On a curious note, what's Hacker News score? Seems ala carte minimal no?
1MB Club
81–90 of 392 posts
Re: 1MB Club
#82Here's the disconnect, which is why these "webpages need to be slim!" sites tend to make me think they're greybeard nostalgia for an internet that doesn't really exist anymore. Your 1mb webpage is approximately 60ms worth of Disney+ streaming. Your 1mb webpage is approximately 1.7s worth of Zoom chat. Your 1mb webpage is approximately 1.9s worth of Tiktok video. Unless you are specifically targeting low-bandwidth use…
> Unless you are specifically targeting low-bandwidth users
There aren't some tiny number of low bandwidth users with some esoteric internet problem, there is a significant divide due to technological and geographic reasons. Averages are very misleading when the majority of people in cities connected to various fiber end points keep getting crazier and crazier speeds while 50% of the US is stuck on ADSL, with a theoretical max of 20Mbit down - add geographical limitations and that's often far lower due to line noise. Where I live in the UK it's also just a matter of luck, I live in the middle of a major city and yet in the 5 places I've lived over the last 10 years the only option was ADSL, and never >6Mbit.
I haven't even started the argument about other countries with poorer internet infrastructure.
When you assume being able to download at 1MiB/s is basic, you make the internet suck for a huge chunk of the population, they are not the majority - but barely.
Re: 1MB Club
#83Where's the Nginx landing page.
Re: 1MB Club
#841MB. When I started writing Web sites (late '90s), we'd get spanked for 50K pages. I'm not sure it's possible, anymore, with a lot of the CSS and JS libraries; let alone the content. But back then, we didn't have content delivery networks. CDNs make a huge difference.
We also had super grainy images, no fonts (besides the default set) and no videos. We can complain about bloat, but I don’t think comparisons to the 90’s are totally appropriate, except as a dunk.
If you note, it wasn't actually a complaint, or a dunk.
It was an observation, and recounting some personal experience.
What is bloat, as far as I'm concerned, is hitting a page with a 4K background video.
If you want a real "I had to walk 2 miles, barefoot" story, I can tell you about writing [C]WAP/WML sites (the old "m." sites). I actually considered using XSLT to extract WML from the regular site HTML.
Re: 1MB Club
#85Ahh let the bikeshedding continue. In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares". Optimization matters when it actually solves a problem, before that it's just wasted effort. I don't hear the general public yelling from the rooftops "The web is too slow! Developers are building too fast! I wish we could go backwards!"
The public does yell "The web is too slow!"
Except they usually yell "My phone is too slow" when the problem is actually the web that got 3X bloated since they bought their phone.
Re: 1MB Club
#861MB. When I started writing Web sites (late '90s), we'd get spanked for 50K pages. I'm not sure it's possible, anymore, with a lot of the CSS and JS libraries; let alone the content. But back then, we didn't have content delivery networks. CDNs make a huge difference.
I was going to say that I remember coding towards a 35-50KB limit in the 90s. That'd get you a load time within 10 seconds on a typical modem of the era, if you were lucky! :-) Couple that with only being able to use hex colors at multiples of 00, 33, 66, 99, cc, and ff, as well as having to cater for 640x480 resolutions - great times.
Re: 1MB Club
#87My personal fav: 148kb, $530B company. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com
Copyright © 1978-2020 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Can it be assumed that this same website has been in place since 1978? Obviously not exactly like it is now, but probably not far off.
I'd assume not, given that Tim Berners-Lee hadn't invented HTTP yet.
But, the website looks rather similar to how it did back in 2001 (with the recognizable two-column list of bullet points):
https://web.archive.org/web/20011129002047/https://www.berks...
Re: 1MB Club
#881MB. When I started writing Web sites (late '90s), we'd get spanked for 50K pages. I'm not sure it's possible, anymore, with a lot of the CSS and JS libraries; let alone the content. But back then, we didn't have content delivery networks. CDNs make a huge difference.
I used what was probably the first 1MB page on the internet to discover why realloc() was not a smart choice for progressive parsing of content. I showed the problem to the lead dev and he cut the load time by a factor of ten in as many hours. NCSA had a web page where you could list your web server and a couple of sentences about it. Which was great until Netscape came out and everyone was setting up web servers.
This was back when Lycos was news to most people and Alta Vista was just launching. It was a poor man’s Yahoo. I don’t think it was a coincidence that the end of its usefulness came so close to the birth of better alternatives. The ungainliness of the status quo is usually what goads someone into trying something new.
Re: 1MB Club
#89lol Jira is 24 MB.
Re: 1MB Club
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because anyone who complains is given this treatment. We don't complain to everybody we just bounce.
If you're offering a service that is so uncompelling or so undifferentiated that the page load speed is a driving factor, than you should certainly focus on page load speed. On the other hand, Gmail regularly takes 10s+ to load and yet most users are glued to it. If you're a SaaS business, your marketing page is probably not your app. The people using your app care about usability, and page load speed is rarely the d…
I hear you saying that if my service is compelling enough, people will tolerate the horrendous page loads.