3 ms·

The problem with comparing the Internet now vs 25 years ago is back then you didn't live on the Internet all your waking hours. You jumped on, got what you need

The problem with comparing the Internet now vs 25 years ago is back then you didn't live on the Internet all your waking hours. You jumped on, got what you needed and got off again otherwise you'd be paying a high hourly premium. And to top that off you'd power off your computer and cover it and the monitor with a dust cover. Now with phones and always on connections it's not even comparable. I spent more time using my computer; programming, graphics, learning about it, yes the physical thing in front of me than on the Internet in the early 1990s even later 1990s.

gscott 5y ago
Plus 25 years ago images were a few k in size. Now with the average webpage being a megabyte in size, it is outrageous.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The images were a few kilobytes in size because they were 120x80 pixels GIFs. Now they are 1200x750 high resolution JPGs, but that is a worth while tradeof when we have screens that can display them. The real issue is Javascript.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Actually in terms of bandwidth JavaScript isn’t the problem, you can fit an entire SPA into the bandwidth required for one large image (it is a problem in terms of CPU usage on underpowered devices though) Large images being “worth the trade off” is debatable depending on your connection speed, I think (though at least you can disable images in the browser?)
    - edflsafoiewq 5y ago
      Some browsers used to have "click to show image" too. I know dillo did. Actually, come to think of it, its browsers that have really dropped the ball on helping out users with slow connections.
hsn915 5y ago
Are you sure? I was glued all the time to my computer on the internet as far back as 2002 - browsing forums and playing video games and self-learning programming from C++ tutorials here and there. Yea, that's not 25 years ago, only 19 years ago.
tim333 5y ago
25 years ago I had pay by the minute dial up so would connect, download a few pages and then hang up while I read them. It was epically slow of the click a few links then go make a cup of tea and come back and see if they'd loaded slow. I find the modern web quite quick with an adblocker on but a bit horrendous with it off.

gscott 5y ago

Plus 25 years ago images were a few k in size. Now with the average webpage being a megabyte in size, it is outrageous.

tomjen3 5y ago
The images were a few kilobytes in size because they were 120x80 pixels GIFs. Now they are 1200x750 high resolution JPGs, but that is a worth while tradeof when we have screens that can display them. The real issue is Javascript.
- afavour 5y ago
  Actually in terms of bandwidth JavaScript isn’t the problem, you can fit an entire SPA into the bandwidth required for one large image (it is a problem in terms of CPU usage on underpowered devices though) Large images being “worth the trade off” is debatable depending on your connection speed, I think (though at least you can disable images in the browser?)
  - edflsafoiewq 5y ago
    Some browsers used to have "click to show image" too. I know dillo did. Actually, come to think of it, its browsers that have really dropped the ball on helping out users with slow connections.

hsn915 5y ago

Are you sure? I was glued all the time to my computer on the internet as far back as 2002 - browsing forums and playing video games and self-learning programming from C++ tutorials here and there. Yea, that's not 25 years ago, only 19 years ago.

tim333 5y ago

25 years ago I had pay by the minute dial up so would connect, download a few pages and then hang up while I read them. It was epically slow of the click a few links then go make a cup of tea and come back and see if they'd loaded slow. I find the modern web quite quick with an adblocker on but a bit horrendous with it off.