 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... ... Google is that someone. |
|
| Quite possibly true. |
|
 Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | Big difference between Google and those scammers This is almost a hobby for Google, not a gimmick that is to be their only income and make them rich. Google doesn't have the same incentive to overhype this like those scammers did. |
|
 L337Premium
join:2005-03-10
Chicago, IL | reply to KrK
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. |
|
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to KrK
It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience. |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Z80
Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers Sure. One problem though is that about 90% of the innovation I see at the lab at Google stumbles around like an alleyway drunk before being forgotten, so my only point is I'd like to see it applied in the real world before anybody gives out kisses... |
|
| Ok, I have to ask... With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol.
--
Kilroy was here |
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2 | I wish Stuart Cheshire would look at it. »www.stuartcheshire.org/
If he can't blow holes in it, it has no weaknesses.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers Come on...you don't like 4 years of betas? |
|
| Only if there's lots and lots of accompanying press releases.  |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to NetAdmin1
Re: Ok, I have to ask... said by NetAdmin1:With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol. Good points. This page took .719 secs to load(based on Fasterfox add-on's timer). Will I actually notice or care if the page loaded in .35 secs?
Rather than some noticeable improvements for end users, this may be more about cutting down on the number of bytes delivered by Google's servers(header compression, etc). They are always looking for efficiencies(no matter how incrementally small) to cut down their costs. Even small efficiencies become huge when measured against how much data Google moves daily.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to NetAdmin1
Browser tuning is one thing, but SPDY sounds like it better takes advantage of whatever internet connection you have. Home connections aren't perfect, and realistically any increase in effective bandwidth (via compression or other peans) will result in a better web experience. There are some websites that still don't load with alacrity (triple word score!!!1!) on my 22/5 Comcast connection that a tuned browser and a hot protocol could fix. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Where do I sign up? Hmm, reduced bandwidth on web sites, with compression and better protocol handling...is there a web server add-on that can allow this for pages served by, say, a LiteSpeed server? If such a thing were to be available, I'd love to convince my web host (small enough to be convince-able) to put it on their monster systems and make my site, and the other content driven sites that I work on, load even faster.
Because, after all (and not joking here), sites that load faster keep people engaged longer, and that's good for everyone |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to NetAdmin1
Re: Ok, I have to ask... said by NetAdmin1:With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? If you're on dial-up I'm sure you would |
|
 ModusI hate smartassery on forumsPremium
join:2005-05-02
us | Took the words right out of my mouth....we all seem to forget our fellow americans that are not on broadband
--
Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now! |
|
 SYNACKJust Firewall ItPremium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| Math? How does a
"... pages loaded up to 55% faster..."
translate into a
"... they insist could double the speed of everyday browsing"?
 |
|
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | i smell april 1st i smell an april fools day prank comin. |
|
| reply to BF69
Re: Ok, I have to ask... Not just dialup. Look at the limited bandwidth of the sat services and mobile networks, not to mention people in developing countries. After all, the Internet extends far beyond industrialized nations.
Also, bandwidth usage is often highest when people need critical information, so anything you can do to increase the number of users who can access a Web site can count in those situations. |
|
 Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2 | reply to AVonGauss
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... I think the "bar" for 1.0 has been lowered with a lot of the crap written these days and Google gets there but just never past that... 2.0, 3.0 etc |
|
Keiro
join:2005-10-25
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1 | reply to SYNACK
Re: Math? Good question.
I wonder if they tried streaming HD content?
That'd be an interesting thought, wouldn't it? Also, what about quality? Does it cause quality to suffer like current streaming solutions are? |
|
