this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
416 points (98.6% liked)

memes

21339 readers
1587 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour 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.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 120 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago

Dial up was offering you something you might not have ever seen before.

Not loading your page full of ads while you try to pay a utility bill.

[–] poinck@lemmy.world 36 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

or billions of redirects. I am looking at you, SAP.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 minutes ago

Sanduhr Anzeige Programm

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 12 points 5 hours 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.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 39 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 2 minutes 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.

[–] DasFaultier@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

Pepperidge Farms remembers!

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 8 hours ago
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 46 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago

Yea JavaScript.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 24 points 8 hours ago

Nowadays I ragequit every site that doesn't have a "reject all cookies" option.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago

If you’re that old, you earned instant webpage load times.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Because most dial up website pages took 5 seconds or less to load.

I found one of the most graphic heavy websites from 1998, sttng.com and it was 50KB. That's 10 seconds to load on a 56kbs modem (you'd never actually get 56kbs).

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 minutes ago

I mean 56/8 = 7 kB/s, 50/7 = 7.x, just add a bit of latency here and there, not really a surprise if it takes 10 seconds

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

My grandparents still had dialup in the 2010s. I can remember in the early 2000s waiting 20-30 minutes for a Strong Bad Email to start playing so I could show my cousins.

Flash is what really changed things.

[–] homik@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 hours ago

There was a noticeably bigger lag if it was across an ocean.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If it takes 5 seconds to load the website it’s not going to finish. That’s usually an issue at the other end of the intertube.

[–] homik@slrpnk.net 12 points 7 hours ago

Or Cloudflare being Cloudflare.

[–] sidebro@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

If it only takes five seconds to rage quit, you've got issues.