• bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    5·
    2 hours ago

    Because we don’t have dial-up anymore, so if it takes that long it’s because someone made a shit website. See: every newspaper site that is like two paragraphs of text interspersed with 15 skyscraper listicle ads.

  • iegod@lemmy.zip
    13·
    18 hours ago

    Websites using ‘tech stacks’ and AWS services to serve up what should be static html is the crime of the decade.

  • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
    12·
    1 day ago

    I remember when we were told every millisecond made sites lose users, and nowadays they download an entire OS worth of spyware without consequences. So we are going back to dial up load times soon enough.

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    184·
    2 days ago

    With dial up, it felt like it was working. It was trying its best.

    Now it feels like it’s bogged down with ads and tracking and bots.

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    61·
    2 days ago

    Remember early 2000s when one of the metrics to be a good website was how many milliseconds it took to load?

    If your site had 120ms of overhead, it wasn’t professional.

    • Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
      1·
      18 hours ago

      I remember the early 2000s internet, playing Ogame, trolling RP internet forums, browsing illegal pornography on 4chan with WT Snacks, damn, that was the real wild west of the internet…

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      15·
      2 days ago

      Absolutely. I remember when Google Chrome started to be a thing, they had an actual video ad showing that it could load and render the Google homepage in like 100 ms. And so we all switched from Firefox, which had become large and bloated.

      Now Chrome is full of a ton of useless crap, most web pages are painful without ad blockers, and there is pretty much zero effort put into efficient web design.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
    67·
    2 days ago

    Back then if it took more then that to load it was because you picked on a piece of media not the homepage.

    Nowadays it’s them making you download 300MB of JS so they can make images rotate in a gallery.

  • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
    10·
    2 days ago

    Modern websites are bloated trash, so many advertisements and trackers and stupid JavaScript packages to build a shitty UI full of unnecessary animations and shit that adds nothing

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 days ago

    The fun thing here is that pages actually loaded faster back then when internet access was via modem.

    If you analyze a modern web page, e.g. an article from a newspaper, you usually download 20, 50, or even more megabytes in total: frameworks, tracking, and, worst of all, advertizing. All for maybe 2 kilobytes of text, and maybe 50 kilobytes of article-related picture.

    All that junk did not exist back then. You only got a logo, and maybe the name of the paper as b&w image resembling the printed version, and a line of links for navigation as the only overhead. And the logo and title would be in the cache after the first load, and would be reused everywhere on the site without reloading from the net.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      3·
      2 days ago

      Yup, it all exists to create employment because we still have an economic model that was around since we burned wood.

  • Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
    11·
    18 hours ago

    I remember when porn was a hard to a way that took off it did to it and what came of it is obvious, which is why I am addict now. It’s like all day bro.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    23·
    2 days ago

    Part of good website design back then was to set up the webpage so it shows the structure first, then fills in over the rest of the time, and also why interlacing was used a lot for images, so you could see the image gradually form over the load time vs. top to bottom or nothing at all until the end.

    If you’re really old enough, you remember being able to read the BBS text as it came in.

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 days ago

      I mean this is true of MPAs that care about load times as well. Use server side rendering to send the initial HTML structure and then load only the JS that’s needed to interact with the current page state.

  • Ucarenya@lemmy.zip
    8·
    2 days ago

    Feels the contrary as a frontend dev. Young ppl can stand with weird web design and carefully find out where to click in like GitHub or Gmail but old fella rage quit unfriendly desktop GUIs.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      10·
      2 days ago

      dude…same. I have ZERO chill for shitty UI design.

      hide the menu automatically? fuck you.

      hide the logout link? fuck you.

      block access to ctrl+c? extra fuck you.

      there’s a special place in hell for product owners and shitty frontend devs right between Nazis and rapist clowns.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        3·
        22 hours ago

        Personally, I think a bigger “fuck you” to the browsers that implement parts of standards that give websites more control than users (regarding blocking usual actions). Like with websites, I kinda get it; they don’t want you to do something you normally can do for whatever reasons. But when the browser goes along with it, it is a betrayal because the browser was supposed to be on my side, not some asshole web dev’s.