3 ms·

>that load times today are no better than back then, and are often times much worse. Uhhhh, well I don't tend to wait 3-5 minutes for a single .jpeg to load on

>that load times today are no better than back then, and are often times much worse. Uhhhh, well I don't tend to wait 3-5 minutes for a single .jpeg to load on a website any more. I can stream a hq video in real time over the internet, whereas downloading a single 30MB realmedia video so pixelated you could barely see what was on the screen would take an hour or more to download. A 3MB mp3 would take 5-10 minutes. There have been massive speed increases in web surfing for sure. I don't understand how anyone that used the web back then could think otherwise. As for software load speed, the amount of data being loaded off a CD for a 2d or older 3d game is magnitudes smaller than the data being loaded from modern games. How many gigabytes of high res textures did those old games used to load? How many uncompressed HQ sound effects and music tracks? I remember installing multi-CD games and waiting and waiting,.then swapping the disc, then waiting then waiting, then back to disc one, more waiting, now disc 3. I'm not saying those things are better, but there's no way in hell my old 486 could have loaded multiple gigabytes of data at the same speed my laptop or even my phone now does.

codesushi42 7y ago
Uhhhh, well I don't tend to wait 3-5 minutes for a single .jpeg to load on a website any more. That was not true on 56k in the late 90s. On a baud modem in 93, sure, but I wasn't talking about that. As for software load speed, the amount of data being loaded off a CD for a 2d or older 3d game is magnitudes smaller than the data being loaded from modern games. Irrelevant. The amount of multimedia on a CD was vastly more than the main memory available at the time. Plus you didn't have multi cores, SSD storage (or any HD) etc. No one optimizes anymore, and it shows.
- grawprog 7y ago
  Well I was talking about 97-99 as far as internet browsing went. I don't really remember the internet before that. I wasn't allowed fuck around too much when we had dialup it cost too much. Yes it really was that slow. That was when I first started downloading music and TV shows. I vividly remember the waiting. >Irrelevant. The amount of multimedia on a CD was vastly more than the main memory available at the time. I don't follow. It's not like all available memory is ever used to load things from storage. All I know is, I can copy an 8GB DVD on my current computer with 6GB of RAM faster than I could have copied a 756MB CD with around 500MB of RAM. I do agree nothing is optimized as well, but that's some hard nostalgia goggles talking there.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    I mean the file size comparison doesn't really apply, because hardware back then had many limitations anyway. We should be seeing much better load times than we are given current hardware, not incrementally better or even worse. Which is the reality, since no one optimizes anymore.

codesushi42 7y ago

Uhhhh, well I don't tend to wait 3-5 minutes for a single .jpeg to load on a website any more. That was not true on 56k in the late 90s. On a baud modem in 93, sure, but I wasn't talking about that. As for software load speed, the amount of data being loaded off a CD for a 2d or older 3d game is magnitudes smaller than the data being loaded from modern games. Irrelevant. The amount of multimedia on a CD was vastly more than the main memory available at the time. Plus you didn't have multi cores, SSD storage (or any HD) etc. No one optimizes anymore, and it shows.

grawprog 7y ago
Well I was talking about 97-99 as far as internet browsing went. I don't really remember the internet before that. I wasn't allowed fuck around too much when we had dialup it cost too much. Yes it really was that slow. That was when I first started downloading music and TV shows. I vividly remember the waiting. >Irrelevant. The amount of multimedia on a CD was vastly more than the main memory available at the time. I don't follow. It's not like all available memory is ever used to load things from storage. All I know is, I can copy an 8GB DVD on my current computer with 6GB of RAM faster than I could have copied a 756MB CD with around 500MB of RAM. I do agree nothing is optimized as well, but that's some hard nostalgia goggles talking there.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  I mean the file size comparison doesn't really apply, because hardware back then had many limitations anyway. We should be seeing much better load times than we are given current hardware, not incrementally better or even worse. Which is the reality, since no one optimizes anymore.