|
As someone with "unlimited" phone data that slows down to 56k, I keep a list of old fun websites that haven't updated in a decade just to have something that's not the forums or wiki to look at when I go over my cap.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Old internet could be so un-user friendly and infuriating. New internet is loads more convenient but there are more idiots on it now. I almost can't comprehend pre-cable internet anymore. I am surprised to hear you say that because personally I find this web 2.0 poo poo to be infuriating. For example, look at this poo poo: http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/life/luxury/2016/02/12/artie-lange-talks-drugs-suicide-springsteen-more/80283918/ So I am trying to read that article and I accidentally click slightly "outside" the article, and the article closes? What kind of stupid poo poo is that? Why isn't it just a page itself for the article? Why is it some stupid floating thing above the website? Also I find it so much more difficult to find stuff under Paypal's redesign. I would much rather they go back to their old rear end site. I swear there was one day I must have searched their site for an hour to find something and I never actually did. I knew exactly where it was on the old website. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish for the days of frames and stuff, but I actually found them way easier to navigate. Maybe I am getting old. UIApplication posted:Remember when aol got wise to people using cchateooms named "server##" to distribute ripped off software so the ultra espionage software pirates slid under the radar by going to rooms named "cerver##" and "servver##" Yes and hilariously enough, they still block those names!!  Sorry if my screen shots are coming out blurry, I am taking snips of them in a virtual machine so it looks a little wonky. Anyway one other thing of note. I figured out that keyword areas never get deleted, I believe. For example, if I try to go to keyword: HUB, it does not work (no direct keywords do any longer). I found an AOL URL to it and was able to get to it, but it was from a different date than a different link to the Hub that I was able to find. Here is a "version" of the Hub you get from one link:  then another:  then another (aol://4344:773.hubmain2.6836943.517768180/):  Now these are all technically the "main page" of The Hub. And all are active and currently loading properly. It seems as though AOL wouldn't actually "update" keywords like you would a website. They would simply stop linking to them but would leave them up, even though there is nothing linking to them any longer. Any other method being used when I try to go to the Hub fails, except direct links which all work. But I have no idea how the hell to "guess" the links to access everything to archive it all. So again, instead of just keyword "hub", this: aol://4344:773.hubmain2.6836943.517768180/ brings me to a different Hub main page than the one from a week or month later or whatever. As you can see, the URL is kind of confusing, which makes sense because they aren't deleting anything. Later on, AOL would make switch everything to aol://1722:hub which was just basically telling the URL to go to keyword hub, which as I learned, is much different. So is there any way to unearth the gibberish of the URL to figure out how to access all the different keywords that are no longer linked to any longer? The archive.org AOL page breaks it down like this: code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:Yes and hilariously enough, they still block those names!! Can you imagine what an incomprehensible mass of piled-up exceptions and special-case handling their code must have been by the end?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Ive worked on plenty of modern code that is just as bad if not worse than that in terms of having crazy rear end business logic to maintain  programming fuckin shcks
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:Here is a "version" of the Hub you get from one link: Agony Man is the worst superhero name ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:I am surprised to hear you say that because personally I find this web 2.0 poo poo to be infuriating. For example, look at this poo poo: http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/life/luxury/2016/02/12/artie-lange-talks-drugs-suicide-springsteen-more/80283918/ I really hate that a lot of sites make logging kind of a hassle because they pushed the login off someplace obscure so they could make a giant button for joining. My school doesn't let you have a bookmark for the login page, it errors out and tells you that you can't do it. You have to go to the front page, push a little button to take you to the login screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
It's because most big sites are designed by a bunch of loving idiots. The login button thing is annoying. The template that lets you accidentally click out of eg. an article is a fully "modal" website which is an f'ing terrible idea that a lot of major media sites are trying/have tried for some reason. Personally the thing that pisses me off the most is infinite scrolling through the end of an article that takes you to another and another if you keep going.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Also gently caress websites with no goddamn negative space to safely click in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Since where doing the AOL thing. I remember my first comedy website was on AOL it was called Buzzsaw. The two things I still remember is they had a forum where they made fun of teletubies and When bill clinton got that dog buddy someone typed up a press conference the dog gave one joke was "lets just say if the senator threw a stick i wouldnt go catch it" Buzzsaw left AOL to become hecklers online and then I never saw it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:Also gently caress websites with no goddamn negative space to safely click in. If your site has negative space in 2016 dont worry your marketing/ad sales dept will get on that right away
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
I wanna goof off with hot live girls 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
mcbexx posted:Let me tell you something about the Compuserve Information Service. Yeah, the AOL chat made me think of CIS. I never used any of those big pre-Internet services, only BBSes, but CIS stuck in my head a lot more than AOL. Is it possible that big companies like Microsoft, Lotus, Borland, etc., or maybe game publishers, used CIS more than AOL? That might be why I always wanted access to CIS rather than AOL. I'm sure by the end all those companies would have presences on both services, and more (e.g. GEnie), but apparently CIS was available before AOL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:I am surprised to hear you say that because personally I find this web 2.0 poo poo to be infuriating. For example, look at this poo poo: http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/life/luxury/2016/02/12/artie-lange-talks-drugs-suicide-springsteen-more/80283918/ Hopefully that fad passes, just like having your site content entirely inside Flash. quote:But I have no idea how the hell to "guess" the links to access everything to archive it all. What does "archiving" mean, is there a "save" button or are you just screenshotting stuff? quote:Is there any way using that info that I could futz around with numbers and access every almost page of almost every keyword? I already know the stuff is there, I just need to figure out how to get the links to them. If you scripted it to try all the number/digit combinations, I think AOL might get annoyed by you making trillions of requests 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
I wish you could dig up the files area if only to find the duke3d maps I used to download that recommended a 486/66 to handle the "advanced lighting"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
UIApplication posted:I wish you could dig up the files area if only to find the duke3d maps I used to download that recommended a 486/66 to handle the "advanced lighting" I thought maybe these would be somewhere in all the .zip files in https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22AOL+Files%22, but I downloaded all the file listings and no. There are only just under 168,000 files there, which seems pretty low. I guess the archive team didn't get everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
I didn't search the AOL files dump for porn until I had already stumbled across what turned out to be the only files with "porn" in their names:pre:aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4522: 0 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ 3-Way W_ A Cowgirl/ aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4523: 1234630 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ 3-Way W_ A Cowgirl/3 way cowgirl + suck.mov aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4524: 237 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ 3-Way W_ A Cowgirl/info.txt aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4525: 0 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ Jessica 1 (QTVR Control)/ aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4526: 2660833 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ Jessica 1 (QTVR Control)/'Jessica' I (qtvr control).mov aol-file-protocol-4400-1101-to-1200:4527: 249 09-14-2014 19:13 AOLDLs/TSRO Team Library/PORN_ Jessica 1 (QTVR Control)/info.txt But there is definitely a computer relic here - QuickTime VR! Does QuickTime still exist, and can it do QuickTime VR?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Having never used it and despite reading all of Uncle's posts I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly makes AOL different from the "normal internet"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
AOL was like its own internet. You could go to AOL keywords which were websites but worse. You could go into AOL chatrooms. You could use AOL instant messenger to talk to your friends. It was all the normal internet stuff you could do but inside AOL and not as good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Yes, but could you use the Internet on your Commodore 64 in the mid 1980s? Okay, you couldn't exactly use AOL on a Commodore 64 in the mid 80s either, but you could use AOL's predecessor, from what I understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:AOL was like its own internet. I've never used AOL or anything similar as I'm too young, but from this thread that's my impression. I guess using modern-day terms it's a bit like using only Google (as in *.google.com sites) for everything on the internet and never visiting a site with any other domain name. Sure, there's tons of other stuff out there but you'll never see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
So does that make "you got mail" like a historical documentary
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
1000 Brown M and Ms posted:I've never used AOL or anything similar as I'm too young, but from this thread that's my impression. google is too generous. it was more like the interactive menu system on modern cable television, at best
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
I feel with lots of websites functionality takes a backseat to design. You could even say that about a lot of applications. I think simple, bare, plain text is still the best way to relay information and in many cases, also to store it. Everyone seems to want to do away with that these days, why I do not know. IT people have a problem with seeing the difference between "old" and "obsolete". Not everything the former is also automatically the latter. Newer ways are not automatically better. What I hate most about the current internet though is how bad the signal to noise ratio feels. Back then you had to dig sometimes because the search machines weren't as efficient, today you do because so much stuff is just so irrelevant or doesn't relay much information at all. Somebody learns how to cook soup out of a can without scolding themselves horribly and they'll register thesoupchef.com and create SupperChannel on youtube with 50 40 minute videos where they drone on and on nasally and which have no information content at all for anyone who ever cooked a can of soup. You want to find an interesting recipe for soup with all-fresh ingredients and you have to dig through pages of crap like that. If you get what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Internet speeds are inconceivably faster than they were in the late 90s/early 2000s yet it seems like websites load at the same speed. i remember 56k like it was yesterday and i feel fairly confident in saying it still isn't nearly as slow. however, auto-playing videos do their best to as irritating as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
1000 Brown M and Ms posted:I've never used AOL or anything similar as I'm too young, but from this thread that's my impression. for the longest time, aol wasn't even considered an internet service provider. it was an "online service provider" - that platform was totally separate (from customer perspective) from the rest of the internet. although it was definitely shittier than the "real" internet in a lot of ways, aol-world loaded faster and also had some pretty nice chatroom features. i very much recall playing the poo poo out of the copy of simcity 2000 i pirated from an aol chatroom. the best part of aol (prior to the 4.0 update) were the idiotic punters. AOL allowed html into instant messages so you could add color, italics, etc. if you added a whole lot of formatting, though, the software would very quickly become overwhelmed and freeze up. since the software was then unable to maintain a connection with aol because it was so busy trying to process the loads of html formatting, you'd get disconnected. anyone who sent you a message with formatting would instantly freeze your computer, so of course people wrote hundreds of visual basic programs that punted people from the service. iirc it was tough for aol guides to deal with, because if they opened the messages to check to see if someone sent a punting message, their aol would also lock up. edit: and i realize people have probably mentioned punters like 500 times in this thread Concerned Citizen has a new favorite as of 09:30 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
max4me posted:So does that make "you got mail" like a historical documentary
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Used Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy back in the day. I remember AOL being the best of the bunch as far as content. Way too long ago and was too young to remember any specifics from that era though. I remember Prodigy literally charged by the email (on top of per-hour fees)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Police Automaton posted:IT people have a problem with seeing the difference between "old" and "obsolete". #notallitpeople I guess not only do I post here, but I also sometimes want to do things the obsolete way just for fun, so that's probably just as bad as people who think everything should be done the new way. quote:What I hate most about the current internet though is how bad the signal to noise ratio feels. Back then you had to dig sometimes because the search machines weren't as efficient, today you do because so much stuff is just so irrelevant or doesn't relay much information at all. Somebody learns how to cook soup out of a can without scolding themselves horribly and they'll register thesoupchef.com and create SupperChannel on youtube with 50 40 minute videos where they drone on and on nasally and which have no information content at all for anyone who ever cooked a can of soup. You want to find an interesting recipe for soup with all-fresh ingredients and you have to dig through pages of crap like that. If you get what I mean. And then someone registers recipeaggregator.com which trawls all the recipe sites and re-posts all the details for some reason, and then 1000 other sites pop up and do the same thing, and then a spammer feeds those into a Markov chain to generate 1000000 spam pages which your searches now pick up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Uncle at Nintendo posted:That was literally my opposite experience. They were always cancelling my loving account. And it was over the dumbest poo poo like I made an ascii rear end in a chat room (_Y_) I called them and told them I had an empty bank account and no job and they talked me into taking 3-4 free months of service instead of canceling. It's really quite amazing when you think about it. AOL still wanted your business even if you couldn't, you know, pay them money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
 I like how this game was arguably the most open kitchen sink, like every pie-in-the-sky kickstarter claims to want nowadays. You could murder, rob dismember, even do cannibalism, and people did. It was Lord of the Flies. Online game design spent 2 decades learning that people couldn't be trusted with a perfect "sandbox" game because they'd just poo poo in it, and carefully fencing everything off and adding constraints and protections. But man was it glorious when I was 16-17 and the one doing the making GBS threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
SELLING SNOW MAN
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Internet speeds are inconceivably faster than they were in the late 90s/early 2000s yet it seems like websites load at the same speed. Nah man. Most sites loading in a couple seconds, maybe 5 if it's being slow would be inconceivable to me in the early 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Remember on the forums if you posted a thread with photos you were expected to put 56K warning in the title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Germstore posted:Nah man. Most sites loading in a couple seconds, maybe 5 if it's being slow would be inconceivable to me in the early 2000s. I got broadband (cable) at home circa 2001 and I feel like perceived load time is kinda similar to today on avg. Granted back then no sites had streaming video presence or 2x/retina graphics etc the ads were much simpler then too
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
1000 Brown M and Ms posted:I've never used AOL or anything similar as I'm too young, but from this thread that's my impression. Remember that at the time AOL got big, there was no such thing as the idea of the Internet being this always-on, pervasive service encompassing all kinds of technologies, from Web to email to chat to video and so on. "Going Online" was a thing you sat down and did; it was an event. At the time, most productivity/office packages had like a word processor, a spreadsheet, a database, and a "Communications" program, whose purpose was to dial your modem and go to a specific dial-up destination, such as a BBS, that you could reach via your local dial-up phone line. (Nobody dialed-up to long-distance numbers; that would be crazy! Think of the costs!) AOL operated on the same principles. You were "going online", which meant you were dialing up, which meant you were connecting to your favorite local BBS—only because AOL was huge and had dialup centers everywhere, your "local" BBS was actually the same system as the "local" BBS that someone across the country was connecting to. So instead of only chatting with the guys from your high school or the basement dwellers in the local survivalist clan, you were able to talk to millions of people around the world! But at its heart, AOL was a BBS. A single, self-contained system that created all its own content, where all its users were subscribers, and where everyone spoke the same basic language. AOL controlled and policed everything they presented for your consumption. If there was interest in Star Trek on AOL, AOL would make a Star Trek keyword, which would be like a website except really more like a set of links that might be text articles, picture galleries, chat rooms, or other miscellaneous aggregations of data for you to peruse. And it would all be licensed by Paramount. "The Internet", with content created by random people all over the place, with no corporate oversight or legal permission and no way to guarantee quality or control who accesses it except what each individual site owner might implement, was anathema to AOL. But once dialup technology evolved to the point where local access numbers were no longer important or even necessary, and where your local dialup Internet Service Provider could give you access at competitive prices to what AOL charged, the pervasive chaos of the Internet as we're familiar with it today started to become more attractive. It was simply much bigger, much freer, and people could sense the lack of boundaries immediately. At the ISP where I worked in the mid-90s, every day we'd have a steady procession of people walking in the door saying they had AOL but they wanted to get on the Internet. They knew it was better somehow, that's what they'd been told, but they didn't know quite how. And the process of dialing up was much more of a pain in the rear end. Little mom-and-pop shops like ours had to provide our own tech support for people using poo poo like Trumpet Winsock to get their PPP connections working with their obscure incompatible modems. The terminology was more confusing; instead of just "going on AOL", you were now dialing up to some nebulous "thing" out in the ether, it would tell you you were "connected", and then you'd go... "Well now what?" Instead of AOL giving you a greeting screen and tons of content to peruse, now you saw ... nothing. You had to know what you wanted to do next, and you had to go pull up the appropriate application for it—a web browser, a mail reader, a USENET client, all made by different companies with their own rules and interfaces and levels of quality—and go look up content yourself. It was madness, for someone used to AOL's walled garden. But most stuck with it, because eventually companies stopped saying "Go to keyword startrek on AOL" and started saying "Go to startrek.com". AOL did their best to stem the tide of subscribers realizing that the unwalled Internet was inherently more attractive in terms of content from uncountable providers rather than just what they themselves could provide, and they created various portals and gateways through which you could access "The Internet" (i.e. the Web) through AOL itself, basically just a reskinned IE using your AOL dialup as your TCP/IP transport; but sooner or later people got used to the Web and its systems of navigation and discovery and found them much more flexible and attractive than AOL's little lists of aggregated data collections. And people also chafed under AOL's model of charging per-hour for connectivity; once the local ISPs started going to flat monthly rates and allowing for always-on connections and stuff like ISDN, which catered to people who no longer thought of "going online" as a single event or activity to do of an evening, and more of a state of perpetually-connected existence which would inevitably lead to twitter and poopsocking, AOL as a service no longer made sense. This was all largely before Google even became a thing, too. This all happened before there was even a notion of reliable and productive Web search, let alone being able to twitch a finger and type part of a word and have the sum total of human knowledge on a given subject flood into your eyeballs. But ultimately the take-home is that AOL was modeled on cable TV companies, either creating their own content or channeling licensed material from partner providers; it was a corporate monolith that sought to keep you satisfied with its own offerings. It was designed to allow you to maximize the potential of the old local BBS model, but it was constrained to the limits of what that model could do; it could not compete with the Internet as a whole unless it were to throw wide the doors and just become a big ISP, which was of course its last-ditch plan—but by that point they were a commodity service competing with dozens of other giant ISPs, and nothing they could offer in the way of their formerly vaunted walled garden of content (like making their own website and trying to position it as a search portal or a news platform) could give them the edge that their former dialup monopoly did. Suddenly they were just another bit player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
This is a good loving post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:
Oh man this annoys me so much. The other day I read a great article about raising kids and I copied the URL and sent it to my wife. She replied "why did you send me an article about Charlie Sheen?". It turns out I scrolled a millimeter past the article I was reading, and it auto-loaded a completely new article, which changed the URL that was in my address bar. It's so drat weird scrolling through a website and watching the URL change the more you scroll. Data Graham posted:
This was me in 1996. We got permanently kicked off AOL for cursing and we decided to get Earthlink. We signed in and....nothing. What the hell was there to do? I don't even remember how we accessed our email back then. I don't recall using Outlook. Anyway, since AIM did not exist at this point, there was literally no way to communicate with all of my real life friends (who had AOL). It sucked bad because like you said, AOL had a "walled garden" and you were banished from accessing it. It really, REALLY sucked losing your buddy list and email and having no access to chatting with your high school friends online because you and your brother scrolled in a chatroom or some stupid TOS violation like that. Mak0rz posted:Having never used it and despite reading all of Uncle's posts I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly makes AOL different from the "normal internet" Think about the fact that me and my family were literally banned from accessing the internet because I posted a curse word online. We went weeks without internet until they got a new credit card to sign us up for a new account (after we gave up on Earthlink). And guess what? They disabled your email address as well when you were kicked off. And websites were still in their infancy, so keywords were a lot better in many ways. AOL had chat rooms and message boards and the message boards were pretty interesting and fun. Anyway, you could no longer access your emails or friends you made (or friends you had in real life) or all those things you considered "the internet" because you said a curse word in a chat room. Do you know what you'd have to do today to get your ISP to kick you off the internet? I am pretty sure it would have to be something like running ethernet cables to 20 of your neighbor's homes. And even then I am pretty sure they'd just tell you to stop. Another thing that made it way different were the AOL keywords, which is what I have been posting (the remnants that happen to remain for whatever reason). The reason it's amazing that I am still able to access some of them is because AOL got rid of them literally 16 years ago. Starting with AOL 6.0, any time you type in a "keyword" it just brings up their web browser. AOL 5.0 and earlier would bring you to "keywords". These differed from websites in that they were almost like their own individual executables in a way. You couldn't "right click, save as" on any of them. Hell, you couldn't right click on any of them at all. And it seems like the process of "updating" them was them just uploading a newer version (while not deleting the old one) but linking to the new one when you accessed the keyword. So in short, with AOL you would not go to gamepro.com for the latest gaming tips and chats. You would go to AOL keyword: Gamepro and it would be AOL's own proprietary "channel" which like I said, wasn't like a website at all. And another thing is when I started using AOL on version 2.5, there was no web browser. So you couldn't even access websites. Not that there were that many in 1994, but you get the idea. Concerned Citizen posted:
In case you missed it, someone archived all of them for download online: http://www.aciddr0p.net/aolunorgd/ Magenta by RedXKing is missing, though. I loved that one. But the funny thing is you didn't even need a punter to kick someone offline. All you need to do was put <h3> a bunch of times in an IM and it would lock the other person's computer. This worked for YEARS. For you youngin's, think about that. If someone pissed you off on the internet, you could kick them off. Imagine if you could do that today. I never understood why that HTML code froze people's computers anyway. You could not change colors or anything in the IMs at that time so I have no idea why it even read anything as html. max4me posted:Since where doing the AOL thing. I actually managed to find this!  It looks like they had a Hecklers keyword too. Clicking on "download Virtual Places" but it gives me an error message. Buttcoin purse posted:
Unfortunately there is no save button. Yeah I just want to screenshot everything, unless there's some software I could use that would decompile the keywords or something and I could archive them better? I am more than happy to do that if there's such a thing. Buttcoin purse posted:If you scripted it to try all the number/digit combinations, I think AOL might get annoyed by you making trillions of requests Scripting would take forever (and probably crash AOL after two minutes). I was wondering if maybe there was a rhyme or reason to the number scheme so "guessing" keywords would be easier? Chumbawumba4ever97 has a new favorite as of 15:21 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
as somebody who has been working actively in the web development community for over a decade now i've got to say the state of things right now is bad. very bad. i still try to write for performance first and foremost but the incentive is just not there anymore for most people. there was a brief time when mobiles were starting to have internet access that it became priority again to been efficient with bandwidth and requests but that is quickly fading as 3G then 4G/LTE became ubiquitous in the US. i dont have time to write a long post about it now nor is this the thread for it... somebody should start a new topic to discuss all of these stupid modern web/web app trends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:
online game design hasn't learned anything. MMOs are all boring tripe now, UO was a masterpiece. They killed themselves when they duplicated all of the land in the world and made a "no-PVP" area. everyone went into the no-PVP area to do boring grind stuff, and the ecosystem of predatory noob hunters died away. no long was it a time for celebration when you saw a naked man dragging 50,000 ore to the town smelter, he was perfectly safe in the new world  it wasn't UO after that
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Infinite scroll is the worst loving thing to happen to the web. Someone please put forth a devil's advocate reason for it to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:29
|
|