<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: save 300 terabytes in a few days</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.helge.at/2004/07/save-300-terabytes-in-a-few-days/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.helge.at/2004/07/save-300-terabytes-in-a-few-days/</link>
	<description>Helge Fahrnberger's rants and raves on social software, life, and everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:04:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.helge.at/2004/07/save-300-terabytes-in-a-few-days/comment-page-1/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helgeat.dreamhosters.com/wp/?p=97#comment-69</guid>
		<description>very encouraging news!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
nevertheless the point with bandwith reduction to me is ambivalent. the point is clear, and i won&#039;t argue against reducing filesize by using contemporary site-design.&lt;br /&gt;
but i doubt that bandwith can be an argument, capacities are growing steadily, more and more users have broadband (ain&#039;t it time for the revival of multimedia content on the web?)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
besides this there will be relatively few pages where traffic is so high that costs have to be cut down on this issue (gmx certainly one of those sites). i see the good efforts in standard-design in all weblog-software, but do larger cms already get the point (out of the box)?&lt;br /&gt;
and do web-agencies building semi-dynamic pages for small companies already build pages for the 21st century?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very encouraging news!</p>
<p>nevertheless the point with bandwith reduction to me is ambivalent. the point is clear, and i won&#8217;t argue against reducing filesize by using contemporary site-design.<br />
but i doubt that bandwith can be an argument, capacities are growing steadily, more and more users have broadband (ain&#8217;t it time for the revival of multimedia content on the web?)&#8230;</p>
<p>besides this there will be relatively few pages where traffic is so high that costs have to be cut down on this issue (gmx certainly one of those sites). i see the good efforts in standard-design in all weblog-software, but do larger cms already get the point (out of the box)?<br />
and do web-agencies building semi-dynamic pages for small companies already build pages for the 21st century?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: helge</title>
		<link>http://www.helge.at/2004/07/save-300-terabytes-in-a-few-days/comment-page-1/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>helge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helgeat.dreamhosters.com/wp/?p=97#comment-70</guid>
		<description>@thomas: i totally agree with you that there is much more to webstandards and modern, accessible webdesign than just bandwidth reduction. i just wanted to light up the wellknown topic from a different angle. however, i don&#039;t agree that growing capacities make the bandwidth issue irrelevant. ideal usability needs instant loading times (&lt; 1 sec) and we are very far from that: microsoft.com takes 3.5 seconds to load on my broadband connection.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@thomas: i totally agree with you that there is much more to webstandards and modern, accessible webdesign than just bandwidth reduction. i just wanted to light up the wellknown topic from a different angle. however, i don&#8217;t agree that growing capacities make the bandwidth issue irrelevant. ideal usability needs instant loading times (< 1 sec) and we are very far from that: microsoft.com takes 3.5 seconds to load on my broadband connection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

