper scripts to automate plan acquisition.  In order to work successfully, wget has to supply headers and postdata of the correct form when they are appropriate (some scripts have an "AjaxHeaders" variable defined for use in cases where a server call requires XMLHttpRequest, and many subroutines have "Confect Postdata" as part of their title).  Tamper Data makes this information available in a form that is easy to work with for coding purposes.

Chrome Developer Tools has some of the same functionality, but in a form that is harder to work with.  (The "Copy request as curl" function that is built in often omits many of the headers that are required for a transaction to succeed.)

In terms of third-party apps, WireShark can track web traffic but cannot penetrate HTTPS encryption.  Fiddler will penetrate ordinary HTTPS using an interposed key (effectively a type of "man in the middle" attack since the traffic is being routed from server to Fiddler to browser), but can do nothing about HTTPS with HTST because the server actually checks that the browser is on the other end of the tunnel.

Do you think the negatives of upgrading outweigh the positives? I'm sure there might be a few good reasons, but certainly they don't outweigh the benefits of upgrading. I can understand not upgrading software if the device is never connected to the internet. But for an internet browser itself? Seems like a stretch to try and keep that one out of date.

From a user point of view, whether the negatives outweigh the positives depends on the specific use cases.  I can say that no longer being able to use Tamper Data would set me back in terms of automation.  However, given that Tamper Data is no longer being developed and there is continuing evolution in how client/server transactions are handled, lack of Tamper Data will become less important in time as a reason not to upgrade Firefox.  And a good point was made upthread about using an up-to-date browser to access banking information.  I personally have been very hesitant to write scripts to access sites that can commit money.  I have done this just once or twice, and in the case I remember best--Indoxservices, back when MoDOT was still using it for plan distribution--I wrote a breakpoint in the code that would parse the account statement page and cause the script to exit if a nonzero total was shown.  (Indoxservices' deal with MoDOT was that there would be a per-sheet charge for plans on paper and a media charge for plans on CD, but none for plans downloaded electronically.  I think MoDOT took plans distribution back in-house when it was realized almost no-one was choosing the pay options.)

I continue to use Firefox because, so far, nothing significant is broken, and I don't normally do banking online.  (I think the banking industry's current approach to two-factor security, with one factor consisting of varying challenge questions, is very badly designed.  I think it should be restricted to a level of access that allows money to be committed, while the customer should have the option of accessing certain types of information, such as statements and a transaction history, through an alternate method that is easily scriptable and does not require access to proprietary software.)  I do have an up-to-date version of Chrome that I can use when a higher level of security is required.

My personal approach to security, which I have found very effective, is to limit the scope for things to execute rather than to focus on keeping everything absolutely up to date.  I generally read email in text only; if an email lands with a "Won't display" message (basically a prod to view the HTML version), I often set a filter for it for that reason alone, because I am not interested in doing business with entities that won't respect my desire to read email in plain text only.  I use both AdBlock Plus and an ad-blocking HOSTS file, and I find the latter to be much more effective in keeping my system fast and clutter-free; there is no actual need for AdBlock Plus to kick in to block anything if the browser loops back to localhost instead of visiting the ad server.