PC World Ranks The Worst Tech Products of All Time

[Eric]

#1 is AOL. This further proves my point that if you are on AOL you are a retard in the truest politically correct sense.

Read the entire list here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125772-page,8-c,techindustrytrends/article.html

1. America Online (1989-2006)
How do we loathe AOL? Let us count the ways. Since America Online emerged from the belly of a BBS called Quantum "PC-Link" in 1989, users have suffered through awful software, inaccessible dial-up numbers, rapacious marketing, in-your-face advertising, questionable billing practices, inexcusably poor customer service, and enough spam to last a lifetime. And all the while, AOL remained more expensive than its major competitors. This lethal combination earned the world's biggest ISP the top spot on our list of bottom feeders.

AOL succeeded initially by targeting newbies, using brute-force marketing techniques. In the 90s you couldn't open a magazine (PC World included) or your mailbox without an AOL disk falling out of it. This carpet-bombing technique yielded big numbers: At its peak, AOL claimed 34 million subscribers worldwide, though it never revealed how many were just using up their free hours.

Once AOL had you in its clutches, escaping was notoriously difficult. Several states sued the service, claiming that it continued to bill customers after they had requested cancellation of their subscriptions. In August 2005, AOL paid a $1.25 million fine to the state of New York and agreed to change its cancellation policies--but the agreement covered only people in New York.

Ultimately the Net itself--which AOL subscribers were finally able to access in 1995-- made the service's shortcomings painfully obvious. Prior to that, though AOL offered plenty of its own online content, it walled off the greater Internet. Once people realized what content was available elsewhere on the Net, they started wondering why they were paying AOL. And as America moved to broadband, many left their sluggish AOL accounts behind. AOL is now busy rebranding itself as a content provider, not an access service.

Though America Online has shown some improvement lately--with better browsers and e-mail tools, fewer obnoxious ads, scads of broadband content, and innovative features such as parental controls--it has never overcome the stigma of being the online service for people who don't know any better.

 

[Rukas]

Hahah and my number 1 hate (as Ive never used AOL) is number 2... fucking Real Player!

In order for your browser to display the following paragraph this site must download new software; please wait. Sorry, the requested codec was not found. Please upgrade your system.
A frustrating inability to play media files--due in part to constantly changing file formats--was only part of Real's problem. RealPlayer also had a disturbing way of making itself a little too much at home on your PC--installing itself as the default media player, taking liberties with your Windows Registry, popping up annoying "messages" that were really just advertisements, and so on.
And some of RealNetworks' habits were even more troubling. For example, shortly after RealJukeBox appeared in 1999, security researcher Richard M. Smith discovered that the software was assigning a unique ID to each user and phoning home with the titles of media files played on it--while failing to disclose any of this in its privacy policy. Turns out that RealPlayer G2, which had been out since the previous year, also broadcast unique IDs. After a tsunami of bad publicity and a handful of lawsuits, Real issued a patch to prevent the software from tracking users' listening habits. But less than a year later, Real was in hot water again for tracking the habits of its RealDownload download-management software customers.
To be fair, RealNetworks deserves credit for offering a free media player and for hanging in there against Microsoft's relentless onslaught. We appreciate the fact that there's an alternative to Windows Media Player; we just wish it were a better one.

 

[_carmi]

4. Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000)

This might be the worst version of Windows ever released--or, at least, since the dark days of Windows 2.0. Windows Millennium Edition (aka Me, or the Mistake Edition) was Microsoft's follow-up to Windows 98 SE for home users. Shortly after Me appeared in late 2000, users reported problems installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other hardware or software, and getting it to stop running. Aside from that, Me worked great.

To its credit, Me introduced features later made popular by Windows XP, such as system restore. Unfortunately, it could also restore files you never wanted to see again, like viruses that you'd just deleted. Forget Y2K; this was the real millennium bug.

this fucking program ruined my old computer. it RUINED it. :fury:

 

[Flipmo]

I'm with you Ruk. Real Player has ruined me, I now live on welfare and my wife left me for a midget named Jean-Luc LeHiboux

 

[masta247]

I use real player and actually like it. I don't know why but I prefer it's looks over winamp's and mp's. Plus it can play all audio and video files. Sound is practically the same but actually I can feel a bit deeper bass when i use EQ on Real player. Maybe it's just me.

Oh and by the way that list is a bit stupid.
On the first place I would place Ipod Shuttle and all other ipods on 2nd,3rd and so. I don't know why people buy these..

ps. what a list I liked windows ME I liked win 98 and ME was a nice addition.

 

[7 Syns]

Windows NT 2000 fucked my old computer, it wouldn't let me run virus scanners or adware scanners. I had to uninstall it and later re-installed M.E., my computer crashed 5 hours later and now sits patiently in a garbage heap somewhere.

peace.

 

[_carmi]

Windows NT 2000 fucked my old computer, it wouldn't let me run virus scanners or adware scanners. I had to uninstall it and later re-installed M.E., my computer crashed 5 hours later and now sits patiently in a garbage heap somewhere.

peace.

thank you

 

[Illuminattile]

Oh and by the way that list is a bit stupid.
On the first place I would place Ipod Shuttle and all other ipods on 2nd,3rd and so. I don't know why people buy these..

In what way are iPods bad, let alone worse than AOL, RealPlayer or Internet Explorer?

 

[masta247]

They're expensive, sound on them is bad compared to other mp3s at the same price like high-end Irivers or Iaudio, have bad batteries and are popular only because Apple spends much much more money for advertising and doing they're best to make it popular. If for example Iriver would spend 1/3 of that on ads it's mp3s would be much more popular because it has better sounds, batteries and look much better then "hyped out" ipods. They aren't worth the money because half of the cash you pay to buy them goes straight for new advertisement programmes and to people who use them to promote em like famous artists. By the way most Ipods don't even have any other functions than mp3 player. No radio, good EQ etc. They're output power and most of other specifications are worse than most other players at the same price range. Parts they use are similar to those that Creative players uses, but Creative players are much cheaper. Also you can't even get Ipod that uses standard aaa or aa batteries which means you have to charge them for every few hours. Anyway I don't know why when I see someone using Ipod in most cases it's some stupid blonde girl looking like a whore or a guy who looks gay lol. I guess it's used mostly by people who wanna look "trendy" or just has a lot of cash but haven't done enough research for a better player than Ipod. Of course there's no mp3 that can guarantee much better sound because that format limits quality a lot but there are players better then Ipod that doesn't cost more, and they also have much more functions and better quality. It's the same as with headphones. Most people buy mp3 player and use standart headphones that won't even play most sounds so you won't even find a difference between that player and some kind of no-name. Also you can spend 50$ to get some shitty philips earbuds or even 100$ headphones or spend less than even 50$ and get a quality koss porta pro or sennheiser px100 which are the best headphones for mp3 players. The same is with Ipods. Most people haven't even heard about quality products because all they see is Phillips, Sony, Apple Ipod etc. When someone hears a really good headphones he won't even try on any Phillipses or Sony. The same is with for example Iaudio even U2 model or Iriver U10 (which is rather all in one than mp3 player) and any other Ipod.

PS. Ipods suck

PS2. I use Real player as my primary media player and it works good for mee. And I liked Windows ME. Anyway I use Opera instead IE..

 

[Eric]

They're expensive, sound on them is bad compared to other mp3s at the same price like high-end Irivers or Iaudio, have bad batteries and are popular only because Apple spends much much more money for advertising and doing they're best to make it popular. If for example Iriver would spend 1/3 of that on ads it's mp3s would be much more popular because it has better sounds, batteries and look much better then "hyped out" ipods. They aren't worth the money because half of the cash you pay to buy them goes straight for new advertisement programmes and to people who use them to promote em like famous artists. By the way most Ipods don't even have any other functions than mp3 player. No radio, good EQ etc. They're output power and most of other specifications are worse than most other players at the same price range. Parts they use are similar to those that Creative players uses, but Creative players are much cheaper. Also you can't even get Ipod that uses standard aaa or aa batteries which means you have to charge them for every few hours. Anyway I don't know why when I see someone using Ipod in most cases it's some stupid blonde girl looking like a whore or a guy who looks gay lol. I guess it's used mostly by people who wanna look "trendy" or just has a lot of cash but haven't done enough research for a better player than Ipod. Of course there's no mp3 that can guarantee much better sound because that format limits quality a lot but there are players better then Ipod that doesn't cost more, and they also have much more functions and better quality. It's the same as with headphones. Most people buy mp3 player and use standart headphones that won't even play most sounds so you won't even find a difference between that player and some kind of no-name. Also you can spend 50$ to get some shitty philips earbuds or even 100$ headphones or spend less than even 50$ and get a quality koss porta pro or sennheiser px100 which are the best headphones for mp3 players. The same is with Ipods. Most people haven't even heard about quality products because all they see is Phillips, Sony, Apple Ipod etc. When someone hears a really good headphones he won't even try on any Phillipses or Sony. The same is with for example Iaudio even U2 model or Iriver U10 (which is rather all in one than mp3 player) and any other Ipod.

PS. Ipods suck

PS2. I use Real player as my primary media player and it works good for mee. And I liked Windows ME. Anyway I use Opera instead IE..

I think looks are in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find the iPod to look the slickest out of them all. iPods don't sound great? Have you not heard them with bose headphones or bose speaker systems?

30 GB iPods are the same price as 30 GB Creative Mp3 players. There's barely any signifigant price difference in any other models.

iPod do more than just play music. 5th generation iPods play videos, play games, and show pictures.

iRiver doesn't even have any size mp3 player big enough to compare with the iPod.

iPods offer the most space of any mp3 player (up to 80 GB now).

Apple has created the best mp3 device with the easiest interface. It won't be topped.

 

[Illuminattile]

They're expensive,

They're about the same price as comparative players from Creative and Microsoft. In fact, a 30gb iPod costs around the same as a 20gb iRiver H10. If they even make 20gb H10s any more, I couldn't find them on their website.

sound on them is bad compared to other mp3s at the same price like high-end Irivers or Iaudio,

iRivers generally sound better than iPods, but only the most pedantic of users would even notice.

have bad batteries and are popular only because Apple spends much much more money for advertising and doing they're best to make it popular. If for example Iriver would spend 1/3 of that on ads it's mp3s would be much more popular because it has better sounds, batteries and look much better then "hyped out" ipods.

iRiver could spend twice what Apple spent, and they probably wouldn't make a dent in iPod sales. Creative launched a $100m marketing campaign in 2004, roping in Paris Hilton and Steven Tyler to promote their products. Did it help? No. Sony spent big marketing their latest players too. Apple's marketing played a big part in boosting iPod sales because it was so well executed, but the fact that iPods are much simpler and easier to use than most other players is the reason they're so popular.

They aren't worth the money because half of the cash you pay to buy them goes straight for new advertisement programmes and to people who use them to promote em like famous artists.

And? What companies don't use sales revenue to fund future marketing campaigns?

By the way most Ipods don't even have any other functions than mp3 player. No radio, good EQ etc. They're output power and most of other specifications are worse than most other players at the same price range.

If you use your mp3 player to listen to the radio, then you're the only person I know who does.

Parts they use are similar to those that Creative players uses, but Creative players are much cheaper.

Creative players are not much cheaper at all. A 30gb Zen Vision M is $250 on the Creative website. A 30gb iPod is $250 on the Apple website. The iPod looks better, is considerably slimmer, comes with better software and generally works better than the Zen. I know, because I used to buy Zens before I gave up on them and got an iPod.

Also you can't even get Ipod that uses standard aaa or aa batteries which means you have to charge them for every few hours.

Creative Zens also use rechargeable Lithium Ion batteries. As do most mp3 players. Because they're better.

Anyway I don't know why when I see someone using Ipod in most cases it's some stupid blonde girl looking like a whore or a guy who looks gay lol.

Probably because you hang around with whores and homosexuals.

PS2. I use Real player as my primary media player and it works good for mee. And I liked Windows ME. Anyway I use Opera instead IE..

In addition to your above comments about iPods, you suck for the following reasons:
a) It's P.P.S, not PS2.
b) Real Player is awful
c) Windows ME is also awful

 

[C.R.Y.]

Windows NT 2000 fucked my old computer, it wouldn't let me run virus scanners or adware scanners. I had to uninstall it and later re-installed M.E., my computer crashed 5 hours later and now sits patiently in a garbage heap somewhere.

peace.

you serious? thats the first time i heard of it having problems. windows 2000 is one of the most reliable windows os. not to be confused with windows me which was just plain horrible.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Whats is that retard dissing the ipod for?

I can bring my whole music collection and listen to it anywhere.

I guess Santa didnt bring it for you this christmas and you are just finding fault because you didnt get one.

 

[masta247]

Again a new tech thread that becomes a stupid argument. Actually there is a noticable difference between Iriver and Ipod. It's new year coming now so I won't argue again. About batteries I meant why Ipod uses Lithium batteries in players using flash memory if in most Irivers and creatives there are AAA batteries that last longer and you may replace them when you're out of power and if you bought rechargeable ones you just charge them. And they dont cost you 100$. Most of players with any bosse sound system will sound good. Iriver will sound much better. Person who like a quality music rather won't buy an ipod. I compared them when I bought my mp3. Now I plan to buy Iriver Clix and probably no Ipod ever can play sound like that plus it's much easier to use that most of Ipods. There's a 40gb Iriver and I don't think anybody would listen to that amount of music. All my mp3 collection on my hard disk takes like 20gb and I rarely see someone who has more and isn't a collector. Yes creative spent a lot on ads and they're players are successful as you haven't probably noticed. Zens get better reviews than Ipods really often. And the difference is like 220$ for Creative 30gb and 300$ for Ipod 30gb. Oh and I haven't even mentioned flash memory players. Ipods totally suck in this category. Ipods and Creatives anyway are in mid-end player category. You can get a high end player for practically same price.
And yes I couldn't have mp3 without a radio. About 30% of my player usage is listening to the radio, news when I'm not at home, and listening to non-hip-hop songs I don't own in my collection.

Ok to not argue.. everybody buy what they like.. I just wrote my no1 worst tech product because I feel it's much worst than things from that list. And I think many people will feel the same. On the other side there are many Ipod fans because they own one and haven't use any better product.

Happy new year everybody

 

[masta247]

why you offend other people who start intelectual conversations?

Forum isn't about saying "oh you're a retard because you think different than I do and you used you're arguments but you suck". I guess there are many people, especially audiophiles who would use the same arguments about Ipods and other players. Check proffesional reviews, tests and do some research. If you're happy with you're Ipod.. ok. Some people are happy with philips and sony too but it isn't a high-end music at all. Some people are like "iriver, sennheiser wtf is that? Some kind of noname, Ive got my Ipod with my ipod earbuds and it rocks".If you'll use Iaudio or Iriver for some time and get used to it you won't ever use an ipod because it will sound much worse to you, you'll feel really empty, boring sound.That's why I think Ipods are overhyped much too much. And that's why I "diss" ipod. And come on stop hating on people who has different opinions because it's childish.

 

[Preach]

Whats is that retard dissing the ipod for?

because he most probably had some bad experiences with it.

i never really used any of the appliances on that list. only ones that would apply to me are IE 6.0 and RP, and i never had any problems with either two so.

boo @ list.

 

[Cooper]

ME sucks. Real Player sucks. IE sucks. AOL sucks. PC World sucks. In that order.

I'm not a great fan of iPods but that is for another day.