4 ms·
Slower+buggy is not an improvement. I can't count the number of times that the new interface has reported 'twitter is over capacity', 'you have already tweeted
by 0x12 15y ago
Slower+buggy is not an improvement.
I can't count the number of times that the new interface has reported 'twitter is over capacity', 'you have already tweeted that' (when it wasn't true) and a whole pile of other errors, if it worked at all. Page load times of several minutes on a 10 Mbit connection on a very fast machine are ridiculous.
Of course you have to 'take risks to innovate'. But rolling out buggy and slow software is not innovation, especially not when it breaks web conventions (take a look at the new urls).
- TobbenTM 15y agoSometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward.
- mnutt 15y agoThose two things sound like backend capacity issues, rather than frontend. The frontend as I understand it is almost all static HTML/JS. So they may be having capacity issues, but that would be true whether they stayed on the old twitter or moved to the new twitter.
- corin_ 15y agoI'm not sure what the cause is exactly, but back when they let you chose between new and old, I found that it was always slower and less reliable on the new version of the site. And it hasn't got any better since they killed off the old version.
- eavc 15y agoI expected the first comment to be the old Henry Ford quote about a faster horse. Therefore, "Slower+buggy is not an improvement," took a minute to parse.