Poll of the Day > Do you sit back and pine for older tech?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtube.com/shorts/rxLUxrLg56M?si=ilDHe6zsWekDBQ5C

The comments section full about how better the tech was than compared to today.

I mostly complain about modern phones being too big.

i miss couch multiplayer games sometimes, but otherwise not really.

Do kinda miss the smell of a wood cabinet TV (or the combo TV/radio/stereo hernia inducing entertainment center).

I miss when tech upgrades were actually useful and improvements of the existing tech , and not just cosmetic changes that seem to reduce performance and enjoyment of the product.

PMarth2002 posted...

i miss couch multiplayer games sometimes, but otherwise not really.

This, and also the un-necessary "upgrades" and proprietary manipulation (staring daggers at you, Apple) of devices. 30 pin connector to Lightning to USB-C, and removal of the headphone jack. Just, why? Same thing with car stereos. Apparently an aux port is now obsolete? Bullshit. You can suck my bluetooth. Also, give me back my goddamn 5-way clicky knob and a manual horizontal slider to decide A/C fan speed and temperature instead of this touch screen nonsense. Jesus.

I still have a lot of old tech. I just had my Gamecube fixed so it can work again, found my mom's old VCR and I still had tapes from when I was a kid that really gets me nostalgic...birthday parties, etc., I have the turntable I got in the early 2000's and I listen to my old albums while cleaning house or whatever.

I refuse to get a new printer because I don't want to deal with DRM. New printers require software updates that disable your printer if you use third-party ink. I really like my 90's scanner+printer capable of faxing that accepts cheap ink that lasts a long time.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

I refuse to get a new printer because I don't want to deal with DRM. New printers require software updates that disable your printer if you use third-party ink. I really like my 90's scanner+printer capable of faxing that accepts cheap ink that lasts a long time.

The cheap HP multifunction printer we'd had for years had an update that started requiring an account to use the scanner. I dredged up an old driver and just used that instead, because they can shove that right up their inkjet.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

I refuse to get a new printer because I don't want to deal with DRM. New printers require software updates that disable your printer if you use third-party ink. I really like my 90's scanner+printer capable of faxing that accepts cheap ink that lasts a long time.

The company I worked for was replacing slightly older HP laser printers with new models (they were under lease, so the upgrade was "free"), and the new ones were exactly the same as the old ones. Same size, same shape, same control panel, they even fit perfectly into the styrofoam that the new printers came in. Everything was exactly identical... except the toner cartridges. Those were totally different so the customers had to toss all their existing carts and buy new ones.

adjl posted...

The cheap HP multifunction printer we'd had for years had an update that started requiring an account to use the scanner. I dredged up an old driver and just used that instead, because they can shove that right up their inkjet.

Epson now requires location access in Windows to install their drivers.

I do miss older versions of Windows

I have lots of qualms about newer tech, but it's not like it's all bad and everything old was all good.

You know what else is annoying? Nostalgia bait pictures that are just like "remember this thing?" with no commentary. Also extremely annoying are posts captioned with "POV" for no reason.

There are some older DOS games that I miss. But while the graphics quality was great back then, they look like absolute garbage now.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c3f5fff3.jpg

They must have used two, maybe three dozen polygons to make that helicopter!

Sega9599 posted...

The comments section full about how better the tech was than compared to today.

To be fair, it was almost always more reliable and lasted for much longer.

That being said, I don't pine for older tech as much as I just sort of see most newer tech as being completely pointless. Most of it is built around features I either do not need or do not want, and often have to find ways to disable (fuck you Copilot).

Most modern tech no longer exists to satisfy the needs of a consumer, it exists to exploit them.

As far as old phones go, I miss the innovation but I think phones went in the correct direction for the most part.

I miss Y2K futurism.

I miss when I didn't have to worry so much about AI.

hell fucking no

i had to live with outdated tech (dialup) until like 2011 when the rest of the world had moved on and it was annoying to watch people yearn for it again

PMarth2002 posted...

i miss couch multiplayer games sometimes, but otherwise not really.

would you and multiple others even have time to do that regularly as an adult though? that feels more like pining for a period of your life than the tech itself. i don't even live remotely anywhere near any of the friends i play games with

captpackrat posted...

There are some older DOS games that I miss. But while the graphics quality was great back then, they look like absolute garbage now.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c3f5fff3.jpg

They must have used two, maybe three dozen polygons to make that helicopter!

LHX! The game, that is, that chopper is an Osprey.

Generally no, but I miss how exciting it was to watch technology advance exponentially. We've seen diminishing returns on many fronts over the past 10 years. My 2025 cell phone is only marginally better than my 2015 cell phone, but a phone from 2005 is basically stone age technology compared to 2015.

In terms of quality though, things are way better today. There are complaints that things aren't as durable or long lasting as before, but I debate that as a form of survivorship bias. There has always been a lot of garbage on the market.

agesboy posted...

PMarth2002 posted...

i miss couch multiplayer games sometimes, but otherwise not really.

would you and multiple others even have time to do that regularly as an adult though? that feels more like pining for a period of your life than the tech itself. i don't even live remotely anywhere near any of the friends i play games with

Speaking only for myself, no one I know has time for mutliplayer games at all as adults, either online or off. It's extremely difficult to schedule games for times when everyone is available (especially once you start adding more than just two people to the mix). Most of my friends could barely manage to get 5 of us together to play Diablo 2 for an hour back in the day, and that was before most of us had kids. It's pretty much impossible now.

That being said, given the choice, I would choose offline couch co-op over online multiplayer 100% of the time. Even if I only get the opportunity to play it a couple times a year, that's still more than I want to play online multiplayer with totally random assholes.

I absolutely hate that most games have taken away the option to play split-screen. I don't begrudge other people the option to play online, but it's not what I want, and it actively impedes my gaming experience to lose the option, even if it's an option I can only rarely take advantage of.

Especially when I know the real reason for it is because they love the idea of getting every player to have to buy their own copy of the game rather than just selling one copy and having everyone play the same game. Playing Mortal Kombat with my friends in college only cost about $40. Playing the newest MK game online with them now would have cost $360+ at launch (and that's without getting into things like microtransactions, season passes, and other recurrent spending).

Which again goes back to my earlier point, and my usual stance on AI - the problem isn't the tech, the problem is the people who control it.

faramir77 posted...

In terms of quality though, things are way better today. There are complaints that things aren't as durable or long lasting as before, but I debate that as a form of survivorship bias. There has always been a lot of garbage on the market.

my view is technology obsoletes itself eventually anyways, so for the average consumer it doesn't make sense to make shit last for 40 years anymore when most people will want to or have to upgrade within a decade or two. it's not exactly planned obsolescence (most of the time, in the sense of "we will make it die so we can sell more), it's tailoring the product to the needs, expectations, and cost range for the consumer

a 2015 phone might not feel that different from a 2025 phone but the 2015 one doesn't support 5g (and possibly 4g). technology's shifted

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Playing the newest MK game online with them now would have cost $360+ at launch (and that's without getting into things like microtransactions, season passes, and other recurrent spending).

actually with gamepass it'd only cost a couple bucks for MK all DLC, at least on PC (zero idea about consoles but it might be the same?). you can sign up with a new account for $1 for 14 days and just keep making new accounts lol

also, for any games on steam that do still happen to support couch play (like all fighters still do), you can use Steam Remote Play Together or programs like Parsec to simulate couch play over the internet with one copy of the game

agesboy posted...

actually with gamepass it'd only cost a couple bucks for MK all DLC, at least on PC (zero idea about consoles but it might be the same?). you can sign up with a new account for $1 for 14 days and just keep making new accounts lol

That would require any of us to have an Xbox.

I think maybe one of us does. I know I don't.

Of course, we could all specifically buy Xboxes in order to coordinate that way... but then it would be costing waaay more than $360.

PC's not really an option because literally none of us game on PC, and none of us want to.



agesboy posted...

my view is technology obsoletes itself eventually anyways

a 2015 phone might not feel that different from a 2025 phone but the 2015 one doesn't support 5g (and possibly 4g). technology's shifted

The problem there is that you're right back to the question of whether or not the advances are necessary. My mother was pissed when her phone company told her she had to upgrade to a new phone because they were phasing out 3G, because they were doing so to support 5G features she would literally never use and definitely didn't want, and would require her to adapt to a more complex phone for the sake of it. Literally every aspect of the "upgrade" was negative for her, with absolutely no positives whatsoever.

In this example, it would be one thing if they came out with new phones that were compatible with 5G for people who wanted that but still maintained 3G (or even 2G) networks for people with older phones who were happier with their existing tech. The problem is more forcing people to upgrade to meet current standards while doing away with the old networks to save money/free up resources. Which can be justifiable to some degree when the advances are significant or near-universally popular, but which becomes harder to defend when the improvements are incremental at best or unwanted at worst.

Even now I'm personally only using a 4G flip-phone because it's the simplest I can go. If the alternative was available, I'd probably still be using the same 2G brick cell phone I had in 2000, because it met all of my needs perfectly.

As another example, it's similar to the difference between TV networks upgrading from black-and-white service to color (where black-and-white TVs still existed and could still be used without preventing adoption of newer color models), versus the switch from analog to digital signals where the US government literally had to force people to change and which effectively rendered all existing analog TVs useless (without special adapters). The first change was gradual, and still supported those who had no real desire to switch, whereas the second change was immediate, forced, and generated a lot more negative feedback at the time, even if you can look back on it now and say "TVs are better now that they're all digital HD".

It's exacerbated by things like iPhones updating models every 6 months to a year (on average, give or take), when nearly everyone knows that isn't really necessary. It's being done to exploit brand loyalty and the desire to be "trendy" far more than because most of those upgrades were ever really necessary in any meaningful way. Every generation has just enough minor tweaks to try and justify its existence, but very few of those tweaks were ever really that important or useful.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Playing Mortal Kombat with my friends in college only cost about $40. Playing the newest MK game online with them now would have cost $360+ at launch

But that game still has a local multiplayer option.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I absolutely hate that most games have taken away the option to play split-screen

Are you saying most game series that were split screen before, now aren't?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, it was almost always more reliable and lasted for much longer.

I feel like it was too. I'm just not sure i can qualify it.

Does the NES last longer than the N64? Was it more reliable?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Literally every aspect of the "upgrade" was negative for her, with absolutely no positives whatsoever.

for her, yeah, but for everyone else using 4g and 5g it was positive, as more towers were available for the networks people actually use. most people want to use the internet and 3g was bad at it. being 4g capable now is in no way a negative thing, but your phone company SHOULD have reimbursed you with a new phone, tbh

I know it sucks too because AT&T made me replace my relatively new phone (4g capable, but AT&T was mandating 4g LTE, and since orange man picked a fight with China and my phone's Huawei....) but shit happens. I just got used a $40 phone to replace it for a year or two

With some things I do, usually software. I'm no power publisher, so I know that any time I use Microsoft Word or Excel, I pine for the earlier, more minimalist versions from decades past.

No, I'm not very materialistic. Consumer culture can go rot in a pit for all I care. My 8 year old phone is "retro" at this point.

agesboy posted...

would you and multiple others even have time to do that regularly as an adult though? that feels more like pining for a period of your life than the tech itself. i don't even live remotely anywhere near any of the friends i play games with

I have free time, I don't live near anyone though. Part of it is nostalgia, but part of it is that I genuinely miss those sorts of games. Online multi-player has never done it for me.

Yeah it's more like I pine for the times before certain tech started ruining our lives, mainly in the name of convenience and constant connectivity. I miss the idea of the internet being something you "log in" to, but no matter what kind of app timers you set or intentions you make to only go online for a little bit, you'll probably turn those timers off or still reach for your phone 100 times during the day. You can still buy CDs but who's gonna do that without streaming the album a bunch of times first to make sure they love it? Etc. etc.

Some of it is just plain nostalgia, like split screen multiplayer as people have said. Although it's true that modern gaming is killing split screen, the real reason you aren't playing it is because you and your friends don't live in the same neighborhood and have the habit of coming over to each other's houses to "hang out" with no particular goal in mind once you hit adulthood

Sega9599 posted...

But that game still has a local multiplayer option.

Yeah, which is why I specified "playing the game online". The example was meant to be a generalized one, not one deliberately focused on that one particular game.

To simplify it even more, "having to buy six copies of a game costs more than having to buy one copy of a game".



agesboy posted...

for her, yeah, but for everyone else using 4g and 5g it was positive

Yes, which is why I said it's mainly a case of whether or not the new innovations exist side-by-side with old tech or forcibly replace it.

It's not like she was the only one left on Earth still using 3G and somehow holding everyone else back. Plenty of people were still happy with the service they had, and plenty of those people were annoyed by being forced to upgrade. And the "positives" of 5G aren't necessarily positives to everyone. So there was a significant percentage of people who were essentially forcibly upgraded for (in their eyes) no good reason, which in turn breeds resentment.

The bleeding edge early adopters will always welcome innovations, and there will always be people who drag their heels, and usually the majority of people fall somewhere between those two extremes.

If phone companies announced they were going to implement 6G (which is 100% currently being worked on) tomorrow, the vast majority of people either wouldn't care or would be annoyed. There is very little perception to the average person that it's in any way necessary. If they were told it would lead to slightly faster Internet speeds, most people still wouldn't care. If they were told part of the reason why 6G was "needed" was to better integrate with AI (one of the goals that is absolutely part of its development plan), a lot of people would be actively opposed to it. If they were told that it would cut their monthly phone bills in half, a lot of people would suddenly be interested, but no company would ever want to do that.

If you really want to sell a technological advance with minimal resistance, it needs to be both qualitatively improved from previous iterations (not just small incremental improvements), and universally applicable enough that the vast majority of people will see it as something worth engaging with. And it helps if you can implement it without needing to murder all preexisting alternatives to maintain it. If you can make people want it, without punishing the people who don't want it, you win the marketing game.

That's part of why multiple companies are pushing the idea of VR so hard. They hope that the idea of virtual storefronts and interactions is sufficiently advanced from current Internet usage that they can find ways to trick most people into thinking it's something they absolutely need rather than something that a lot of people will simply reject out of hand as being completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, the current level of tech and applicability really doesn't make it much more than a gimmick (and one most people aren't interested in).



agesboy posted...

but shit happens

This mentality is the main reason why companies can get away with all of the anti-consumerist practices they do. They're fully aware that apathy and learned helplessness will eventually allow them to get away with even the most repugnant of things so long as they're willing to wait. Even more so for industries that functionally control the marketplace to the point where they never need to worry about actual competition becoming a problem.

Shit shouldn't happen. And when it does, people shouldn't just shrug and go "ehh". If more people pushed back, shit would happen way less.

Not really.

Though I will say I miss the OG version of Windows solitaire

No. Good riddance. Technology is all about evolution.