5. FireWire
Shaun Nichols: Yes, it's still in use, but FireWire has really become just a fraction of what it was expected to be.
When the standard first launched, USB 1.0 was still dominant, and it appeared as though FireWire would be the one to unseat SCSI as the high-bandwidth peripheral connection of choice. Apple even went so far as to build internal FireWire ports into many of its high-end systems, anticipating that the system would even be used for RAID setups.
Of course, that never happened. USB 2.0 came along and was good enough to power the vast majority of printers, cameras and portable drives. Meanwhile, internal technologies such as SATA have emerged. Outside of a few models of high-end video cameras, FireWire isn't seen much these days.
In the end, it seems USB's own industry "connections" were too much for the promising FireWire's connection.
Iain Thomson: I don't think it was industry connection to be honest Shaun, it was force of numbers.
The USB port is ubiquitous, it's on pretty much every system in the world. It's used to connect everything from mice to external drives and while it has its flaws (the connector is ridiculously vulnerable to lateral pressure for example) it's something people knew and trusted.
FireWire was technically superior in terms of throughput speed, even after USB 2.0 came along, but very few people had the right connection port. I know of at least three people who purchased shiny new portable video recorders and were stuffed when they realised they'd have to upgrade their systems to support FireWire.
It's a story as old as technology; the best system doesn't always win out if the moderately good competitor has force of numbers.
4. Bluetooth
Iain Thomson: I was tempted to include all forms of near field wireless communication in this one but Bluetooth really typifies the essence of the problem.
As an industry we are cursed by wires. They clutter up our desktops, make server rooms a tripwired deathtrap and get lost around the home when you need them most. So when the first of these technologies that looked workable (don't talk to me about IR) came along I was all for Bluetooth.
Sadly the reality was much worse than the deal. Different manufacturers stuck their own code into the Bluetooth stack and destroyed the very thing that was needed - compatibility. But, said the manufacturers, if you buy our products there are no compatibility issues. Go hang said consumers.
It's only now that Bluetooth is getting to be useful, and only then in very limited terms. Sure, it allows people to walk around babbling into headsets, but it could have been so much more.
Shaun Nichols: Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco, because it makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers seem about equal.
Bluetooth was another device that fixed a problem most people didn't really have. Yes, not needing to connect a cable to the printer is somewhat more convenient, but you still need wires to do things such as plug it in, and since most setups have the printer either on the desk or connected to the network, its usefulness is fairly limited.
I can't rag on the technology too much, however. We use a Bluetooth microphone to record sound for all of our US videos, and I have to say that the little guy has been incredibly useful and reliable.
3. Itanium
Shaun Nichols: When Intel rolled out Itanium, the company thought that it had its server platform for the foreseeable future taken care of. Unfortunately, the company didn't quite take into account the fact that the rest of the IT world doesn't exactly share Intel's enthusiasm for upgrading to new systems.
Perhaps the fatal flaw of Itanium was that the chip did not support 32-bit code. Given that very little software at the time was optimised to run on 64-bit chips, this left many of Itanium's would-be adopters to hold off on upgrading until developers decided to optimize their software for the new chips.
That wait turned out to be a bit longer than expected, and Intel has been forced to all but concede defeat on the Itanium project, at least for the near future.
Iain Thomson: I had real problems putting Itanium this high up on the list, because on one level it works very well. It was a very fast chip well designed for server work, with only one teensy fault - no-one wanted to move to 64-bit processing.
Itanium was a monstrous conceit on the part of Intel. It wasn't so much an "If you build it they will come" product as Intel saying to the rest of the industry "You're moving to 64-bit processing whether you like it or not." Not surprisingly the IT community told Intel where they could shove it.
Itanium's fate was sealed when AMD brought out the Opteron, a crossover 32/64-bit processor which, while not quite as powerful as Itanium, was a product IT managers could buy without having to upgrade their entire infrastructure. The market loved it and suddenly Intel was getting beaten by its chief rival.
Still Itanium has carved out something of a niche in high performance computing and those who have a fully 64-bit infrastructure tend to rather like it. Too bad nobody else does.
2. Zune
Iain Thomson: Hand on my heart, when I first heard Microsoft was going to be bringing out a media player to rival the iPod I was a little hopeful. Microsoft had the cash to really develop a system that would beat Apple.
Instead they seem to have given the design job to the same person behind Windows. What we got was a clunky player with all the elegant design of a road accident, and one that was loaded with so many lockdowns as to be totally useless. It was the greatest missed opportunity since Pilate reportedly washed his hands.
So what do we have with the Zune. It's a media player just like any other, only a little worse in some respects and a lot worse in others. Microsoft seems to insist that the Zune has a future, and has started a major advertising campaign for the purpose of keeping it alive. It will fail, as will the Zune.
Shaun Nichols: When the Zune was first introduced, Microsoft set up a big bin in the middle of its campus where employees could throw away their iPods. I believe it collected a total of three devices. That should have been a sign right there.
The problem with the Zune is that it lacks any sort of killer app. The Xbox had some big exclusive titles and a superior online community. There was nothing of this magnitude to establish the Zune over its competitors. It arguably functions as well or better than the iPod in many ways, but not in any way that was good enough to really make people dump their iPods. The music service for the Zune was also lacking, and it didn't help that the thing was ugly as sin.
You'd hope that by now Microsoft would have just given up. But not so much. The company is still going at it and they're starting to get desperate. The most recent attempt was a claim that the iPod actually costs US$30,000 to own and operate. When you have to make those sorts of outrageous statements about the competitor, you've clearly lost.
1. Windows Vista
Shaun Nichols: There's not much debate here. Even though Microsoft has been able to take a bit of the sting off with a thus-far smooth development for Windows 7, Vista is still fresh in everyone's mind as an epic failure.
In the near future, management students will be taught about the Vista launch as a textbook example for how not to release a piece of software.
The OS was supposed to be a huge milestone for Microsoft. After more than half a decade of success, Windows XP was entering its later years and the company had hyped up Windows Vista as the platform for the next several years.
Unfortunately, Vista hit with a laundry list of shortcomings. Security developers complained about the restrictive kernel protections. Customers griped about the extensive number of versions of Vista and the high price for the premium packages.
Vista's biggest problem, however, was its big appetite for hardware. Users who had grown accustomed to the low demands of XP were often shocked to realise how much hardware they would need to upgrade just to run Vista. Many of the high-end features were out of the realm of even some brand new systems.
The matter was further complicated when a lawsuit unearthed evidence that the company purposely lowered some of the suggested requirements at the behest of hardware vendors.
All in all, Vista has become the biggest flop in computing history. Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows 7 appears to be coming along much more smoothly. Then again, how can it be any worse?
Iain Thomson: Shaun if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times - you never, ever ask how could it be worse when Microsoft's involved.
Microsoft literally spent years telling us about how Vista was going to be the operating system to beat all the competition into the ground. As it turns out Vista was more akin to the old joke about how the software developer's wife who dies a virgin because her husband just sits at the end of the bed telling her how good it's going to be rather than doing anything.
As time wore on more and more got cut out of Vista, from decent file subsystems to some of the security measures that were supposed to make it such a great step forward. By the time Vista came out it was a neutered mess. On the face of it all the upgrade gave you was a flashy interface (that required at least a gig of RAM) and a lot of annoying dialogue boxes.
Shaun has already mentioned the hardware issues with Vista, and they did more than anything to make the system unpopular with the IT crowd. Despite being over three years late Microsoft didn't consult with third party manufacturers over driver compatibility and more than a few upgraders suddenly found their systems refusing to recognise cards and add on components.
What made it worse was that Microsoft refused to accept there was a problem. At the launch a senior executive told me with a straight face that Vista could be configured to run on the same hardware as XP. He wasn't alone; the corporation seemed to think sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "La,la,la,I can't hear you!" was a solution.
Windows 7 looks to be a much better effort, but the Vista fiasco has done lasting harm to Microsoft's reputation. If you thought Windows ME was the worst Microsoft could do, think again.
-1.jpg&w=100&c=1&s=0)
.png&w=100&c=1&s=0)
