What I find ironic about all of this is that compared to the late '90s, even as typical Internet connection speeds have increased, the pressure to get my webpages to load faster and faster has resulted in me trying to find ways to make the total footprint download of my webpages smaller and smaller. The amount of bandwidth required for on of my pages today is way less than it was in say 1998.
About the only thing left that can reduce the average loading time for my pages now without cutting into functionality is faster Internet connections and faster web browsers (e.g. fully retiring IE6 & IE7).
I remember back in 1996 time frame the general rule of thumb was that if a page loaded in under a minute all was good (dialup), now the goal is to try and get down to 2 seconds (broadband). I'd love a little more bling on my site to jazz it up, but that graph on WMT's Site Performance page would haunt me in my sleep.
dpd1
9:04 am on Feb 9, 2010 (gmt 0)
It's never going to be fast enough, because people are always going to up the ante and overdo the content, no mater how fast it is... and nobody is ever going to have a screen that is big enough. Years from now, 10 year old kids will probably have 3000 pixel wide HD videos that auto start on their social page.
