4 ms·
In 1996, with a typical 28.8k modem, that page would've taken more than 20 seconds to load. I'm quite sentimental and nostalgic about the web of yore but let's
by rhblake 9y ago
In 1996, with a typical 28.8k modem, that page would've taken more than 20 seconds to load. I'm quite sentimental and nostalgic about the web of yore but let's not pretend everything wasn't a lot slower for most people back then.
- michrassena 9y agoAbsolutely, I do recall a lot of griping around that time about images and how much they slowed down the web. Look how image-heavy the old CNN pages are. There's over 50KB of images there and only 3K of text. Fortunately, web browsers of the era let you turn off loading of images or you could use a text-only browser like Lynx.
- compsciphd 9y agoall the images also include width/height attributes so it would have rendered without needing to load the images and just lazy loaded them.