>>37 Missing files

>>38 Missing files

>>39 Missing files

>>40 Missing files

>>41 Missing file

>>77 Missing file

>>79 Missing file

>>133 Missing file

>>171 Missing files

>>172 Missing file

>>178 Missing file

>>204 Missing file

>>210 Missing file

>>217 Missing file

>>218 Missing files

>>250 Missing file

>>255 Missing file

>>329 Missing file

>>348 Missing file

>>395 Missing file

>>412 Missing file

>>440 Missing file

>>485 Missing file

>>495 Missing file

>>506 Missing files

>>521 Missing file

>>525 Missing file

>>527 Missing file

>>597 Missing files

>>602 Missing file

>>651 Missing files

>>669 Missing file

>>1642 I really like the background you used. It's funny that you mention Soulseek, since I recently started using that now that public torrents seem to be drying up for a lot of things. I've come to prefer it to torrents for music, since downloading directly from one person seems to be more reliable than trying to download a torrent and hoping there are enough seeders for it to actually download. I was in the habit of ripping playlists off YouTube, and this works so much better. I'm currently looking for something similar for movies and TV shows. Supposedly Kodi can be used that way, but I don't know much of anything about it yet. >Bliss also has a greater saturation because it was taken on Fuji Velvia slide film. (In medium format as well). I experimented with slide film once, but it didn't turn out. I guess that's the chance you take buying expired film.

>>1678 >I really like the background you used. Tiled water background I found somewhere, I forget exactly where, but searching for tiled backgrounds on duckduckgo is how I found the site. I did edit it because it was more of a teal color before and I wanted it to be more blue. I've been using Soulseek for a while. It's great. I love it when someone downloads from me as well. >I'm currently looking for something similar for movies and TV shows Check Soulseek anyway. I've gotten shows from there. I once got a movie I could not find anywhere else, and I also got a book I couldn't find anywhere else online, too. I share music, music videos, TV shows, movies, and books. >I experimented with slide film once, but it didn't turn out. I guess that's the chance you take buying expired film. Slide film has a very narrow exposure latitude, whereas negative film has a relatively wide one. You can under or overexpose negative film a lot and it'll be fine. For expired negative film generally you might overexpose it one stop per decade it's been expired, but slide film with its narrow exposure window means you have to get the exposure pretty much dead on and if it's expired it's going to make that job a lot harder. And I would think that slide film degrades faster as well, but I'm not too sure.

>>1710 >Check Soulseek anyway. I've gotten shows from there. I once got a movie I could not find anywhere else, and I also got a book I couldn't find anywhere else online, too. I share music, music videos, TV shows, movies, and books. I read something about it being inefficient and taking up downloading slots from people downloading music. Maybe I should just try it anyway. I downloaded some fairly niche shows I could put up that seem like they'd be getting harder to find. I haven't even watched them yet, but maybe someone will appreciate them. >Slide film has a very narrow exposure latitude, whereas negative film has a relatively wide one. You can under or overexpose negative film a lot and it'll be fine. For expired negative film generally you might overexpose it one stop per decade it's been expired, but slide film with its narrow exposure window means you have to get the exposure pretty much dead on and if it's expired it's going to make that job a lot harder. And I would think that slide film degrades faster as well, but I'm not too sure. There was absolutely no image on the developed film itself. I'm out of the photography game, but if I ever get back into it I'd like to give slide film another try. I've always been a dilettante, so who knows how it would turn out.

I stumbled upon this website (has pornographic material) https://www.phun.org/ The copyright at the bottom says 2004 for which the website looks period correct. It feels odd landing on a website like that nowadays, it works fine without javascript and looks like it was designed to be viewed on a computer screen. The colour scheme also reminds me of the time, a lot of websites had non-white or black backgrounds and just seemed more interesting.

>>2268 Love it. Those oldskool, hobbyist-driven, pre-"everything is now a wordpress blog" CMS sites were always my favorite. I posted >>1281 and >>1286 earlier up the thread, and god do I miss the "3-column layout, awesome graphic design, news/updates in the middle, links on the sides, dedicated forum, and obligatory weekly poll" era. Even though they all had basically the same layout and features, they were so easy to navigate, had so much individual charm, and nearly all had thriving communities behind them. I'll never understand why people gave up on that entire format for what they did.

>>2268 The content doesn't really interest me, but I really like the fact that I site like this is still being updated. >>2269 Definitely. At some point simple, intuitive website design became considered passe.

>>2280 >The content doesn't really interest me, but I really like the fact that I site like this is still being updated. At first I debated whether to post it or not, but decided to for that reason. There's already an over saturation of that content, but figured some would appreciate the design/layout. Ironically, I found the website through an image search not looking for adult content. The webmaster also posts memes on there, lol.

>>2644 God I almost forgot how abysmally slow the connection speeds were back in the day... Really don't miss it.

>>2646 between all the JS bloat we have today it's really no different.

>>2268 >>2269 >>2280 >>2287 http://stepsmut.com/about/ Not as old school, but how many porn sites have an about section? >>2692 Nah, it's really a world of difference. I still remember my modem overheating and having to wait for it to cool down.

>>2707 well, you just had a shit setup then, would also the same thing today if you had a shit one.

>>2707 I never had an overheating problem with a modem, that doesn't sound normal. The JS bloat is actually a good comparison if using a slow machine at the present time, but the limiting factor is processing power, not communication bandwidth. Most websites were built with consideration for modem speeds, so they usually did not take forever to load, but media like "hi-res" (for that era) pictures would take a while to download. Game files and video clips also took a while, may people used special downloader programs for resuming a download if it was interrupted. Downloading large files overnight was common, tying up a phone line at those hours wasn't noticeable.

Anyone heard of Protoweb? It's essentially a recreation of the 90s internet with the slow as fuck speed and old google and yahoo search engines you can use. Unlike the wayback machine it actually restores old websites with all their functions, it's really fucking cool. I wish it would take off so I could finally escape this modern nightmare.

>>3252 It certainly has a novelty factor, old website recreations are always interesting for sure. There's no way this will really take off with that HTTP proxy requirement, basically a walled garden situation but /retro/, people with vintage machines will probably enjoy it though.

>>3252 This seems kind of fun, thanks

>>3252 not sure if it's the same thing, but there's a separate program made in Python that acts as a proxy for old webpages hosted on the Wayback machine. You simply run the Python server on one device, set your retro device to use the Python host machine as a proxy, and then you can browse through IE or Netscape and load archived pages of the old web. I forget the name but Tech Tangents did a video on it in his website destruction video. https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=zvQtdQW3DsU

Just in case this hasn't been posted here already. https://websitereview.neocities.org/