> Unimaginably fast

From the article:

> I also like the load time estimation found in the bottom right corner -- that's a constant reminder how long it will take the page you're working on to load for your visitors. My resume page is pretty good on wait time -- 14 seconds and that includes a graphic in addition to a massive HTML file!

His "unimaginably fast" website took 14 seconds to load. Compare that to today's "bloated" sites like CNN's home page. Loads in 4.3 seconds, and finishes asynchronously loading all the bloat in 7.8 seconds.

That was probably with a 28.8k modem under less than ideal circumstances. He probably could optimize it further though, sure, is that your point?

Yes, technology at the time did limit the kind of bloat that would be tolerated. Is that an excuse to go all in now just because we can?

Zero javascript, zero CSS; it uses <font face...> and <center> only.

Fast, yes.

Really bad on my mobile (equally bad as a number of mobile web sites today, only different).

Web site I dealt with earlier today: lose state when I go back.

This page: unreadable small fonts (and it takes months between every time I complain about that). And when I zoom it doesn't reflow the text so I have to scroll back and forth to read it.