[HN Gopher] How web bloat impacts users with slow devices
___________________________________________________________________
How web bloat impacts users with slow devices
Author : jasondavies
Score : 205 points
Date : 2024-03-16 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (danluu.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (danluu.com)
| andy99 wrote:
| Nobody cares about people with older devices. We've shifted to a
| mode where companies tell their customers what they have to do,
| and if they don't fit the mold they are dropped. It's more
| profitable that way - you scale only revenue and don't have to
| worry about accessibility or customer service or any edge cases.
| That's what big tech has gotten for us.
| dexwiz wrote:
| You're getting downvoted but I think despite the tone you are
| correct. 10 years ago corporate guidance on web dev was
| backwards compatibility going back several versions. Now it's
| hardly any concern for anything more than 6 months old.
|
| More than anything I think it's because corporate IT has had to
| modernize due to security. Security now wants you to update
| constantly instead of running old vetted software. You also
| cannot demand user use an old version of a browser that still
| supports some old plugin. And as a vendor it's not profitable
| to support people who maintain that mindset.
|
| Also "update to the latest version" is the new "turn it off and
| back on again," when it comes to basic IT help.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Part of it was that users were terrible at updating browsers.
| You needed to support Internet Explorer 6, or cut off a third
| of your customers. It sucked.
|
| Now every browser gets updates, automatically and
| aggressively. The only real outlier is Safari, but even that
| updates way quicker than older browsers used to.
|
| As a result, who needs backward compatibility?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Because the people with money who are buying your products
| are all running the latest version of iOS. The ones on a 6
| year old Android version are not spending anything therefor
| it isn't worth investing money in making sure it works for
| them.
| perardi wrote:
| Who is this mythical end-user with an old browser? Because
| they don't show up in browser usage statistics.
|
| https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-version-market-share
|
| Chrome is evergreen, even on Android. Safari, after a bit of
| a fallow period, is updated fairly aggressively, and though
| it's still coupled with OS updates, it's no longer married to
| the annual x.0 releases.
|
| Mind you, I still believe, and practice, you should write
| semantic HTML with progressive enhancement. But at the same
| time, I absolutely do not think you should go out of your way
| to test for some ancient version of Safari running on a
| first-generation iPad Pro--use basic webdev best practices,
| and don't spend time worrying that container queries aren't
| going to work for that sliver of the market.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Exactly. The landscape has changed because those old
| browser users have been forced to update.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Clues that a market is not competitive...
|
| What most impresses me is that this happen on many markets that
| _should_ be competitive by any sane rationale. Like group
| buying or hotel booking. Yet, they also do that kind of shit,
| and people still have nowhere to go.
|
| The world economy became integrated and incredibly rigid.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| I'm normally a fan of Dan Luu's posts but I felt this one missed
| the mark. The LCP/CPU table is a good one, but from there the
| article turns into a bit on armchair psychology. From some random
| comments coming from Discourse's founder, readers are asked to
| build up an idea of what attitudes software engineers supposedly
| have. Even Knuth gets dragged into the mud based on comments he
| made about single vs multi-core performance and comments about
| the Itanium (which is a long standing point of academic
| contention.)
|
| This article just felt too soft, too couched in internet fights,
| to really stand up.
| troupo wrote:
| > readers are asked to build up an idea of what attitudes
| software engineers supposedly have.
|
| But they do, don't they. Discourse's founder's words are just
| very illustrative. Have you used the web recently? I have. It's
| bloated beyond any imagination to the point that Google now
| says that 2.4 _seconds_ to Largest Contentful Paint is fast
| now: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/05/the-science-behind-web-
| vit... (this is from 4 years ago, it's probably worse now).
|
| You don't have to go far to see either Youtube loading 2.5
| megabytes of CSS on desktop to the founder of Vercel boasting
| its super fast sites that take 20 seconds to load the moment
| you throttle it just a tiny bit:
| https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1735338533303259571
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| You're making the same mistake the post did. It depends on
| the reader already having sympathy for the idea that bloat is
| bad in order to make its case. I can read nerd site comments
| all day that lament bloat. For an article to stand on its own
| on this point it has to make the case to people who _don 't_
| already believe this.
|
| Dan's articles have usually been very good at that. The
| keyboard latency one for example makes few assumptions and
| mostly relies on data to tell its story. My point is that
| this article is different. It's an elevated rant. It relies
| on an audience that already agrees to land its point, hence
| my criticism that it's too couched in internet fights.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| State your case that bloat is _good_. I currently have a
| client who will do literally anything except delete a
| single javascript library so I 'd like to understand them
| better.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Joel Spolsky on Excel bloat, 2001:
| https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-
| letter-iv...
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The latest version of Excel loads faster on my laptop
| than most websites do. I've timed this.
|
| I can load the entire MS Office suite _and_ open a Visual
| Studio 2022 project in less time then it takes to open a
| blank Jira web form.
|
| What's your point?
| troupo wrote:
| Also related: Performance Inequality Gap 2024
| https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-...
| ryukoposting wrote:
| I only recently moved from a 6-year old LG flagship phone to a
| shiny new Galaxy, and the performance difference is staggering.
| It shouldn't be - that was a very high-end phone at release, it's
| not _that_ old, and it still works like new. I know it 's not
| just my phone, because the Galaxy S9s I use to test code have the
| same struggles.
|
| I would like to have seen Amazon in the tests. IME Amazon's
| website is among the absolute worst of the worst on mobile
| devices more than ~4 years old. Amazon was the only site I
| accessed regularly that bordered on unusable, even with
| relatively recent high-end mobile hardware.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| I have noticed with two 7 year old Snapdragon 835 devices that
| RAM and running a recent Android version makes a huge
| difference.
|
| I daily drive a OnePlus 5 running Android 14 through LineageOS
| and the user experience for non-gaming tasks is perfectly
| adequate. This phone has 6GB of ram, so it's still on par with
| most mid-range phones nowadays. My only gripe is that I had to
| replace the battery and disassembling phones is a pain.
|
| Meanwhile a Galaxy S8 with the same SoC, 4GB of memory and
| stock Android 9 with Samsung's modifications chugs like there's
| no tomorrow.
|
| I can understand that having two more gigabytes of memory can
| make a difference but there is a night and day difference
| between the phones. Perhaps Android 14 has way better memory
| management than Android 9? Or Samsung's slow and bloated
| software is hampering this device?
|
| Either way it's irritating to see that many companies don't
| test on old/low-end devices. Most people in the world aren't
| running modern flagships, especially if they target a world-
| wide audience.
| hinkley wrote:
| This is what I miss from the removal of serviceable
| components on MacBooks. Was a time I would buy the fastest
| processor and just okay memory and disk, then the first time
| I got a twinge of jealousy about the new machines, buy the
| most Corsair memory that they would guarantee would work, and
| a bigger faster drive. Boom, another 18 months of useful
| lifetime.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is the total useful lifetime more than MacBooks with non
| serviceable components? I see people around me easily using
| Airs for 5+ years.
| kome wrote:
| My MacBook Air (11-inch, Early 2014) is my only computer.
| I still don't feel like changing it so far...
| zuhsetaqi wrote:
| Interesting that you have such problems with Amazon. I'm using
| an iPhone XR (5,5 years old) and don't have any problems using
| Amazon in the browser (Safari). And I'm on the latest iOS
| (17.4).
| seam_carver wrote:
| I have no issues with Amazon on my iPhone 8 running latest iOS
| 16
| Accacin wrote:
| Did you try disabling JavaScript on Amazon? It actually doesn't
| function too badly. I know, I know, you shouldn't need to do it
| and I agree.
| ericra wrote:
| As someone with recent experience using a relatively slow Android
| phone, it can be absolutely brutal to load some web pages, even
| ones that only appear to be serving text and images (and a load
| of trackers/ads presumably). The network is never the bottleneck
| here.
|
| This problem is compounded by several factors. One is that
| older/slower phones cannot always use fully-featured browsers
| such as Firefox for mobile. The app is takes too many resources
| on its own before even opening up a website. That means turning
| to a pared-down browser like Firefox Focus, which is ok except
| for not being able to have extensions. That means no ublock
| origin, which of course makes the web an even worse experience.
|
| Another issue is that some sites will complain if you are not
| using a "standard" browser and the site will become unusable for
| that reason alone.
|
| In these situations, companies frequently try to force an app
| down your throat instead. And who knows how much space that will
| take up on a space-limited device or how poorly it will run.
|
| Many companies/sites used to have simplified versions to account
| for slower devices/connections, but in my experience these are
| becoming phased out and harder to find. I imagine it's much
| harder to serve ads and operate a full tracking network to/from
| every social media company without all the javascript bloat.
| MichaelMug wrote:
| Since 2000, I've observed the internet shift from free sharing of
| information to aggressive monetization of every piece of
| knowledge. So I suspect that is the culprit. If you use the
| mobile web on the latest iPhone you'll find its unusable without
| an ad-blocker.
| smokel wrote:
| Hm, not entirely true, depending on what you mean with "the
| internet shifting".
|
| The internet has _grown_ , and the free sharing is still going
| strong. Have a look at Wikipedia, Hacker News, Arxiv.org.
|
| To be honest, the stuff that was shared freely in 2000 was not
| all that great, and most of that which was, is still available.
| Remember that you had to buy a subscription to Encyclopaedia
| Britannica back then, and to all the academic journals.
|
| Granted, there are some non-free information silos, but
| generally I'm pretty happy with the procrastination advice on
| Reddit being surrounded by annoying ads that drive me away.
| Solvency wrote:
| Google "Roche Ff7 rebirth". I was curious who this character
| is. In 2000-2012 all the top links would be amazing fan sites
| and forums describing, discussing, and detailing the
| character with rich info.
|
| Now it's all AI seo spam LADEN with data mining and ad boat
| on monolithic sites like Fandom they barely work on the
| newest iphone.
| geraldwhen wrote:
| And Britannica wasn't filled with highly moderated
| propaganda.
|
| Wikipedia is a failed experiment.
| permo-w wrote:
| Wikipedia is great, it's just not as good as it could be
| ibz wrote:
| Encyclopedia Britannica was on CDs, not on the internet. I'm
| old enough to remember.
| smokel wrote:
| _> In 1994 Britannica debuted the first Internet-based
| encyclopaedia. Users paid a fee to access the information,
| which was located at http://www.eb.com_
|
| https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-
| En...
|
| (Be warned, there are ads on that page.)
| permo-w wrote:
| the tragedy of the commons
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps these people are better off by running a web browser on a
| remote machine and interfacing with it over VNC.
| wmf wrote:
| Who's going to pay for that server? We're talking about $50-100
| phones here.
| ericra wrote:
| This is trolling, right?
|
| Lemme just give my grandma a list of instructions for doing
| this so she can get to Facebook. I'll let you know how it works
| out.
| wmf wrote:
| Obviously you'd want to productize it (see WebTV, Mighty
| browser).
| hexo wrote:
| webdevs and their managers should use these web "apps" on bad
| machine over VNC on a slow connection for a few months. these
| javascript hellpages are basically crime against humanity and
| do contribute a lot to e-waste, pollution and carbon dioxide
| emissions
| olliej wrote:
| It's not just slow devices, it's also any time you have any kind
| of weak connectivity.
|
| I think every OS now has tools to let you simulate shitty network
| performance these days so it's inexcusable that so many sites and
| even native apps fail so badly anytime you have anything less
| than a mbit connection or greater than 50ms latency :-/
| layer8 wrote:
| It's not just weak connectivity. I know people in rural areas
| who still have less than 1 Mbps internet speed over their DSL
| landline. Using the internet there isn't a lot of fun.
| olliej wrote:
| Which is absurd when you think that the internet used to be
| usable on 14.4k modems.
|
| I remember having to plan to take up hours of time on our
| phone line to download giant files that were smaller than
| many basic webpages these days (ignoring things like photos
| where there's obviously a basic size/quality tradeoff + more
| pixels)
| efields wrote:
| How web bloat impacts users: negatively. Better do your best to
| fix it.
|
| This stuff is simpler than we let it be sometimes, folks.
| withinboredom wrote:
| > This stuff is simpler than we let it be sometimes, folks.
|
| Meanwhile watches a team build a cathedral when all they needed
| was a shack.
| ugjka wrote:
| Here is how you do web: https://forum.dlang.org/ Observe the
| speed
| c2xlZXB5Cg1 wrote:
| What a refreshing experience.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Or HN. All that talk about "brutalist web design" yet most
| websites are more bloated than ever...
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| 'Brutalist web design' is a pretty small niche though, no?
| It's the kind of thing Hacker News readers will have heard
| of, but I don't think it was ever close to mainstream.
| Solvency wrote:
| Ironically the modern web, built by programmers, is scorned by
| programmers. You all collectively, persistently, shamelessly
| decided AngularReactNodeWebpackViteBloat 200mb asynchronous
| hellspawn websites needed to be made this way.
|
| When all this time, lightweight CSS and anchor links and some
| PHP was all we needed.
| RGamma wrote:
| *built by techbros
| ildjarn wrote:
| This loads faster than native apps serving local content on my
| device.
| yen223 wrote:
| For me, it took an estimated 3-5s to load on first visit.
| Fast, but not "faster than native apps"
|
| The second time round it loaded almost instantly.
|
| I'm guessing there's some caching going on.
| xyst wrote:
| How crude. I can't even post gifs. This is basically a
| glorified e-mail client, but with extra steps. No social media
| integration? What is this 2004? It's not even decentralized
| like matrix.
|
| Can't even post inline videos, bro.
|
| \s
|
| Jokes aside, I do miss this type of interaction. Especially for
| open source projects. It made finding solutions to common
| issues much easier when documentation was lacking or has not
| been updated in a long time.
|
| Now all or most projects have adopted some form of: discord
| channel, slack group, subreddit, twitter. I remember searching
| for my similar issue in a slack channel only to realize the
| chat history has been limited because the owners did not pay
| the extra amount to archive messages beyond what was given for
| free.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| These sites can and should be much better. Yes. Definitely.
|
| At the same time, while a 10s load time is a long time &
| unpleasant, it doesn't seem catastrophic yet.
|
| The more vital question to me is what the experience is like
| after the page is loaded. I'm sure a number of these sites have
| similarly terrible architecture & ads bogging down the
| experience. But I also expect that some of those which took a
| while to load are pretty snappy & fast after loading.
|
| Native apps probably have plenty of truly user-insulting payloads
| they too chug through as they load, and no shortage of poor
| architectural decisions. On the web it's much much easier to see
| all the bad; a view source away. And there is seemingly less
| discipline on the web, more terrible and terribly inefficient
| cases of companies with too many people throwing whatever the
| heck into Google Tag Manager or other similar offenses.
|
| The latest server-side react stuff seems like it has a lot of
| help to offer, but there's still a lot of questions about
| rehydration of the page. I'm also lament see us shift away from
| the thick-client world; so much power has been embued to the
| users from the web 9.9 times out of 10 just being some restful
| services we can hack with. In all, I think there's a deficiency
| in broad architectural patterns for how the thick client should
| manage it's data, and a really issue with ahead-of-time bundles
| versus just-in-time & load behind code loading that we have
| failed to make much headway on in the past decade, and this lack
| is where the real wins are.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Yeah this is exactly the kind of nuance I'd love to see
| explored but as you say, auditing native apps is difficult, and
| it's really hard to compare apples to apples unless you can
| really compare equivalent web and mobile apps.
| nhggfu wrote:
| re: Wordpress - with which theme? benchmarked on default theme
| they give away free like "2024" or whatever ?
|
| obvs a good coder optimizes their own theme to get 100% score on
| lighthouse.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Every company stopped caring, especially the companies who were
| at the forefront of standards and good web design practices, like
| Google and Apple.
|
| Google recently retired their HTML Gmail version, mind you, it
| still worked on a 2008 256MO RAM Android phone with an old
| Firefox version and it was simply fast... of course the new JS
| bloated version doesn't, it just kills the browser. That's an
| extreme example, yet low budget Phones have 2GB of RAM, you
| simply cannot browser the web with these and expect reasonable
| performances anymore.
|
| Mobile web sucks, an it's done on purpose, to push people to use
| "native" apps which makes things easier when it comes to data
| collection and ad display for companies such as Apple and Google.
| lukan wrote:
| "Mobile web sucks, an it's done on purpose, to push people to
| use "native" apps which makes things easier when it comes to
| data collection and ad display for companies such as Apple and
| Google."
|
| Partly for sure, but Amazon for example? Or Decathlon? (a big
| sports/outdoor chain in europe)
|
| Their sites are just horrible on a mobile (or in Decathlons
| case also on a Desktop, that is not high end), but they also
| don't offer me their app in plain view, so I have to assume it
| is just incompetence. The devs only testing everything on their
| high end devices connected to a backbone.
| timnetworks wrote:
| 68k.news loads fine, it's probably that the people writing your
| applications are not great at their jobs?
| legulere wrote:
| Missing text styling impacts all users. The text is hardly
| legible. You really don't need much styling (bloat) to get a good
| result, as demonstrated on http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com
| anthk wrote:
| Contrast is good.
|
| https://bestmotherfucking.website/
| bensecure wrote:
| addressed in the article
| sylware wrote:
| google web engines (blink/geeko) and apple web engines with their
| SDK are sickening. They are an insult to sanity. They well
| deserve their hate.
| tredre3 wrote:
| The engines are perfectly fine.
|
| It's the websites/web developers that are the problem.
| zac23or wrote:
| Nobody, nobody, nobody cares about old hardware, performance,
| users, etc. if anyone cared, React wouldn't be a success. The
| last time I tried to use the react website on an old phone, it
| was slow as hell.
|
| LetsEncrypt is stopping serving Android 7 this year. Android 7
| will be blocked from 19% of the web:
| https://letsencrypt.org/2023/07/10/cross-sign-expiration The
| option is to install Firefox.
|
| Users with old hardware are poor people. Nobody wants poor people
| around, not even using their website.
|
| "Fuck the user", that's what we heard from a PO when we tried to
| defend users, imagine if we tried to defend poor users.
| supertrope wrote:
| I think Let's Encrypt made a heroic effort. They deployed a
| hack to support Androids long abandoned by the operating system
| maintainer and manufacturer. If you want to blame LE for the
| breakage then also blame: GOOG for using the IBM PC clone
| business model without a device tree standard, QCOM for selling
| chips but very quickly cutting support, the manufacturer, and
| cellular carriers who prefer to lock you into another 24 month
| installment plan than approve an update for your existing
| handset.
| zac23or wrote:
| > If you want to blame LE for the breakage then also blame
| ...
|
| Of course they are also guilty. LE isn't the most to blame in
| reality, it's just an example that old hardware isn't
| important to decision makers.
| robocat wrote:
| > PO
|
| What's the acronym?
|
| Unfortunately acronyms are context sensitive and many users
| here are not in your context... Maybe try to avoid using
| acronyms!
| gkbrk wrote:
| Product owner?
| zac23or wrote:
| Product Owner
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The problem is that this attitude infects even government
| departments, which ought to serve all citizens, not just the
| rich ones.
| mik1998 wrote:
| I often use a Thinkpad X220 (which still works for a lot of my
| usage and I'm not too concerned about it being stolen or damaged)
| and the JS web is terrible to use on it. Mostly resulted in my
| preference of using native software (non-electron), which
| generally works perfectly fine and about as well as on my "more
| modern" computer.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Whenever I pull out old machines I'm a little shocked at how
| responsive they are running a modern OS (Win10 or Linux), so
| long as the modern web is avoided. Anything with a Core 2 Duo
| or better is adequate for a wide range of tasks if you can find
| non-bloated software to do them with.
|
| Even going back so far that modern OS support is absent,
| snappiness can be found. My circa 2000 500Mhz PowerBook G3
| running Mac OS 9.1 doesn't feel appreciably slower than its
| modern day counterpart for more than one might expect, and some
| things like typing latency are actually _better_.
| anthk wrote:
| A Core Duo it's perfectly fine with an ad blocker:
|
| git://bitreich.org/privacy-haters
| Thorrez wrote:
| Okta has a speed test?
| wmf wrote:
| Presumably Ookla.
| tdudhhu wrote:
| Not only the user is affected by this.
|
| The difference between a 2MB and a 150KB CSS file can be a lot of
| bandwidth.
|
| The difference between a bad and good framework can be a lot of
| CPU power and RAM.
|
| Companies pay for this. But I guess most have no clue that these
| costs can be reduced.
|
| And some companies just don't care as long as money is coming in.
| supertrope wrote:
| A lot of companies don't care about end user performance
| experience. Companies will burden issued PCs with bloated anti-
| virus, endpoint monitoring, TLS interception, Microsoft Teams,
| etc. If there's no explicit responsiveness goal, then
| performance dies by a thousand cuts.
| afavour wrote:
| Eh. Cloudfront pricing starts at 8.5c per GB and goes down to
| 2c. I think you'd struggle to use that pricing as a
| justification when compared to the software engineer hours
| required to shrink down a CSS bundle. (don't get me wrong, 2MB
| is insane and ought to be a professional embarrassment. But I
| think you're going to struggle using bandwidth bills as the
| reason)
|
| I agree with you about frameworks, though. So much waste in
| creating everything as (e.g.) a React app when there's no need.
| Sadly the industry heavily prioritises developer experience
| over user experience.
| Devasta wrote:
| If you don't have a good phone and a high speed connection, you
| don't have any money to spend on either the sites products or the
| products of their advertisers.
|
| When looked at from that angle, bloat is a feature.
|
| It's not reasonable to have an expectation of quality when it
| comes to the web.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Huh? I have a 5 year old, mid range android, and I still buy
| things online.
|
| Not everyone cares about phones.
| blauditore wrote:
| Also, there are some websites targeting users with little
| money as well.
| Uehreka wrote:
| Well that take sure goes from 0 to 60 real fast. Can you really
| be sure that only people with good phones and connections have
| money to spend? Just to poke some obvious holes: what about old
| rich people who have a distaste for modern phones but spend
| lavishly on vacations every year? Or outdoorsy rich people who
| are frequently in areas with poor cell coverage but are
| constantly purchasing expensive camping/climbing equipment? How
| about people who aren't rich, but work for companies where
| their input is part of a purchasing process with millions of
| dollars of budget? Those people are all super-lucrative
| advertising targets, I don't think advertisers are
| intentionally weeding them out.
| jhanoncomm wrote:
| I think you are close to the truth there.
|
| But I doubt companies purposely increase their hosting costs as
| some kind of firewall to only include the rich. More like they
| just don't care. Same reason for technical debt, everyone wants
| to grow and move needles.
|
| If a company could magically make their site more available and
| efficient for free I am sure they would jump at the chance. But
| spending a million on that vs. a million on ads wont seem worth
| it.
| politelemon wrote:
| This is addressed in TFA and is not true. The bloat is a
| symptom of what I've seen referred to as the "laptop class" and
| is unrelated to any feature adjacent.
| bluquark wrote:
| Dan's point about being aware of the different levels of
| inequality in the world is something I strongly agree with, but
| that should also include the middle-income countries, especially
| in Latin America and Southeast Asia. For example, a user with a
| data plan with a monthly limit in the single-digit GBs, and a
| RAM/CPU profile resembling a decade-old US flagship. That's good
| enough to use Discourse at all, but the experience will probably
| be on the unpleasantly slow side. I believe it's primarily this
| category of user that accounts for Dan's observation that
| incremental improvements in CPU/RAM/disk measurably improve
| engagement.
|
| As for users with the lowest-end devices like the Itel P32, Dan's
| chart seems to prove that no amount of incremental optimization
| would benefit them. The only thing that might is a wholesale
| different client architecture that sacrifices features and polish
| to provide the slimmest code possible. That is, an alternate
| "lite/basic" mode. Unfortunately, this style of approach has
| rarely proved successful: the empathy problem returns in a
| different guise, as US-based developers often make the wrong
| decisions on which features/polish are essential to keep versus
| discarded for performance reasons.
| jhanoncomm wrote:
| If all the sites tot more efficient it may also increase
| longevity of laptops and PCs where unsavvy people might just
| "need a new computer it is getting slow".
|
| Also applies to bloatware shipped with computers. To the point
| where I was offered a $50 "tune up" to a new laptop I purchased
| recently. Imagine a new car dealer offered you that!
| zdw wrote:
| Is this new or old reddit being benched?
|
| That would be an interesting direct comparison.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Next try out the search engines.
|
| Anecdotally, Google Search loads ~500ms faster than DuckDuckGo on
| the OG Pinephone.
| jhanoncomm wrote:
| That is one performance metric. What about energy use and
| loading search results not just the home page. I find DDG
| faster from a perception point of view. I imagine on sone
| metrics it is faster.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| Sorry, should have been more precise. I was measuring loading
| search results. E.g.:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=test9999
|
| vs.
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=test9999&ia=web
| AlienRobot wrote:
| I'm glad people remember what WW in WWW means. :)
|
| It makes me very sad to see that reddit's new design is so heavy
| it can't even be accessed by part of the world. It's like parts
| of the internet are closing theirs doors just so they can have
| more sliding effects that nobody wants.
|
| Or maybe I'm just a weird one who prefers my browser to do a full
| load when I click a link.
|
| Btw there was a time everyone kept talking about "responsive" web
| design and, having used only low-end smartphones and tablets, I
| kept finding it weird that there was such focus on the design
| being responsive for mobile devices when those mobile devices
| were so extremely slow to respond to touch to begin with. Of
| course I know that's not what they meant, but it still felt
| weird.
| anthk wrote:
| A simple text site such as Reddit and some Digg clones are nearly
| unusable under an Item ATOM with a JS based client.
| maxloh wrote:
| YouTube is one of the slowest websites I have ever used.
|
| It takes several seconds to load, even with moderate hardware and
| fast internet connections.
| jhanoncomm wrote:
| Reddit for me is the slowest site. And while old.reddit fixes
| this they try to steer you back to main reddit at any
| opportunity!
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| web bloat also impacts my sanity
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-16 23:00 UTC)