4 ms·
I truly wish I had the data to back this up, but in my memory the web is WAY WAY faster than it was back then even with all of the extra "bullshit". I mean the
by tracerbulletx 4y ago
I truly wish I had the data to back this up, but in my memory the web is WAY WAY faster than it was back then even with all of the extra "bullshit". I mean the images were like 16 colors and 200X300, and even just text based sites were slower and latency was worse too. Am I crazy here?
- 121789 4y agoYeah I agree. Lots more bloat now, but I'm not often waiting for images to render or sites to load in general
- gonehome 4y agoYeah - I think people forget, things were really slow back then.
- PaulKeeble 4y agoNo doubt the modern web is faster even on moderate xDSL connections. I remember web pages taking half a minute to load, even relatively basic ones. The 56k v90 was quite a bit quicker than 14.4k too. Its not even close to similar I remember watching JPG images gradually progress through their low quality versions upwards. Pages were a lot lighter back then but still much much slower than today.
- FredPret 4y agoI remember images loading one line at a time. Now I can stream 4k video. Not sure what OP is on about. There is lots of bloat but we are now on a jumbo jet and we used to be on a hot-air balloon
- 13of40 4y agoSomewhere around 1998 or 1999 I was working as a web developer and I listened to a pitch from a guy who wanted to build a video streaming site. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out who was going to pay a subscription to watch grainy, postage-stamp sized videos in a web browser, but apparently that sort of thing took off.
- numpad0 4y agoMy working theory is that slow behaviors are preferred because else people gets startled.
- icedchai 4y agoLatency was also a contributing factor. 56K modem latency is about 200 to 300ms higher than latency on a pure digital connection (ISDN, 56K frame relay, 56K DDS, etc.)