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 4 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
    14 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
    13 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 4 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
    14 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
    13 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 4 hours ago


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









migrated from history.stackexchange.com 4 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
    14 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
    13 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
    14 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
    13 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
14 hours ago





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

– a CVn
14 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
13 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
13 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






  • 3





    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






  • 2





    @Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

    – Brad
    14 mins ago



















8














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






share|improve this answer



















  • 9





    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.
    22 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
    19 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
    18 hours ago











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

    – a CVn
    14 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
    17 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Bregalad
    14 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
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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.
    12 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
























  • The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

    – Mark
    19 mins ago












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






  • 3





    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






  • 2





    @Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

    – Brad
    14 mins 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






  • 3





    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






  • 2





    @Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

    – Brad
    14 mins 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 22 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






  • 3





    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






  • 2





    @Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

    – Brad
    14 mins ago














  • 10





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

    – Stephen
    19 hours ago






  • 3





    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






  • 2





    @Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

    – Brad
    14 mins 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




3




3





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




2




2





@Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

– Brad
14 mins ago





@Stephen No, I disagree, we had responsive web pages before people made them non-responsive much later. Everything was responsive by default, and we all were building sites knowing that it had to work for 640x480 through 1024x768. It wasn't until probably around the early 2000s that people really started to screw things up with "pixel perfect" designs and other nonsense. The web is just now finally getting back to its roots.

– Brad
14 mins ago











8














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






share|improve this answer



















  • 9





    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.
    22 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
    19 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
    18 hours ago











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

    – a CVn
    14 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



















  • 9





    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.
    22 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
    19 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
    18 hours ago











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

    – a CVn
    14 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















  • 9





    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.
    22 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
    19 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
    18 hours ago











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

    – a CVn
    14 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














  • 9





    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.
    22 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
    19 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
    18 hours ago











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

    – a CVn
    14 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








9




9





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.
22 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.
22 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
19 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
19 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
18 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
18 hours ago













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

– a CVn
14 hours ago





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

– a CVn
14 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
    17 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Bregalad
    14 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
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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.
    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
    17 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Bregalad
    14 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
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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.
    12 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 18 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
    17 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Bregalad
    14 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
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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.
    12 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
    17 hours ago






  • 1





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

    – Bregalad
    14 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
    13 hours ago






  • 2





    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.
    12 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
17 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
17 hours ago




1




1





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

– Bregalad
14 hours ago





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

– Bregalad
14 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
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
13 hours ago




2




2





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.
12 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.
12 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
























  • The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

    – Mark
    19 mins 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
























  • The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

    – Mark
    19 mins ago














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 3 hours ago









RaffzahnRaffzahn

54.8k6136222




54.8k6136222













  • The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

    – Mark
    19 mins ago



















  • The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

    – Mark
    19 mins ago

















The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

– Mark
19 mins ago





The notification system wouldn't have worked. It's a "server push" system, and nothing of that sort worked reliably until WebSockets showed up in 2011. Most of the other interactivity would have worked, but would have required Internet Explorer 5 and XMLHTTP (the precursor to XMLHttpRequest).

– Mark
19 mins ago


















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

Сан-Квентин

8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

Алькесар