New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
300 MB space + 10 GB bandwidth shared hosting $12.95/month?
Just checking WHT some threads from year 2000:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=3423
Am little confused, how was possible to have a successful site with those specs. Was the images lower on space?
What you think guys, in 15-20 years we will have 300TB disk and 500Petabyte bandwidth for $2/month or this is not possible?
Comments
What do you mean? I've had a number of small sites using less than 300mb and running holderhost I noticed the majority of shared hosting clients use less than 500mb...
You can always save space by hosting images/ files offsite.
Hey, at least the IP's are cheap!
Most people didn't have broadband back then, so pages had to be significantly smaller. Also, most people weren't using dynamic pages either.
If memory serves, broadband started really taking off around.... 2003? I did a paper on this once, it's been a few years
If one image have 2mb and you post 150 articles on a blog you are done lol.
To upgrade to vps maybe in that time was $500/month? Lol incredible how the time changes things.
Now who wants to reply to the WHt thread and get banned
For some time, we used to go to "internet cafes" for internet access and playing games with our classmates and such.
Then as internet became cheaper, faster etc, internet cafes died and everyone remained home staring at facebook by this time.
Yeah, ask if they allow to use frontpage design lol
Not sure if it was around/ popular back then but image compression?? Honestly though, I was playing age of empires back then rather than concerning myself with starting a blog.... :P
That is what the business was like back in early 2000s.
What kind of a stupid thread is this? Of course things were totally different back then. FFS, this is literally just after Google was invented, and 5 years before Youtube was launched. You wouldn't write a blog...people weren't doing that. 2MB images? Not a chance. Are you also confused when you see illustrations of the pre-photography era and wonder how those business models worked without streamable 4k HD?
Relax boy, we are having nostalgia here.
Ahhhhh, the year 2000, I remember what lowendtalk.com looked like then http:// web.archive.org/ lowendtalk.com /2000
By then instead of listening to my highscool lectures, I was writing html codes to my notebook, trying to turn the design on the other page to code, and yes with tables. (:
When you had 56/256k Internet access 300mb for a website was way too much.
I highly doubt it. Take a look at this graph. In the year 2000, it was about $10 per GB. In the year 2005, it was about $0.64 per GB. In the year 2010, it was about $0.07 per GB. In the year 2015, we're at about $0.03-$0.04 per GB.
2000 to 2005: 15x less cost
2005 to 2010: 9x less cost
2010 to 2015: 2x less cost
Prices are already falling at a much slower rate. Plus I suspect what will actually happen is HDD is eventually phased out by SSD, which would actually increase costs a little for better performance - not just amount of space.
As for bandwidth, I feel like it's limited by a lot more factors. We do technically have "unlimited" bandwidth now, which is a lot more than 500 Petabyte, but no one will ever use it if it's throttled to 1Gbps. To use 500 Petabyte of bandwidth if I'm doing math correctly real quick, you'd need a 1.5Tbps port. Definitely don't see that happening in next 15-20 years. Maybe 100Gbps as a standard.
Or maybe in 20 years I'll look back at this post and laugh at my crazy talk.
(edit) Almost forgot about inflation, definitely won't be possible for $2 per month!
Around that time you'd design a site with a modem downloading at about 4KB/s. People bothered to optimise the size of their images, huge libraries like JQuery weren't used and typically clients limited themselves to 2 connections per hosts (with no pipelining).
People are definitely more liberal about what they throw onto a site as resources are there to handle it. Also due to the declining costs, the median 'value' of information online has definitely went down. The bogey you picked last night could have an IPv6 address, a blog post and a retweet.
A good ballpark for HTML source was 25KB, alongside whatever CSS/JS/images. Googlebot would ignore anything past 100KB.
I wrote biology-online.org in the late 90s and was very light, basically an HTML template with some CSS, some images and the rest data from a DB.
Yes. Then were not high quality cameras and people were still using scanners to post their images on internet. 1 pic arround 100kb or lower.
I also remmember when i was w8ing for heroes 3 map to download 5 or more minutes for 750kb map
In 2000, people weren't posting 2MB images. Maybe 20K. Remember, there were no 1080 monitors in 2000...1024x768 maybe.