Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the '90's code?

In the UK, is it possible to get a referendum by a court decision?

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to log in to her iPad. Do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?

How do I exit BASH while loop using modulus operator?

How to travel to Japan while expressing milk?

What does the same-ish mean?

GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?

What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?

how do we prove that a sum of two periods is still a period?

What Exploit Are These User Agents Trying to Use?

Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?

Does Dispel Magic work on Tiny Hut?

What are the G forces leaving Earth orbit?

Is "/bin/[.exe" a legitimate file? [Cygwin, Windows 10]

Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

Send out email when Apex Queueable fails and test it

What is the fastest integer factorization to break RSA?

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

Notepad++ delete until colon for every line with replace all

How to install cross-compiler on Ubuntu 18.04?

What exactly is ineptocracy?

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Different meanings of こわい

Convert seconds to minutes



Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the '90's code?














12















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...










share|improve this question













migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 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
    19 hours ago











  • @Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

    – a CVn
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

    – tofro
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.

    – Ross Ridge
    2 hours ago















12















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...










share|improve this question













migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 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
    19 hours ago











  • @Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

    – a CVn
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

    – tofro
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.

    – Ross Ridge
    2 hours ago













12












12








12


1






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...










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









colmdecolmde

26617




26617




migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 hours ago


This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.









migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 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
    19 hours ago











  • @Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

    – a CVn
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

    – tofro
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.

    – Ross Ridge
    2 hours ago












  • 2





    Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk

    – Stephen
    19 hours ago











  • @Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

    – a CVn
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

    – tofro
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.

    – Ross Ridge
    2 hours ago







2




2





Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk

– Stephen
19 hours ago





Here is a real 90s website for comparison: midwinter.com/lurk

– Stephen
19 hours ago













@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

– a CVn
13 hours ago





@Stephen A 90s website wouldn't have a Facebook "like" button.

– a CVn
13 hours ago




2




2





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
12 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
12 hours ago




1




1





That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

– tofro
3 hours ago





That page design was definitely missing blinking text, the nuisance of early Internet Exploder.

– tofro
3 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
2 hours ago





@tofro The blink tag was never supported by Internet Explorer. It was a widely ridiculed invention of Netscape Navigator.

– Ross Ridge
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















19














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. 






share|improve this answer


















  • 10





    And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

    – Stephen
    19 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
    12 hours ago


















8














No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.






share|improve this answer


















  • 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.
    21 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
    18 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
    17 hours ago











  • @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

    – a CVn
    13 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
    12 hours ago


















1














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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

    – Bregalad
    13 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
    12 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
    12 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.
    11 hours ago


















1















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 :))






share|improve this answer























    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    19














    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. 






    share|improve this answer


















    • 10





      And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

      – Stephen
      19 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
      12 hours ago















    19














    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. 






    share|improve this answer


















    • 10





      And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

      – Stephen
      19 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
      12 hours ago













    19












    19








    19







    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. 






    share|improve this answer













    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. 







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 21 hours ago









    T.E.D.T.E.D.

    41315




    41315







    • 10





      And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

      – Stephen
      19 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
      12 hours ago












    • 10





      And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

      – Stephen
      19 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
      12 hours ago







    10




    10





    And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

    – Stephen
    19 hours ago





    And the page is responsive, which is definitely a non-90s thing.

    – Stephen
    19 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago











    8














    No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 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.
      21 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
      18 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
      17 hours ago











    • @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

      – a CVn
      13 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
      12 hours ago















    8














    No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 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.
      21 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
      18 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
      17 hours ago











    • @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

      – a CVn
      13 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
      12 hours ago













    8












    8








    8







    No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.






    share|improve this answer













    No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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.
      21 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
      18 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
      17 hours ago











    • @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

      – a CVn
      13 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
      12 hours ago












    • 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.
      21 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
      18 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
      17 hours ago











    • @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

      – a CVn
      13 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
      12 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.
    21 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.
    21 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
    18 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
    18 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
    17 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
    17 hours ago













    @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

    – a CVn
    13 hours ago





    @mcalex https://web.archive.org/web/*/<whatever URL>

    – a CVn
    13 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago











    1














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

      – Bregalad
      13 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
      12 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
      12 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.
      11 hours ago















    1














    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • 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
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

      – Bregalad
      13 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
      12 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
      12 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.
      11 hours ago













    1












    1








    1







    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.






    share|improve this answer













    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 17 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
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

      – Bregalad
      13 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
      12 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
      12 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.
      11 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
      16 hours ago






    • 1





      Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

      – Bregalad
      13 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
      12 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
      12 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.
      11 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
    16 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
    16 hours ago




    1




    1





    Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

    – Bregalad
    13 hours ago





    Computer technology has changed considerably. Indeed, and for the worse.

    – Bregalad
    13 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
    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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 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.
    11 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.
    11 hours ago











    1















    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 :))






    share|improve this answer



























      1















      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 :))






      share|improve this answer

























        1












        1








        1








        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 :))






        share|improve this answer














        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 :))







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        RaffzahnRaffzahn

        54.8k6136222




        54.8k6136222



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inchanging text on user mouseoverShould certain functions be “hard to find” for powerusers to discover?Custom liking function - do I need user login?Using different checkbox style for different checkbox behaviorBest Practices: Save and Exit in Software UIInteraction with remote validated formMore efficient UI to progress the user through a complicated process?Designing a popup notice for a gameShould bulk-editing functions be hidden until a table row is selected, or is there a better solution?Is it bad practice to disable (replace) the context menu?