KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2009-Nov-12 6:00 pm
The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...... Google is that someone. | |
|
| |
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...Quite possibly true. | |
|
| L337 Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Chicago, IL
1 recommendation |
L337 to KrK
Premium Member
2009-Nov-12 6:14 pm
to KrK
Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. | |
|
| | |
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...said by L337:Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. +1 | |
|
| | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
to L337
said by L337:Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. I've had a lot more machines infected by ads served up by Yahoo! owned ad servers (ie: Overture) than by Google owned ad servers (none at all). Now that I think about it, out of the last dozen or so malware infections I've cleaned up; about half incurred at the other end of a Yahoo! search click-through and none from Google link. I know what I have to guard against. NV | |
|
| | | Lagz Premium Member join:2000-09-03 The Rock 1 edit |
Lagz
Premium Member
2009-Nov-13 7:30 am
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...said by Noah Vail:I've had a lot more machines infected by ads served up by Yahoo! owned ad servers (ie: Overture) than by Google owned ad servers (none at all). People are still viewing ads? I thought those days were long behind use!! | |
|
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...Somebody has to pay for all that free content on the Internet. Did you think they were just doing it for their own entertainment? I swear some of you people don't get it. You can get free television over the airwaves, free radio stations, web pages you can view and enjoy for free and you complain when the reason it's free is because advertisers are paying for the space and time to hock their wares. What do you want? Content you have to pay yourself enough to keep the enterprise running or content you don't have to pay for but will have to put up with some ads? | |
|
| | | | | knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...said by SRFireside:Somebody has to pay for all that free content on the Internet. Did you think they were just doing it for their own entertainment? I swear some of you people don't get it. You can get free television over the airwaves, free radio stations, web pages you can view and enjoy for free and you complain when the reason it's free is because advertisers are paying for the space and time to hock their wares. What do you want? Content you have to pay yourself enough to keep the enterprise running or content you don't have to pay for but will have to put up with some ads? And somebody did for years before advertisements hit the web. The problem is that everyone uses advertisements as an excuse for anything on the web. There are other business models to keep a website up and running besides virus infected Viagra ads; flashing, rolling, jump in your face ads. The Internet got along just fine years before ads were the next big thing. Ads are of themself a snake oil that fools everyone into thinking a website will make millions from advertising or can only be supported by ads. It's a self-serving yet self-defeating process. | |
|
| | | | | | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2009-Nov-13 9:26 am
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...Not every ad is virus infected or annoying. IMO, Google Ads does it right, simple text ads related to the content of the page (at least as closely as they can match it). | |
|
| | | | | | SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA 1 edit |
to knightmb
Yeah, who says you have a *right* to exploit a service for profit. Oh yeah, the conservatives say so. | |
|
| | | | | | | calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...said by SLD:Yeah, who says you have a *right* to exploit a service for profit. Oh yeah, the conservatives say so. No "right" to extract a profit from the service I provide? Fine. I provide no service. What improvement is that? | |
|
| | |
Megladon1 to L337
Anon
2009-Nov-13 8:41 am
to L337
...And thats why your L337 and not 1337 | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to L337
said by L337:Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. Yahoo! is more annoying. Their toolbar is a POS and they let all sorts of crapware vendors bundle it in. | |
|
| AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
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. | |
|
| | Jerm join:2000-04-10 Richland, WA |
Jerm
Member
2009-Nov-12 9:20 pm
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 | |
|
| | nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience. A "lot" actually being more like "almost all". These days Google is like the stock-market millionaires of the late 90's - it wants all the new toys and it wants to be in everything. Once it figures out the new toy is not as hot as it thought before - it simply loses interest. What's another $30mil to throw away at another project? NEXT!! | |
|
| | | dib22 join:2002-01-27 Kansas City, MO |
dib22
Member
2009-Nov-13 2:53 am
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...would you rather them focus in so narrowly that they spend all their time figuring out ways to squeeze more profit out of everything ad infinitum until they end up like our cable and phone companies? | |
|
| | | | nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2009-Nov-13 4:26 am
Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...They're going to end up like the cable and phone companies anyway - it's just a matter of time. The corporate crowd is slowly but surely taking over the big G machine.
Why do you think they want to be in everything? it's the corporate folks pushing because they want to find more ways to make money (which is pretty sad considering they really don't NEED any more). | |
|
| | | | |
to dib22
Next we'll see a Google TV and a Google Fridge. | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to AVonGauss
GMail was in "beta" for how many years? Functionally, the entire duration gmail was in beta it was rock-solid stable.
I'll take 1000 google betas as long as they keep innovating for free. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
sozialism to KrK
Anon
2009-Nov-13 7:06 am
to KrK
the company that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have | |
|
| Yawn @blueyonder.co.uk |
Yawn to KrK
Anon
2009-Nov-16 8:40 pm
to KrK
Thats a bit tiresome and naive, how about M$? They have more spare cash each year than google GROSS in a year. Why do you all STILL think Gogle is a wonder-horse? | |
|
Z801 point 77 Premium Member join:2009-08-31 Amerika 1 edit
1 recommendation |
Z80
Premium Member
2009-Nov-12 6:06 pm
Big difference between Google and those scammersThis 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. | |
|
| |
Re: Big difference between Google and those scammersSure. 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... | |
|
| | Z801 point 77 Premium Member join:2009-08-31 Amerika |
Z80
Premium Member
2009-Nov-12 6:44 pm
Re: Big difference between Google and those scammersCome on...you don't like 4 years of betas? | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Big difference between Google and those scammersOnly if there's lots and lots of accompanying press releases. | |
|
|
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. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Nov-12 7:04 pm
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. | |
|
| |
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. | |
|
| | |
Re: Ok, I have to ask...said by iansltx: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. First, nice use of the word alacrity. Now put down the thesaurus. Ok, so SPDY takes advantage of the connection you have, but how much of the load time can be attributed to the connection? What about the effects of an overloaded or underpowered web server or database server (for dynamic sites)? What about the effects of the local client system that is running poorly? So many factors affect the perception of browsing speed that a new protocol seems to have its limits. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Ok, I have to ask...Of course it has limits, however on a slower connection (which a lot of folks are on, believe it or not) page transmission time is a big factor, and the assumption is that the browser is highly tuned to start with.
It's not a panacaea by any stretch but every little bit helps, especially when you're running a high-traffic site. I have a feeling the protocol is relatively light (but still smart) so Google is able to serve up stuff more efficiently on their end as well. That fact is also why I don't think this project will go by the wayside...it's in Google's interest to make the Internet as efficient as possible. Gets them lower costs and more page views. | |
|
| | SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA |
to iansltx
Were you thinking of GoDaddy.com? | |
|
| | | |
Re: Ok, I have to ask...My host? No, it's » mddhosting.com. I don't host anything on GoDaddy, including domain names. Those are over at name.com, 1&1 or domain.com. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to NetAdmin1
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 | |
|
| | •••
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers join:2008-06-02 Greenwood, MS |
I wish Stuart Cheshire would look at it.» www.stuartcheshire.org/If he can't blow holes in it, it has no weaknesses. | |
|
|
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 | |
|
SYNACKJust Firewall It Mod join:2001-03-05 Venice, CA
1 recommendation |
SYNACK
Mod
2009-Nov-12 9:05 pm
Math?How does a "... pages loaded up to 55% faster..."translate into a "... they insist could double the speed of everyday browsing"? | |
|
| •••••• |
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
i smell april 1sti smell an april fools day prank comin. | |
|
| calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: i smell april 1stsaid by ArrayList:i smell an april fools day prank comin. I would to, but it isn't March. calvoiper | |
|
|
hmmI noticed the biggest problem is dns servers. Once I switched to opendns my webpages all come up instantly.
I dont think other faster protocols will have a noticable effect. | |
|
|
Stronger, better, faster adsSPDY header compression copes with massive cookie bloating. Those massive cookies generally come from third party advertisers and tracking services, like Google. Many people may find that blocking excessive advertising and tracking cookies is a much simpler and effective solution than an advertiser-friendly protocol.
SPDY multiplexing is similar to HTTP pipelining in efficiency. Unless you're on IE, you're probably using it now. SPDY multiplexing can prioritize/reorder responses but I don't see many web sites getting a feature that complex correct. It sounds like a way to adjust the priority of advertisements loading rather than a way to control content loading. | |
|
|
ErrNO
Anon
2009-Nov-16 8:33 pm
Streams are bi-directional....YIKES!"Streams are bi-directional, i.e. can be initiated by the client and server." In comes yet another new client facing DOS vector - Yay NOT! Thanks, but no thanks Googlez. | |
|
|
|