56k died?

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2008-04-25 06:54am

I've been inspired to do this thread by seeing all the 56k warnings in heavy graphic threads.

Seriously, is there anyone who still uses a 56k modem for the internet? In Poland nobody I know uses this tech anymore, and, as everyone knows, Poland is keeping the pace with technological advance of the world with a few years worth of lag.

So, any 56k users out there? Im only asking for people with phone line modem ppp connections, since there are lots of mobile modems for laptops which sometimes provide comparable speed.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2008-04-25 06:57am

I've seen a few people who still use them in Sydney. Still, they are very rare. I don't think any of the major ISP's offer dial up service anymore.

Post by **Vympel** » 2008-04-25 06:59am

Yeah I don't think you need to say (56k) for anything anymore. I've never heard of anyone using dialup for years.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-04-25 07:26am

I'm fairly certain that some members of the board still use dialup, while others have bandwidth caps. I was just talking with Gandalf about it earlier today.

Plus, it's just a habit; some boards I go to require you to place warnings for dialup users in image heavy threads.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2008-04-25 09:59am

There are lots of people who still use it but they are getting less and less all the time and I think its mostly used now by people in rural areas and people that travel around alot with a laptop or somthing to places that don't happen to have any other connection type yet.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-04-25 10:12am

The 56k warning is also useful when you're using an older computer that might have trouble displaying dozens of large images.

And surely there's still people who use low-speed lines? Maybe not 56k, but still...

white_rabbit · Post by **white_rabbit** » 2008-04-25 10:21am

We use a 56k dialup for bank access at work, as they haven't upgraded to allow broadband access to the BACS system yet

Fleet Admiral JD · Post by **Fleet Admiral JD** » 2008-04-25 10:39am

I know one person--my great-aunt--who uses 56k. Everyone else has something faster.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2008-04-25 11:17am

It helps when I'm browsing from a cell phone, or other device which takes a long time to load *anything*.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-04-25 11:25am

56k is more of a traditional warning really. I have high bandwidth but sometimes either my father or I am downloading or watching a stream online.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-04-25 11:45am

Eh, in the US, many rural areas and small, outlying communities can't get much of anything, bandwidth-wise. Sure, you can get satellite, and maybe cell-network internet, but that's expensive as fuck compared to land-line broadband, and in many cases not much of an upgrade. The numbers have dropped dramatically, but I still hear the 'I'm too far out for broadband' kvetch frequently enough from customers at work.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-04-25 11:47am

Bounty wrote:The 56k warning is also useful when you're using an older computer that might have trouble displaying dozens of large images.

And surely there's still people who use low-speed lines? Maybe not 56k, but still...

I've been able to get dozens of large images to display just fine on systems as old as a 500mhz P3. Who could possibly be using anything so old that it would have trouble displaying images as long as they were using an internet connection faster than dialup?

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-04-25 11:54am

Lagmonster wrote:It helps when I'm browsing from a cell phone, or other device which takes a long time to load *anything*.

Generally that's what I look for also. I have a PDA with wireless net but christ knows pictures do all sorts of things that leave it in a puddle of its own blood staring into the wall and waiting for the lights to dim and for life to end. Even with a desktop PC that can load images effortlessly, it's still nice to have an implied warning that YOU ARE NOW ENTERING A PICTURE THREAD.

Besides, it's not like it takes much effort to type [56k go away].

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2008-04-25 11:59am

General Zod wrote:
Bounty wrote:The 56k warning is also useful when you're using an older computer that might have trouble displaying dozens of large images.

And surely there's still people who use low-speed lines? Maybe not 56k, but still...
I've been able to get dozens of large images to display just fine on systems as old as a 500mhz P3. Who could possibly be using anything so old that it would have trouble displaying images as long as they were using an internet connection faster than dialup?

Multiple tabs open, not much memory, running other apps... it's easy to slow a browser down to a crawl when you do that and try to open a thread with two dozen huge images.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-04-25 02:56pm

When at work, in some cases I dial in to netzero to download my e-mail

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-04-25 03:07pm

At my last full-time job(which ended in early 2005), there wasn't any land-based broadband available. The whole office -- around 15 people -- shared a 56k dial-up connection, using a Linux box as a gateway.

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2008-04-25 09:18pm

I haven't used actual dialup in a while, but I have used some really sad connections. Up until fairly recently I've been limited to a heavily shared satellite connection, and that was at times competitive with 56k for slowness.

Thag · Post by **Thag** » 2008-04-26 12:22am

My parents live out in the middle of nowhere, where DSL is a rumor and you pay through the ass for anything else. They have 56k in theory, but in reality the best they usually pull is 36K.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-04-26 01:50am

Even this middle of nowhere I dwell in 56k is rare. However since it is cheaper than water (literally) the technologically challenged sometimes use it. Plus some more tech savvy people wisely keep their 56k modems as precaution against not so uncommon broadband failures here.

Joviwan · Post by **Joviwan** » 2008-04-26 01:57am

General Zod wrote:
Bounty wrote:The 56k warning is also useful when you're using an older computer that might have trouble displaying dozens of large images.

And surely there's still people who use low-speed lines? Maybe not 56k, but still...
I've been able to get dozens of large images to display just fine on systems as old as a 500mhz P3. Who could possibly be using anything so old that it would have trouble displaying images as long as they were using an internet connection faster than dialup?

Clearly, you haven't worked at enough schools. The school I work at now is filled with almost nothing but P2 and P3 machines of the 400-800 MHz variety, and image intensive websites can take ages to load, even though our school is on a shared T3.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2008-04-26 02:06am

I'm only on a 256k connection. I could get a faster connection, but then I'd have to deal with a bandwidth cap that drops me to 64k when I exceed it.

And for the same price as I'm paying now, I'm only talking about a 6GB monthly limit.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-04-26 02:13am

Joviwan wrote: Clearly, you haven't worked at enough schools. The school I work at now is filled with almost nothing but P2 and P3 machines of the 400-800 MHz variety, and image intensive websites can take ages to load, even though our school is on a shared T3.

Maybe it is case of browsers and OSes being inefficient. I can browse the web just fine from a P1 233 MHZ machine with 64 MB RAM and running Win 2K. It is actually sometimes faster responding than a 2 ghz rig with 1 GB RM running Vista that my parents use.When you realise that cheap ass cellphones with a good GPRS connection can quickly load complex web pages the argument you need a super thousand MHZ computer for web surfing does not seem convincing anymore.