Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the '90's code?
Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?
Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the '90's code?
In Bayesian inference, why are some terms dropped from the posterior predictive?
Processor speed limited at 0.4 Ghz
Do Iron Man suits sport waste management systems?
Am I breaking OOP practice with this architecture?
How to stretch the corners of this image so that it looks like a perfect rectangle?
How do I exit BASH while loop using modulus operator?
How obscure is the use of 令 in 令和?
How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope
Sums of two squares in arithmetic progressions
How to remove border from elements in the last row?
How can a day be of 24 hours?
Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?
What does the same-ish mean?
How to coordinate airplane tickets?
Does marriage to a non-Numenorean disqualify a candidate for the crown of Gondor?
What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?
Can someone clarify Hamming's notion of important problems in relation to modern academia?
Convert seconds to minutes
Finding the reason behind the value of the integral.
Is this draw by repetition?
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
Obtaining database information and values in extended properties
Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the '90's code?
We nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, JavaScript code, and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
untagged
migrated from history.stackexchange.com 2 hours ago
This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.
|
show 2 more comments
We nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, JavaScript code, and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
untagged
migrated from history.stackexchange.com 2 hours ago
This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.
2
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
1
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
1
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
1
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
We nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, JavaScript code, and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
untagged
We nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, JavaScript code, and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
untagged
untagged
asked yesterday
colmdecolmde
26617
26617
migrated from history.stackexchange.com 2 hours ago
This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.
migrated from history.stackexchange.com 2 hours ago
This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.
2
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
1
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
1
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
1
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
1
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
1
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
1
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
2
2
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
1
1
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
1
1
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
1
1
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/JavaScript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Windows 95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NCSA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There are other little touches that could be added (e.g.: the blink tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalexhttps://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No, not possible.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
You're looking at Mosaic, and very early versions of Mozilla and the Internet Exploi... Explorer. Those browsers cannot handle modern CSS.
Computer technology has changed considerably. What was a huge internal memory back then is not even sufficient to meet the lowest acceptable requirements today. I have an Asus EEE 700 PC (just for fun). That's a lot more advanced than what you are referring to. That little Asus has now difficulty running smaller versions of Ubuntu on it.
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.
– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Not with the tools used. Keep in mind, there was no CSS back then.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
Simply no. No CSS, no standardized way of interaction with the backend and so on.
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time?
Yes, I belive it could be made - of course it requires esentialy a whole recoding. Layout wise next to all parts could have been made look like it, ofc, including the star spread and comic sans fonts (at least on some OS/browser combinations).
Now getting all interaction to work might be way more of a problem. It can be solved and might even be fun - more so as the backend had to be reworked as well.
And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
While many features are official deprecated, browsers still support quite a lot. So far, I didn't notice any optical feature of the 'new' design that couldn't be easy done with a late 90s browser. The biggest hurdle might be the notification system.
So yeah, if I get drowned in tons of money (or migrate to some beautiful remote island - all inklusive), it would be a nice task to waste time :))
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9543%2fwas-the-stack-exchange-happy-april-fools-page-fitting-with-the-90s-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/JavaScript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Windows 95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NCSA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There are other little touches that could be added (e.g.: the blink tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/JavaScript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Windows 95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NCSA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There are other little touches that could be added (e.g.: the blink tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/JavaScript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Windows 95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NCSA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There are other little touches that could be added (e.g.: the blink tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/JavaScript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Windows 95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NCSA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There are other little touches that could be added (e.g.: the blink tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 20 hours ago
T.E.D.T.E.D.
40315
40315
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
add a comment |
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
10
10
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.
– Stephen
18 hours ago
2
2
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
The "sparks" fell, shrunk in size, and had a random horizontal component; that is way, way more work than almost any 90s website would have put into it.
– Yakk
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalexhttps://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalexhttps://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered yesterday
Steven Burnap
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalexhttps://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
add a comment |
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalexhttps://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
8
8
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.
20 hours ago
4
4
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
The implementation would have been different in the late 90s, but I'm fairly certain it was doable using JavaScript, Flash, or other technologies from back then. IIRC JS-based animations would also tend to bring browsers to a crawl and turn your PC's fan on.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
2
2
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
Definitely doable (no comment on how). The coca-cola page had 'bubbles' floating after the mouse late last century. If I could work the wayback machine ...
– mcalex
16 hours ago
@mcalex
https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
@mcalex
https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>
– a CVn
12 hours ago
2
2
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
It was doable by installing a 3rd party plugin that thankfully died under the weight of abusive install bundling and spyware accusations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Cursor
– Dan Neely
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No, not possible.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
You're looking at Mosaic, and very early versions of Mozilla and the Internet Exploi... Explorer. Those browsers cannot handle modern CSS.
Computer technology has changed considerably. What was a huge internal memory back then is not even sufficient to meet the lowest acceptable requirements today. I have an Asus EEE 700 PC (just for fun). That's a lot more advanced than what you are referring to. That little Asus has now difficulty running smaller versions of Ubuntu on it.
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.
– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
No, not possible.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
You're looking at Mosaic, and very early versions of Mozilla and the Internet Exploi... Explorer. Those browsers cannot handle modern CSS.
Computer technology has changed considerably. What was a huge internal memory back then is not even sufficient to meet the lowest acceptable requirements today. I have an Asus EEE 700 PC (just for fun). That's a lot more advanced than what you are referring to. That little Asus has now difficulty running smaller versions of Ubuntu on it.
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.
– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
No, not possible.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
You're looking at Mosaic, and very early versions of Mozilla and the Internet Exploi... Explorer. Those browsers cannot handle modern CSS.
Computer technology has changed considerably. What was a huge internal memory back then is not even sufficient to meet the lowest acceptable requirements today. I have an Asus EEE 700 PC (just for fun). That's a lot more advanced than what you are referring to. That little Asus has now difficulty running smaller versions of Ubuntu on it.
No, not possible.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
You're looking at Mosaic, and very early versions of Mozilla and the Internet Exploi... Explorer. Those browsers cannot handle modern CSS.
Computer technology has changed considerably. What was a huge internal memory back then is not even sufficient to meet the lowest acceptable requirements today. I have an Asus EEE 700 PC (just for fun). That's a lot more advanced than what you are referring to. That little Asus has now difficulty running smaller versions of Ubuntu on it.
answered 16 hours ago
Jos
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.
– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.
– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
but that's also because ubuntu has grown into a sort bloatware. lots of unused functionality installed by default. better pick a more efficient linux distro instead. ubuntu is meant for the mainstream computers.
– user47093
15 hours ago
1
1
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.– Bregalad
12 hours ago
Computer technology has changed considerably.
Indeed, and for the worse.– Bregalad
12 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
The computer technology hasn't changed for the worse, but it has changed computer programmers and computer education for the worse. If you really want to know if somebody understands ideas about time and memory complexity, make them write some non-trivial software (e.g. a text editor or a calculator) that runs in 1Mb memory with a CPU clock speed of 10 MHz!
– alephzero
11 hours ago
1
1
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
I think it's a bit much to say that computer programmers have changed for the worse. I'd say that what's important in computer programming has changed for the better. Programmers today are more free to worry about the 'big picture'. Yes, you lose some efficiencies when you hand off the details to compilers, but there are very few cases where those efficiencies matter enough to warrant the time and effort. When they do matter, you can always call on an expert. Not all programmers need to know how to write assembly, just like how not all mechanics need to know how to fix a space shuttle.
– Josh Eller
11 hours ago
1
1
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
@JoshEller Too soon, man... too soon! There are no mechanics that need to know how to fix the space shuttle.
– T.J.L.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Not with the tools used. Keep in mind, there was no CSS back then.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
Simply no. No CSS, no standardized way of interaction with the backend and so on.
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time?
Yes, I belive it could be made - of course it requires esentialy a whole recoding. Layout wise next to all parts could have been made look like it, ofc, including the star spread and comic sans fonts (at least on some OS/browser combinations).
Now getting all interaction to work might be way more of a problem. It can be solved and might even be fun - more so as the backend had to be reworked as well.
And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
While many features are official deprecated, browsers still support quite a lot. So far, I didn't notice any optical feature of the 'new' design that couldn't be easy done with a late 90s browser. The biggest hurdle might be the notification system.
So yeah, if I get drowned in tons of money (or migrate to some beautiful remote island - all inklusive), it would be a nice task to waste time :))
add a comment |
But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Not with the tools used. Keep in mind, there was no CSS back then.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
Simply no. No CSS, no standardized way of interaction with the backend and so on.
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time?
Yes, I belive it could be made - of course it requires esentialy a whole recoding. Layout wise next to all parts could have been made look like it, ofc, including the star spread and comic sans fonts (at least on some OS/browser combinations).
Now getting all interaction to work might be way more of a problem. It can be solved and might even be fun - more so as the backend had to be reworked as well.
And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
While many features are official deprecated, browsers still support quite a lot. So far, I didn't notice any optical feature of the 'new' design that couldn't be easy done with a late 90s browser. The biggest hurdle might be the notification system.
So yeah, if I get drowned in tons of money (or migrate to some beautiful remote island - all inklusive), it would be a nice task to waste time :))
add a comment |
But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Not with the tools used. Keep in mind, there was no CSS back then.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
Simply no. No CSS, no standardized way of interaction with the backend and so on.
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time?
Yes, I belive it could be made - of course it requires esentialy a whole recoding. Layout wise next to all parts could have been made look like it, ofc, including the star spread and comic sans fonts (at least on some OS/browser combinations).
Now getting all interaction to work might be way more of a problem. It can be solved and might even be fun - more so as the backend had to be reworked as well.
And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
While many features are official deprecated, browsers still support quite a lot. So far, I didn't notice any optical feature of the 'new' design that couldn't be easy done with a late 90s browser. The biggest hurdle might be the notification system.
So yeah, if I get drowned in tons of money (or migrate to some beautiful remote island - all inklusive), it would be a nice task to waste time :))
But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
Not with the tools used. Keep in mind, there was no CSS back then.
Could this page have worked on a browser from the 1990s, assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc?
Simply no. No CSS, no standardized way of interaction with the backend and so on.
And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time?
Yes, I belive it could be made - of course it requires esentialy a whole recoding. Layout wise next to all parts could have been made look like it, ofc, including the star spread and comic sans fonts (at least on some OS/browser combinations).
Now getting all interaction to work might be way more of a problem. It can be solved and might even be fun - more so as the backend had to be reworked as well.
And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
While many features are official deprecated, browsers still support quite a lot. So far, I didn't notice any optical feature of the 'new' design that couldn't be easy done with a late 90s browser. The biggest hurdle might be the notification system.
So yeah, if I get drowned in tons of money (or migrate to some beautiful remote island - all inklusive), it would be a nice task to waste time :))
answered 1 hour ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
54.8k6136222
54.8k6136222
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9543%2fwas-the-stack-exchange-happy-april-fools-page-fitting-with-the-90s-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk
– Stephen
18 hours ago
@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.
– a CVn
12 hours ago
1
my impression of the source is they prioritized making it a simple change on top of regular SO that could be easily added/removed. as far as I can tell it's an injected script that makes all of the changes to the regular SO dom. I could be way off the mark though as I don't usually read SO's source
– sudo rm -rf slash
11 hours ago
1
That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.
– tofro
2 hours ago
1
@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.
– Ross Ridge
1 hour ago