Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


300 MB space + 10 GB bandwidth shared hosting $12.95/month?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

300 MB space + 10 GB bandwidth shared hosting $12.95/month?

WHTWHT Member
edited November 2015 in General

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

  • WHT said: Am little confused, how was possible to have a successful site with those specs. Was the images lower on space?

    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.

    https://o0.nz - A free and fast image host. Powered by a Bunny and a Pony!

  • linuxthefishlinuxthefish Member
    edited November 2015

    Hey, at least the IP's are cheap!

  • jarjar Provider
    edited November 2015

    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 ;)

    Thanked by 1ricardo

    "Note that Romania has laws agains all the illegal activities just like US, including copyright. Is not the Dracula's country or no man's land as you thought." - Random email from someone I don't know, about nothing I've done or said

  • @sambling said:
    You can always save space by hosting images/ files offsite.

    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

  • GM2015GM2015 Member
    edited November 2015

    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.

    Thanked by 1FlamesRunner

    Go give Vultr(referral) a try. | GNU/Linux http://debian.org

  • @linuxthefish said:
    Now who wants to reply to the WHt thread and get banned

    Yeah, ask if they allow to use frontpage design lol

    Thanked by 1linuxthefish
  • WHT said: 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.

    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

    https://o0.nz - A free and fast image host. Powered by a Bunny and a Pony!

  • 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?

    Thanked by 2Hassan 4n0nx
  • FritzFritz Member
    edited November 2015

    @iwaswrongonce said:
    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.

    Thanked by 1Rolter

    I'm Good!

  • Ahhhhh, the year 2000, I remember what lowendtalk.com looked like then http:// web.archive.org/ lowendtalk.com /2000

    Thanked by 1Rolter
  • 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.

    ...
    ...

  • VirMachVirMach Member, Provider, Top Provider
    edited November 2015

    WHT said: What you think guys, in 15-20 years we will have 300TB disk and 500Petabyte bandwidth for $2/month or this is not possible?

    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!

  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited November 2015

    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.

  • WHT said: Was the images lower on space?

    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 :)

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator

    WHT said: If one image have 2mb

    In 2000, people weren't posting 2MB images. Maybe 20K. Remember, there were no 1080 monitors in 2000...1024x768 maybe.

    For LET support, please visit the support desk.

    LowEndTalk attracts the finest members. - bear, WebHostingTalk

Sign In or Register to comment.