Google Maps just fucking SUCKS now

[jakeroot]

How long would you keep those things rolled back?

Depends on whether the developers would resume on a path favoring desktop-using techies or the current one favoring smartphone-addicted masses.

The trend has not been to butt-F desktop users. Google, much like Apple or Microsoft, is mostly interested in syncing all of our devices together. This allows you to have many devices, all slightly different in their capabilities and interface, but all pretty well synced up. Any emails you delete disappear on every device, all of your internet history and bookmarks are the same on each device. All of your music, photos, Google Maps labels, and other stuff are the same across each device. This wasn't really happening 10 years ago. Each device was standalone. The only thing that was the same was the internet (you could log into any website on any computer, and obviously it would be as you left it).

Most of us don't seem to have multiple devices. Honestly, a lot of us are technophobes. I don't know why that is, but it just is. On the other hand, I have an Android watch, phone, and tablet, and a desktop Windows 10 machine. Virtually everything (except my music and photos to my watch) is the same on all of my devices, because I allow Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Samsung to "watch" me. It's not like it's a person seeing what I look at and do. It's a computer, and I'm not afraid of Skynet! It's done nothing except make my life easier.

Thinking about it, I would hate technology if I was one of those "Incognito"-only users. Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft services are best used when continually logged in. If you're not interested in doing that, I certainly can't help you, and neither can any of those companies.

Can we also roll back Microsoft Word to version 5?

What year was that? I'm not familiar with any version 5. It goes 2.0 (1991) to 6.0 (1993). I hope to God you don't really want Word going back that far.

[J N Winkler]

Most of us don't seem to have multiple devices. Honestly, a lot of us are technophobes. I don't know why that is, but it just is. On the other hand, I have an Android watch, phone, and tablet, and a desktop Windows 10 machine. Virtually everything (except my music and photos to my watch) is the same on all of my devices, because I allow Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Samsung to "watch" me. It's not like it's a person seeing what I look at and do. It's a computer, and I'm not afraid of Skynet! It's done nothing except make my life easier.

I think technophobe is a poor fit for a person who understands, and rejects, the use model on offer.

Thinking about it, I would hate technology if I was one of those "Incognito"-only users. Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft services are best used when continually logged in. If you're not interested in doing that, I certainly can't help you, and neither can any of those companies.

The problem is actually much broader than privacy, which in itself is wider than the concern that giving up information to interact with a free platform amounts to selling an entity with vast economic power the rope it can use to hang you.  At the consumer end, most cloud computing applications are oriented toward facilitating mass consumption, either directly by offering you goods or services you might like to buy, or indirectly by holding content you want to consume behind ads for things you might be interested in buying.  The recent changes to Google Maps are about making it easier to push out consumables like lodging and restaurant meals to you; YouTube autoplay and clip suggestions are all about making it easier to push out ads to you, especially on mobile where ads are unskippable; etc.  For an end user who approaches them with something in mind other than consumption, such as research, or who simply prefers to stand aloof of the consumerist mindset, this is very alienating.

[vdeane]

Well, I primarily work on my desktop.  I also have a "Chromebook" (now running Linux) so that I can do things like visit the forum and browse on a proper screen size and with a mouse when traveling.  I still have my college laptop, but I hardly ever use it, and honestly the main reason I still have it is because I figured I might as well keep a Windows machine around while the OS is still being updated.  I did also acquiesce and get a smartphone a couple years ago, but mainly I use it to look at Google Maps while on the road (getting lost after missing a turn while looking for a hotel at night is the reason I got it, actually) or glancing at Facebook or something while bored.  I don't really do much else on it, though I did eventually copy my media library over in case my drive to/from Florida got too boring to do without music.  I don't come anywhere close to using even a fraction of my data each month.  Quite frankly, I don't understand those people who use phones or tablets as their primary computer.  How do they manage to do serious work or browsing with such a tiny screen limited interface, and no mouse?

Things are indeed being made more for phones now.  Just look at how many programs and sites have removed features in the name of simplification, and many designed have been made more phone-like, even where it makes no sense for a desktop environment.  Google Maps doesn't allow as many points to be set when modifying driving directions.  Microsoft tried to get rid of the start menu and depreciate the desktop environment completely in Windows 8, and while they did roll this back in Windows 8.1 and Windows 10, the resulting start menu still incorporates a lot of the metro interface, and the visual effects are still more primitive than Windows 7 (Aero Glass was removed).  Office 2010 and later make the file menu full screen even though it functioned just fine in Office 2007 as an actual menu.  User customization is becoming less and less supported.

I still use my devices the way one would 10 years ago.  I can hardly even conceive of another way.  I do use Chrome synchronization, mainly because manually synchronizing bookmarks is annoying, though I do have to be careful - I used to include my college laptop in the sync, and it once resulted in a bunch of old bookmarks popping onto my other computers since they hadn't synced in a while and Google didn't know what to do.  I don't really trust such features to not screw things up.  In my mind, if you want your email to be the same across devices, you should just use webmail instead of a dedicated email client.  I'm also of the firm belief that new technologies shouldn't result in the removal of capabilities.  I don't trust companies not to screw things up.  I've seen too many computer bugs to do so.  Also, I'm a control freak and like to keep everything neat and orderly, to the point of obsession.  The modern way of doing things strikes me as a way of ceding control and embracing chaos.

The problem is actually much broader than privacy, which in itself is wider than the concern that giving up information to interact with a free platform amounts to selling an entity with vast economic power the rope it can use to hang you.  At the consumer end, most cloud computing applications are oriented toward facilitating mass consumption, either directly by offering you goods or services you might like to buy, or indirectly by holding content you want to consume behind ads for things you might be interested in buying.  The recent changes to Google Maps are about making it easier to push out consumables like lodging and restaurant meals to you; YouTube autoplay and clip suggestions are all about making it easier to push out ads to you, especially on mobile where ads are unskippable; etc.  For an end user who approaches them with something in mind other than consumption, such as research, or who simply prefers to stand aloof of the consumerist mindset, this is very alienating.

Agreed.  The Internet is rapidly becoming cable 2.0, and I don't like it one bit.  I remember when we were promised that the internet would free us from such consumerist stuff.  Whether that was a bad prediction or an outright lie is a point for debate.

[jakeroot]

Most of us don't seem to have multiple devices. Honestly, a lot of us are technophobes. I don't know why that is, but it just is. On the other hand, I have an Android watch, phone, and tablet, and a desktop Windows 10 machine. Virtually everything (except my music and photos to my watch) is the same on all of my devices, because I allow Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Samsung to "watch" me. It's not like it's a person seeing what I look at and do. It's a computer, and I'm not afraid of Skynet! It's done nothing except make my life easier.

I think technophobe is a poor fit for a person who understands, and rejects, the use model on offer.

I think it's fair to say that those with various phobias understand their fears more than those who have no fear. You know how sometimes, you just can't...look...away? If you understand tech, but refuse to adopt it for various reasons, by all accounts, you're still a technophobe. I don't know of any other words that fit the description.

Thinking about it, I would hate technology if I was one of those "Incognito"-only users. Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft services are best used when continually logged in. If you're not interested in doing that, I certainly can't help you, and neither can any of those companies.

The problem is actually much broader than privacy, which in itself is wider than the concern that giving up information to interact with a free platform amounts to selling an entity with vast economic power the rope it can use to hang you.  At the consumer end, most cloud computing applications are oriented toward facilitating mass consumption, either directly by offering you goods or services you might like to buy, or indirectly by holding content you want to consume behind ads for things you might be interested in buying.  The recent changes to Google Maps are about making it easier to push out consumables like lodging and restaurant meals to you; YouTube autoplay and clip suggestions are all about making it easier to push out ads to you, especially on mobile where ads are unskippable; etc.  For an end user who approaches them with something in mind other than consumption, such as research, or who simply prefers to stand aloof of the consumerist mindset, this is very alienating.

I think you're painting the situation with far too big of a brush stroke. The core functions of our favorite apps, and most features of them, are still there and accessible. The accessing method might have become slightly more complex or less obvious, but most features are still there. Are these various applications geared more towards consumption? Of course, but that's always been their purpose. Youtube has always been about sharing videos, and they've since made it easier to find videos you might be interested in. Google Maps has always been about finding points of interest and navigating to them -- their recent redesigns have simply made it easier for the majority of users to do what they need to do. Back when these apps launched, I guarantee you they would have had many of the same features as their modern counterparts, had their designers had the technology to support the features. It's only recently that these technology has come around.

In my opinion, anyone who feels alienated by consumerism needs to take a step back and understand the world. Virtually all western-style countries are consumer-based societies. If consumers like applications that use their information to make their life easier, you're going to see more applications like that. Evidently, most people like that. Are there, and will there always be outliers who'd rather not be bombarded by suggestions for this or that? Sure, but they are quickly becoming the minority.

[kkt]

What year was that? I'm not familiar with any version 5. It goes 2.0 (1991) to 6.0 (1993). I hope to God you don't really want Word going back that far.

I was thinking Word for Mac 5.1, released in 1992.

[jakeroot]

What year was that? I'm not familiar with any version 5. It goes 2.0 (1991) to 6.0 (1993). I hope to God you don't really want Word going back that far.

I was thinking Word for Mac 5.1, released in 1992.

So what made it so great?

This is your last chance to admit any sarcasm. 

[kkt]

Didn't have a whole butload of dubious features that I never use.  The menus didn't constantly mutate.  Wasn't spyware.

[csw]

Didn't have a whole butload of dubious features that I never use.  The menus didn't constantly mutate.  Wasn't spyware.

Are we using the same program? Where is the spyware in Microsoft Word?!

edit: I'm also curious which features you think are "dubious".

[jeffandnicole]

Agreed.  The Internet is rapidly becoming cable 2.0, and I don't like it one bit.  I remember when we were promised that the internet would free us from such consumerist stuff.  Whether that was a bad prediction or an outright lie is a point for debate.

I think the internet continues to evolve in ways no one ever saw.  Back in the 80's, cable was envisioned that it would have hundreds of channels and we'd be shopping from those channels.  Cable eventually got to having hundreds of channels, but it took way longer than estimated.  And all those home shopping possibilities?  Aside from the Home Shopping Network and QVC, it never branched much further than that.  The internet took over, and at first was a way to get news and chat with others, and just kept growing. 

Mobile phones were big monstrosities, which at one point were only really useable in one's local area.  Absolutely no one foresaw that a home based computer would eventually be less useful than a 3"x5" handheld phone.  No one foresaw that one of the lesser-used features on a handheld phone would be the actual phone.  We had more of a promise of people living on the moon and Mars, and flying cars by this point.

So, did anyone really foresee that the internet would basically be a way to shop?  No way.  It would basically be the same as trying to tell us how things will be 25 years from now.  We can all try to predict what will happen, but chances are we'll be either wrong, or will have to skew our predictions to make it sound right.

[hotdogPi]

a home based computer would eventually be less useful than a 3"x5" handheld phone.

I don't think that's true, at least quite yet. Desktop computers have actual keyboards (making typing much faster) and can hold more data. Workplaces still have desktop computers, not smartphones. Try typing anything more than a few paragraphs on a smartphone. It takes too long, unless you use your voice. And if you do use your voice, it will make a few mistakes.

[J N Winkler]

I think it's fair to say that those with various phobias understand their fears more than those who have no fear. You know how sometimes, you just can't...look...away? If you understand tech, but refuse to adopt it for various reasons, by all accounts, you're still a technophobe. I don't know of any other words that fit the description.

There are plenty of alternatives:  refusenik is one.  Technophobe doesn't fit those who reject consumer-oriented platforms (or selectively use the features of such platforms that are less keyed toward promoting consumption) since in many cases they are extremely tech-literate and comfortable using technology--just not necessarily the kind that big players like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, or Facebook would like them to use.  If a person chooses to use LaTeX for major writing projects instead of Microsoft Word or Google Docs, it is not because he or she is irrationally afraid of technology.

In my opinion, anyone who feels alienated by consumerism needs to take a step back and understand the world. Virtually all western-style countries are consumer-based societies. If consumers like applications that use their information to make their life easier, you're going to see more applications like that. Evidently, most people like that. Are there, and will there always be outliers who'd rather not be bombarded by suggestions for this or that? Sure, but they are quickly becoming the minority.

"Virtually all" western-style countries have more stringent advertising controls and better legal protections for privacy than we do.  And, more fundamentally, the feedback loop of building applications that harvest ever more of our personal data to push us to consume ever more is not intrinsic to capitalism but is one plausible way in which it can fail.  The folks who stand aloof and insist on protecting personal autonomy are not "failing to understand the world."  They are, arguably, showing more foresight than their peers who keep running inside the wire wheels while tech CEOs buy houses in New Zealand or condos inside former missile silos to hedge against the catastrophe they fear from economic underregulation.

[formulanone]

To get a bit back on topic, it would be nice if Google Maps just offered lighter versions on different websites, so it can run faster and consistent. Keep the 3D Google Earth stuff on a separate sub-domain. Making websites "lighter" and load quicker has been all lip service for the best part of a decade. More devices are competing for the same limited bandwidth.

Didn't have a whole butload of dubious features that I never use.  The menus didn't constantly mutate.  Wasn't spyware.

To be fair, I don't think anyone can truly use every feature of most software. Usually the added benefits are of no/limited use, because there's added complexity in recalling how to use a rarely-needed feature, among numerous other reasons. I used Wordpad for a few years, jumped on the Office bandwagon with Word/Excel 97, and noticed unnecessary features creeping in with 2000 and 2003. I still have my copies of 97 and 2003, the later running nicely on modern machinery with minimal start-up lag. If it wasn't for the spell-checker and grammar features, I'd just use WordPad, and usually use it for the little bit of coding that I still do (or if I'm using a PC that doesn't have any sort of Office access).

And, more fundamentally, the feedback loop of building applications that harvest ever more of our personal data to push us to consume ever more is not intrinsic to capitalism but is one plausible way in which it can fail.  The folks who stand aloof and insist on protecting personal autonomy are not "failing to understand the world."  They are, arguably, showing more foresight than their peers who keep running inside the wire wheels while tech CEOs buy houses in New Zealand or condos inside former missile silos to hedge against the catastrophe they fear from economic underregulation.

While I can't disagree with that, there's usually a time investment in bypassing the mainstream...some of us do not have as much of that to spare as before, and wander back to the familiar ways of doing things on our various computing platforms. I grate my teeth at the thought of using Windows 8/10 with its advertising tiles (on paid software, no less), bothering with a TV set that suggests what I watch, browsing the internet with a clumsy bunch of intelligence-insulting disruptions, misguided clickbait, imbalanced comments, and the appalling miasma of enternewsvertising currently on tap.

We're not all the vacuous mobile wallets purported by the other side of the fringe; some of us enjoy the mobilty, choose carefully in how we use it, spend our time/money wisely on it, resist the urges to keep up with most possible Tech Joneses, enjoy plenty of "unplugged" time, and understand there's a few risks. There's just that annoying cycle of Hardware - OS - Software - (Battery Life?) wheel that's always "improving" but always seems to go out of balance.

[J N Winkler]

To be fair, I don't think anyone can truly use every feature of most software. Usually the added benefits are of no/limited use, because there's added complexity in recalling how to use a rarely-needed feature, among numerous other reasons. I used Wordpad for a few years, jumped on the Office bandwagon with Word/Excel 97, and noticed unnecessary features creeping in with 2000 and 2003. I still have my copies of 97 and 2003, the later running nicely on modern machinery with minimal start-up lag. If it wasn't for the spell-checker and grammar features, I'd just use WordPad, and usually use it for the little bit of coding that I still do (or if I'm using a PC that doesn't have any sort of Office access).

I like the fact that the current formats for Word and Excel are XML-based and are accessible to older versions with a compatibility pack, although the natively generated XML is very dirty and comes packed into ZIP archives, both of which impair portability.  I have largely switched to LaTeX because the source files are easily human-readable (being plain text), are portable across different operating systems, and the output PDFs produced using pdflatex are very, very clean.  I do still use Word for things that have to be dashed off very quickly and for collaboration, e.g. library board meeting minutes which I receive via email in .docx format and send back with suggested revisions.

I have Office 2003 on my primary computer, as a second copy under a two-workstation license.  I would actually prefer Office 2000 Professional, which I also have and originally purchased for a Windows 98 machine, but I have not been able to get it to install on my Windows 7 machine even in compatibility mode.  I have Access databases I now cannot access directly on my current machine since the Office bundle it will install does not include Access.  This was one factor in my decision to move toward plain-text source files since at least those cannot be taken away.

While I can't disagree with that, there's usually a time investment in bypassing the mainstream...some of us do not have as much of that to spare as before, and wander back to the familiar ways of doing things on our various computing platforms. I grate my teeth at the thought of using Windows 8/10 with its advertising tiles (on paid software, no less), bothering with a TV set that suggests what I watch, browsing the internet with a clumsy bunch of intelligence-insulting disruptions, misguided clickbait, imbalanced comments, and the appalling miasma of enternewsvertising currently on tap.

The tradeoffs involved encompass know-how as well as time.  I don't opt out completely--I have a Facebook account I actively use--but I stuck with Windows 7 because I knew how to prevent Windows 10 from auto-installing on my primary workstation, and my browsing is fairly silent in terms of advertising because I use an ad-blocking HOSTS file instead of relying on AdBlock Plus.  (Because ad-blocking HOSTS files represent a minority approach compared to AdBlock Plus, website developers spend less time trying to figure out how to block them, so I am less likely to encounter defeat mechanisms for my HOSTS file than I am for AdBlock.)

It is easy for me to steer clear of TV because I have never actually gotten the hang of how digital TV works.  I was living out of the country when it was introduced, so I still don't know how to access OTA digital programming for the network affiliates in my area.  With TV shows now available on DVD or through streaming, it is now more natural for me to think of TV programming I want to watch as a collection of video streams I can access through mechanisms other than walking up to a TV set and turning it on.

It is actually with mobile that I feel most keenly the limitations of my own know-how.  I only recently learned how to write shell scripts for Android, for example.  I still haven't figured out a free way to root my phone and keep it rooted through OS updates.  But Windows 10 is starting to catch up.  I suspect one of the unrefusable updates is responsible for a family member no longer being able to use a tablet to access files on his computer through a SMB network.  I suspect the computer is now set to reject all incoming connections that aren't SMB 2.0, but I barely know how to start fixing this.

[vdeane]

I think you're painting the situation with far too big of a brush stroke. The core functions of our favorite apps, and most features of them, are still there and accessible. The accessing method might have become slightly more complex or less obvious, but most features are still there. Are these various applications geared more towards consumption? Of course, but that's always been their purpose. Youtube has always been about sharing videos, and they've since made it easier to find videos you might be interested in. Google Maps has always been about finding points of interest and navigating to them -- their recent redesigns have simply made it easier for the majority of users to do what they need to do. Back when these apps launched, I guarantee you they would have had many of the same features as their modern counterparts, had their designers had the technology to support the features. It's only recently that these technology has come around.

I'm not sure I'd say that they were the same.  My impression is that early YouTube was about end users freely sharing their own videos; there were no ads, no payments for number of views, and major companies hadn't yet started uploading videos.  Likewise, early Google Maps was a more advanced MapQuest (which at the time didn't allow one to use the mouse to drag the map; clicking buttons on the side to incrementally move the map in fixed-size steps was required); both back then were more oriented to providing directions to a predetermined address that one would print out than finding new places with search.  I do actually use Google Maps to find places (and to look at photos of places and read reviews), though when I do I'm usually either panning the map to see what I can find like I would with a hypothetical paper map that had that info or searching for a specific business (and I then get annoyed when Google tries to include results for everything it deems "relevant" regardless of relevancy; it once included Chinese places when searching for diners, for example, on one of my rare times doing a general search, so clearly it doesn't work well).

To get a bit back on topic, it would be nice if Google Maps just offered lighter versions on different websites, so it can run faster and consistent. Keep the 3D Google Earth stuff on a separate sub-domain. Making websites "lighter" and load quicker has been all lip service for the best part of a decade. More devices are competing for the same limited bandwidth.

I think at this point the developers are basically saying "we'll do what we want and eventually 5G will make it work".

[jakeroot]

I think it's fair to say that those with various phobias understand their fears more than those who have no fear. You know how sometimes, you just can't...look...away? If you understand tech, but refuse to adopt it for various reasons, by all accounts, you're still a technophobe. I don't know of any other words that fit the description.

There are plenty of alternatives:  refusenik is one.

Well, like many of the words in your posts, I am unfamiliar with that one. Point taken.

[Scott5114]

I like the fact that the current formats for Word and Excel are XML-based and are accessible to older versions with a compatibility pack, although the natively generated XML is very dirty and comes packed into ZIP archives, both of which impair portability.  I have largely switched to LaTeX because the source files are easily human-readable (being plain text), are portable across different operating systems, and the output PDFs produced using pdflatex are very, very clean.  I do still use Word for things that have to be dashed off very quickly and for collaboration, e.g. library board meeting minutes which I receive via email in .docx format and send back with suggested revisions.

The Office Open XML formats are a badly-done attempt to copy the OpenDocument standard, with several decades of Microsoft compatibility cruft baked into the design. OpenDocument is comparatively cleaner, since it was designed to be an interchange format not tied to any specific office suite. It uses the same XML-in-a-ZIP structure, although there is a specification for a "flat" XML file, though that variant of the standard is less supported than the full ZIP format.

Office does support the OpenDocument standard, although it pops up a dire warning asking if you really want to do this if you try to save to it. I suspect that this is Microsoft's attempt to get users to use their own janky file format instead of the standard one.

[ipeters61]

Office does support the OpenDocument standard, although it pops up a dire warning asking if you really want to do this if you try to save to it. I suspect that this is Microsoft's attempt to get users to use their own janky file format instead of the standard one.

As much as I am a supporter of free software (outside of work, I am practically a religious Linux user), I find it a bit odd when someone says "the standard" when it's not very commonly used.

Again, don't get me wrong, I very much agree that OpenDocument should be the standard, considering how many Word 2013 documents I email to myself from work look like alphabet soup when I open them on my home Linux machine, but at the same time I feel like the standard is (but shouldn't necessarily be) the widely used format.

As a counterexample, though, we could talk about Internet Explorer 6 and how much of a disaster that was, despite it being used by up to 90% of internet users at one point, when any technically knowledgeable person would know that Mozilla/Firefox conformed to the HTML standards better.

[Scott5114]

OpenDocument is a standard because it was certified as such by both the industry consortium that created it and ISO, which blessed it with a standard number (ISO 26300). Lack of adoption by users that don't know any better doesn't make it any less the standard.

Hilariously, Office XML also much later got granted an ISO number, ISO 29500. Microsoft's implementation of the file format is not in compliance with ISO 29500, however, so anyone attempting to implement a program that reads Office XML files using only the standard as reference will probably not be able to open actual files emitted from Microsoft Office correctly.

[ipeters61]

OpenDocument is a standard because it was certified as such by both the industry consortium that created it and ISO, which blessed it with a standard number (ISO 26300). Lack of adoption by users that don't know any better doesn't make it any less the standard.

Hilariously, Office XML also much later got granted an ISO number, ISO 29500. Microsoft's implementation of the file format is not in compliance with ISO 29500, however, so anyone attempting to implement a program that reads Office XML files using only the standard as reference will probably not be able to open actual files emitted from Microsoft Office correctly.

Ah...I forgot about ISO and their standards.  Thanks for reminding me.

[20160805]

I'm not getting into this again. Google's job is not to build their products around tin hat folks and those who need to keep their history clear. They're a company with with their hands in just about every industry, and the products really only work well when it collects your information. If you don't like that, Google isn't your friend.

It's "tin hat" to prioritize accurate results over Google trying to guess what you want?  When people/computers try to guess what I want, they usually guess wrong!  Unfortunately, it seems that the quality of Google's search results have been going down regardless, but no need to make it even worse.  I'm not typical in more ways than how I use Google Maps - I'd go so far as to say that smartphones were the worse thing to happen to the entire internet, since they brought the masses and a lot of dumbing down of all things computers with them.

Unfortunately, even though Google's paradigm is opposed to mine, they're still the best at everything they do by several orders of magnitude (only Apple and Amazon come close, at least in their spheres of influence, and I have issues with both of them too).

If I had the power to, I'd change things in the following ways:
-Keep roadgeek sites as they are
-Keep Linux as it is
-Keep the switch from Flash to HTML5
-Keep Chrome/Firefox/etc. as they are
-Roll back Google Maps to 2015 (not including data/street view)
-Roll back Gmail to 2012
-Roll back cell phones to 2005
-Roll back Google search to 2002
-Roll back everything else (Google's other products, Windows, etc.) to 2010

Old post, but let me also state for the record that I agree 100%. 

I'd even suggest rolling back Google Maps to 2012, when you could go up to a point "N" (14 destinations) IIRC as opposed to just ten the last time I tried to do a really silly long trip in there with a whole bunch of destinations.

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[jakeroot]

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Consider upgrading to Windows 10 before Janauary 2020. Support for Windows 7 ends then, and you're creating a liability for yourself, and anyone else who might use your computer, by using an OS that isn't supported by security patches.

IMO, any OS that isn't supported by its creators should be considered "broke" for primary usage. Usage for historical purposes is different.

[20160805]

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Consider upgrading to Windows 10 before Janauary 2020. Support for Windows 7 ends then, and you're creating a liability for yourself, and anyone else who might use your computer, by using an OS that isn't supported by security patches.

IMO, any OS that isn't supported by its creators should be considered "broke" for primary usage. Usage for historical purposes is different.

That would mean having used this perfectly good computer for only three years before getting rid of it 

[jakeroot]

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Consider upgrading to Windows 10 before Janauary 2020. Support for Windows 7 ends then, and you're creating a liability for yourself, and anyone else who might use your computer, by using an OS that isn't supported by security patches.

IMO, any OS that isn't supported by its creators should be considered "broke" for primary usage. Usage for historical purposes is different.

That would mean having used this perfectly good computer for only three years before getting rid of it 

It's perfectly good, until it's not.

[20160805]

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Consider upgrading to Windows 10 before Janauary 2020. Support for Windows 7 ends then, and you're creating a liability for yourself, and anyone else who might use your computer, by using an OS that isn't supported by security patches.

IMO, any OS that isn't supported by its creators should be considered "broke" for primary usage. Usage for historical purposes is different.

That would mean having used this perfectly good computer for only three years before getting rid of it 

It's perfectly good, until it's not.

Also consider that some people may not be able to afford getting a brand new computer with a brand new operating system every year or two when the new one comes out. 

By the way, and I realise we're drifting from the topic at hand, is there ever going to be a "Windows 11"?

[hotdogPi]

For the record, the computer from which I'm typing this runs Windows 7 and Office 2007; I recently upgraded to 7 from XP in January 2017, and I really like both operating systems.  I've been using Office 2007 since 2014, and I really like both 03 and 07; I have no reason or desire to upgrade from this configuration anytime soon.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Consider upgrading to Windows 10 before Janauary 2020. Support for Windows 7 ends then, and you're creating a liability for yourself, and anyone else who might use your computer, by using an OS that isn't supported by security patches.

IMO, any OS that isn't supported by its creators should be considered "broke" for primary usage. Usage for historical purposes is different.

That would mean having used this perfectly good computer for only three years before getting rid of it 

It's perfectly good, until it's not.

Also consider that some people may not be able to afford getting a brand new computer with a brand new operating system every year or two when the new one comes out. 

By the way, and I realise we're drifting from the topic at hand, is there ever going to be a "Windows 11"?

Probably. Mac OS X will never change, though; they'll just keep incrementing the first number after the decimal point (currently at 10.13.6, which I just updated to less than an hour ago).