Even if it took an ancient machine 10x longer than a 2012 MacBook air, that 61 milliseconds more is really not all that much time in the grand scheme of things.

Even if it took an ancient machine 10x longer than a 2012 MacBook air, that 61 milliseconds more is really not all that much time in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure the people using these machines that are "much older and much less powerful" than a 2012 macbook air are not expecting sites to load as fast as a newer machine, and probably don't care about the loss of less than 0.1 seconds to load time. If you're running a 6+ year old machine and expecting high performance you'd have to be insane. Even if BBCOnline cared this intensely about performance, there are more than a few other things they could do to speed everything up. The switch from Apache to NGINX for one. I know that this takes many more developer/sysadmin hours, but if they really cared about a tens of milliseconds then it is definitely something they'd invest in. NGINX has quite a lot of support and is very stable, as well as generally known to much faster than Apache in most cases [1]. It's also not like NGINX is a hipster/unused server, it has quite a respectable share of the 'market' [2]. I also noticed on this page that they docwrite a script (probably to force it async?). This type of 'hack' is terrible for performance [3]. You could just add the 'async' attribute to the script tag and actually move it in the html and reduce the cycles wasted by a hacky solution. [1]: https://www.rootusers.com/web-server-performance-benchmark/ https://www.rootusers.com/web-server-performance-benchmark/ [2]: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2016/03/18/march-2016-web-server-survey.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2016/03/18/march-2016-web-... [3]: https://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/04/10/dont-docwrite-scripts/ https://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2012/04/10/dont-docwrite-s...