56k Warnings

[cotdt]

worldwide 56k dial-up is still the most common and the wave of the future. however, head-fi is mainly composed of the wealthier people (except myself, i eat rice and noodles).

 

[SysteX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif My guess is 90% of Vermont is on dial up

Priceless!

 

[Zorander]

I like rice and noodles too. It's my main staple in fact.

 

[nikongod]

has anyone taken a moment to ask if the super-huge complicated websites are deliberately designed that way to keep people on 56k out?

opening some of the "upper tier" fashion accessory websites on anything but my work line is arduous. most of those sites could be made equally pretty and easier for the consumer (and me) to navigate with less flash.

 

[Sir Nobax]

Hey guys,

[size=large]I AM ON DIAL UP!![/size]

...you all hate me now

.

Well the story is, i cannot get internet from a ISP, (something about the house) so i have to use my phone as a modem.
I had this connection since since the January the 1st, and when i can upgrade my current 64/32kiloBITps. to a more decent 192/64kbps connection (capped UMTS) i will do it right away.

But still, the "56K GTFO" is just plain rude

.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Nobax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey guys, [size=large]I AM ON DIAL UP!![/size]

[size=x-large]GTFO!!!![/size]

But seriously, yay for wireless broadband, when you get UTMS, you can have fast Head-fi everywhere!

-Ed

 

[Nebby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif It can be a good warning for people on a weak wireless connection or phone, too. I think 56k just became the standard nomenclature over writing things like Big Pics or Slow Connection, No.

Agreed. Sometimes I browse head-fi on my phone, and the warnings do help

 

[Sir Nobax]

Ah well, a average page takes about 5-10 seconds to fully load on my GPRS connection, that aint too bad. And i even scroll on Flickr with decent speeds (imo), and that is more bandwidth consuming than 99% of all "56k GTFO" post's. (that 1% was my own codec comparison thingy, when i loaded PNG's instead of my JPG's

)

 

[vagarach]

They're useful to the unlucky chaps still stuck with 56k (although wimax is starting to be introduced by bell and rogers here in canada, so you can hope), and also very useful even when surfing on devices with limited memory (like the psp).

I still remember using a 33.6k modem and having to make an itinerary of sites to visit, being very careful about clicking on things, etc. Thankfully I now have a 10Mbit cable connection

.

 

[philodox]

I feel like I'm on 56K at work... christ, can't they get more bandwidth? We are at 100% utilization all day with the exception of a nice 30min period when I get here in the morning. Might get better now that they've blocked facebook.

 

[Duggeh]

Most of the net users are on 56k, and even if most of Head-Fi is on broadband I still think its courteous and not rude to point out that the thread youve posted is a high bandwidth one. The 56k GTFO threads that have been referred to, well, I personally don't recall ever seeing one with that choice of words, but generally anything that's over a normal 56k warning is intended probably in good humour, to demonstrate that a thread is even more modem intensive than a normal 56k warning thread.

Indeed, there -was- one such thread linked to in my signature.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why do forum users still post 56k warnings?

Because there are still lots of people out there surfing the web through a 56kbps dial up connection. To warn these users against threads with large pictures some put "56k warning" in the subject line.