This is how it feels to work with today's software

Amen Brother! I find value in how ppl were getting the machines to to do crazy shit back in the day. Was thinking to create a new History topic to teach ->Archeology of Programming . whaddayathink?

🤔I wonder if it’s possible to make a <1MB website at all these days.

The gif alone would be close to that.

The meme creator is talking about a time he has never seen. There were never machines with 20 MHz and only 128 kB.

@C0D4 the home page of my portfolio site clocks in at 36 kB - image, html, css and a little JS included.

@noyb I like it.

@Fast-Nop indeed. I just see it in movies and hear it from my older peers. Makes me wish I lived in those days D:

@Fast-Nop but is that image a gif?
Or a low res jpg?

@gitoutofhere Atari and Amiga had 8 MHz and typically 1 MB RAM. The DOS machines of the early 90s had typically around 16 MHz and 1 MB, with the hasselt of the 640k border. By the mid-90s, x86 with 33 MHz and 4 MB were typical. :-)

@C0D4 It's a JPG 400 px wide, that is totally enough, and it is optimised with Optimizilla.

Also, I would have wanted a PNG because JPG has no transparent background, but I keep the master PNGs locally and export them as JPG with the transparent layer converted to the exact background colour they need. That cuts down the filesize quite a lot.

@C0D4 this also assumes you NEED images. I've made and run several sites that look beautiful without any images at all. and even if you want images, SVGs look amazing, scale perfectly and take practically no space many times.

@deadPix3l images should always contribute value, not just be there to fill up the void. E.g. if a page is about a specific product, then having a picture of that product right on the page makes sense.

@deadPix3l @Charon92
I think you missed my point, And incorporating a gif (that plays for more the 5 seconds or remotely decent quality)

Yes a pure text based site without much css, and next to no js.. if any would be possible to get under 1MB, my own site is about 15kb without the image but that’s not a gif either.

@C0D4 no I think I got your point. and my point was just that a)images are frequently not needed and b)if you can use svg for images, you get infinitely more detail for exceptionally less space, and can make beautiful sites with images and just and CSS galore. (SVGs, HTML, css, AND just are all just plaintext. 1mb means you can fit just over 1million characters. that's plenty.)

@M1sf3t well then you've got yourself some tiny PNGs it seems. but the point is if you want to blow up that jpg 1000x, it's gonna look awful and pixelated. whereas the SVG will scale infinitely bigger with no loss in quality and no increase in size.
for small things such as icons it's not noticable. and with photos or pixel based data it's not ideal. but for graphics, banners, drawings, etc SVGs should be orders of magnitude smaller, especially at large scale.

Constraints built better programs. It's been proven time and time again.

https://youtu.be/bTip0xQ3fFo

OP, this is literally the point of the demoscene. (My favorite constraint-driven demos are ALL on the Atari 2600/VCS, with its 1.X MHz processor, 128 bytes of WRAM, and 40 bits (yes, BITS) of VRAM.)

Race the beam, motherfucker!

@Fast-Nop look at the chips - Sony and Nintendo on the same chip. Either this is specifically the Nintendo Playstation or someone put no thought into what they photoshopped in!

@noyb Would read it.

@gitoutofhere e.g pacmans sourcecoede from atari cartidge from moma

explanation of the project

@M1sf3t I'm curious to see the actual SVG file. I feel I could do that in under 5kb probably with svg.

also scaling it up hundred of times will only require a few numbers to be chanded, adding may 30 extra bytes. pretty good for a 60000x40000 image. that's my only point. images like this, provided they're optimized, will always be of higher quality in SVG format.

@M1sf3t there's your problem.. that's not truly an SVG. it's pretty much a blank svg with an embedded png (all that base64)

@Charon92 SVGs can have gradients. If all fails via CSS.

@Charon92 why would they? CSS gradients are not big in size, it's just some formula.

@M1sf3t CSS has also radial gradients, so that's not a problem.

@M1sf3t yeah the latter one. SVG is just XML after all. However, there's one trap with styling SVGs via CSS, and that is CSP if the website has that active. Actually, that should not hit in, but last time I looked, Firefox fucked this up, and coloured SVGs would show up in black.

@M1sf3t the actual objects in 3D games have alwys been polygons, i.e. vector stuff. The textures make more sense in raster because projecting them on a polygon is a 3D matrix operation, and you can do a lot of that stuff in parallel on the same data, which is what GPUs are good at.

That meme is basically how I feel about software nowadays. Also makes me feel like I'm a terrible programmer