inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: The Technology of 2005

Written By: the2001 on 12/10/16 at 12:07 pm

So weird to see what we used as our daily gadgets back in 2005.
Very primitive compared to what we have now.


https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usedphotosna/44447219_614.jpg

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/tharpold/images/000-099/018.jpg

https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_US/ipod/ipodclassic/mini_2gen.png

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01761/my_1761347c.jpg


Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mqg96 on 12/10/16 at 12:12 pm

Meh, not that much different than today when it comes to the images you posted, but there is definitely a difference though. I think it would have been more exciting if this thread was "The Technology of 2003".

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: the2001 on 12/10/16 at 12:23 pm


Meh, not that much different than today when it comes to the images you posted, but there is definitely a difference though. I think it would have been more exciting if this thread was "The Technology of 2003".


There is a huge difference lmao

one is tube tvs one is HD
one is Ipods  another is smartphones lol

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/10/16 at 1:11 pm

To me, technology from 2005 seems drastically different than today. I mean, who has a TV like that in 2016? Most of the houses that I see have at least a flat screen TV where I live.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/10/16 at 1:13 pm

On my birthday in 2005 I got a 3MP digital camera with a 512MB SD card.

Later that year I got a 4kg Acer laptop with only 13GB of free space on the hard drive, 512MB of RAM and the battery lasted for about an hour.

I also got the iPod classic, but that's already in the OP. What I hated most was that it could only play MP4 videos. If you had a AVI file, you'd need to convert it, which could take 3+ hours.

I was on a 512kbps ethernet internet connection (which I upgraded to WiFi in 2006, a faster speed in 2009), which was considered broadband back then lol. Download speed was 60 KB/s, so it can take more than 3 hours to download a movie in optimal conditions. It was annoying to share an Internet connection with multiple devices connected at once. If someone was downloading anything or watching a video clip, bye bye to Internet until they're finished lol. The speed would drop to lower than dial up tier.

Overall, with the exception of smartphones,  I think we've seen a miniaturization and increase in performance in technology, but functionally we were doing the same thing in 2005 as in 2016.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Starlighter on 12/10/16 at 1:27 pm


To me, technology from 2005 seems drastically different than today. I mean, who has a TV like that in 2016? Most of the houses that I see have at least a flat screen TV where I live.


We still have one, it's our main t.v.  It's still working very well so we haven't had a need to switch it up.

Most of the technology from back then can be replaced by smartphones and many people seem to have done that.  Digital point and shoot cameras, MP3 players, digital recorders, camcorders have been substituted by the smartphone.  It's convenient to have one device, but depending on which phone one has, the quality is not the same.  Mobile/Cell phones have gotten a lot bigger though compared to back then.  I miss the portability of phones from back then.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/10/16 at 1:33 pm


On my birthday in 2005 I got a 3MP digital camera with a 512MB SD card.


My mother had a Kodak digital camera that had a 1GB SD card. And this was in 2005, so that seemed big at the time.

Later that year I got a 4kg Acer laptop with only 13GB of free space on the hard drive, 512MB of RAM and the battery lasted for about an hour.

Typical 2000s laptop, I might say.

I also got the iPod classic, but that's already in the OP. What I hated most was that it could only play MP4 videos. If you had a AVI file, you'd need to convert it, which could take 3+ hours.

I could relate since my family used a 5th gen iPod from 2005 or 2006. I didn't use it as much as my family's Dell computer, since it could only play videos and songs. One thing I could say is that I liked the iPod touch more than those classic iPods, to be honest.

I was on a 512kbps ethernet internet connection (which I upgraded to WiFi in 2006, a faster speed in 2009), which was considered broadband back then lol. Download speed was 60 KB/s, so it can take more than 3 hours to download a movie in optimal conditions. It was annoying to share an Internet connection with multiple devices connected at once. If someone was downloading anything or watching a video clip, bye bye to Internet until they're finished lol. The speed would drop to lower than dial up tier.


In the late 2000s, it would be the same thing for me. Except that it was more of a dare where I would download a movie, unless it was something from Netflix's mail-to-DVD service.


We still have one, it's our main t.v.  It's still working very well so we haven't had a need to switch it up.


Well okay. It looks the same as my family's TV, since they aren't flat screens.


Most of the technology from back then can be replaced by smartphones and many people seem to have done that.  Digital point and shoot cameras, MP3 players, digital recorders, camcorders have been substituted by the smartphone.  It's convenient to have one device, but depending on which phone one has, the quality is not the same.  Mobile/Cell phones have gotten a lot bigger though compared to back then.  I miss the portability of phones from back then.


Same. I missed of when people would use cell phones only to text and call other people. Using the Internet on a flip-phone was tedious as hell, and it would take a minute or two to load a page.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/10/16 at 5:38 pm


My mother had a Kodak digital camera that had a 1GB SD card. And this was in 2005, so that seemed big at the time.

Typical 2000s laptop, I might say.

I could relate since my family used a 5th gen iPod from 2005 or 2006. I didn't use it as much as my family's Dell computer, since it could only play videos and songs. One thing I could say is that I liked the iPod touch more than those classic iPods, to be honest.

In the late 2000s, it would be the same thing for me. Except that it was more of a dare where I would download a movie, unless it was something from Netflix's mail-to-DVD service.

Well okay. It looks the same as my family's TV, since they aren't flat screens.

Same. I missed of when people would use cell phones only to text and call other people. Using the Internet on a flip-phone was tedious as hell, and it would take a minute or two to load a page.


some flip phones had that.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/10/16 at 5:53 pm


some flip phones had that.


That's the point. Flip phones had Internet access, but it was really slow and complicated to go through a single page.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Zelek3 on 12/10/16 at 6:48 pm

Technologically, 2005 was the second-to-last year that you could say feels "old school".

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/10/16 at 9:27 pm


Technologically, 2005 was the second-to-last year that you could say feels "old school".


And people think we lived in the same age as 2005. Although, it never really felt like 2016 lived on the mid 2000s. Maybe the late 2000s, but that's as close we could get for it.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/10/16 at 9:39 pm


Technologically, 2005 was the second-to-last year that you could say feels "old school".


I wouldn't say it's old school. Just outdated.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 12:48 am


Technologically, 2005 was the second-to-last year that you could say feels "old school".

Third last year* 2007 is pretty old school as well technologically speaking.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 12:49 am


And people think we lived in the same age as 2005. Although, it never really felt like 2016 lived on the mid 2000s. Maybe the late 2000s, but that's as close we could get for it.

We definitely don't live in the same age as 2005. 2008 and 2009, yes.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 12:50 am

Yup, 2005 was a long time ago and we didn't have the same technologies we have now back then.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/11/16 at 7:30 am


That's the point. Flip phones had Internet access, but it was really slow and complicated to go through a single page.


and being on the internet on your phone became expensive.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/11/16 at 9:30 am


and being on the internet on your phone became expensive.


And complicated back in 2005.  :P

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/11/16 at 12:32 pm


And complicated back in 2005.  :P


and all of the pressing of the buttons made your fingers sore. :P

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/11/16 at 12:39 pm


And complicated back in 2005.  :P


It was common in Japan but not outside of it. I was so fascinated by their cellphones back then.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Arrowstone on 12/11/16 at 2:43 pm

2005 was the last vacation I used a camera with film rolls.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/11/16 at 3:09 pm


2005 was the last vacation I used a camera with film rolls.


That seems outdated even for 2005.  :D

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 3:13 pm


That seems outdated even for 2005.  :D

Not really. Actually film was really popular still in the mud 2000s. Someone I know worked in a photo lab in 2006 and there was film constantly coming through. My last time using a film camera I believe was 2007, it was an underwater camera made by Fuji.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/11/16 at 3:18 pm


Not really. Actually film was really popular still in the mud 2000s. Someone I know worked in a photo lab in 2006 and there was film constantly coming through. My last time using a film camera I believe was 2007, it was an underwater camera made by Fuji.


:( I meant for Europe and possibly the United States. Although, film cameras were still around during the mid 2000s, like you said.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 3:38 pm


:( I meant for Europe and possibly the United States. Although, film cameras were still around during the mid 2000s, like you said.

It's not country-specific. Film cameras still had a popularity everywhere. But of course digital cameras already had a stronger presence.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/11/16 at 5:07 pm

I still consider 2005 during the Web 1.0 era.  Social media sites at the time, like MySpace, were quite primitive and I would consider them Web 1.5 at the most.  You didn't get have the fully interactive experience with your social media identity across sites, services, and devices like you did from 2007 onward.  A lot of people also still had dial-up in 2005 and it was an exciting thing to get broadband for the first time.

PDAs were still sellers at the time, being that it was a pre-smartphone era.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 5:37 pm


I still consider 2005 during the Web 1.0 era.  Social media sites at the time, like MySpace, were quite primitive and I would consider them Web 1.5 at the most.  You didn't get have the fully interactive experience with your social media identity across sites, services, and devices like you did from 2007 onward.  A lot of people also still had dial-up in 2005 and it was an exciting thing to get broadband for the first time.

PDAs were still sellers at the time, being that it was a pre-smartphone era.

I don't think the internet was that primitive in 2005. Most people moved on from dial up by 2003. I think 2005 was part of web 2.0 because of social media sites like MySpace and others. Web 2.0 started around 2003 - 2004.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/11/16 at 5:57 pm


I don't think the internet was that primitive in 2005. Most people moved on from dial up by 2003. I think 2005 was part of web 2.0 because of social media sites like MySpace and others. Web 2.0 started around 2003 - 2004.


I think a lot of this depends on where you lived and how old you were at the time.  If you were a teenager with parents who really didn't care about technology, there is a good chance that you were still on dial-up.  I got broadband finally in March 2005.  Before that, the service wasn't available because they hadn't updated the cable infrastructure in my area yet.  2005 was actually the year that the number of broadband years surpassed dial-up, so we were in no way out of the dial-up era yet at that point.  If you were on the cutting edge though, you were probably off dial-up as early as 2000 or 2001.

I do consider early-gen social media quite primitive compared to today's social media.  MySpace was relatively static and clunky compared to today's Facebook.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/11/16 at 7:13 pm


On my birthday in 2005 I got a 3MP digital camera with a 512MB SD card.

Later that year I got a 4kg Acer laptop with only 13GB of free space on the hard drive, 512MB of RAM and the battery lasted for about an hour.

I also got the iPod classic, but that's already in the OP. What I hated most was that it could only play MP4 videos. If you had a AVI file, you'd need to convert it, which could take 3+ hours.

I was on a 512kbps ethernet internet connection (which I upgraded to WiFi in 2006, a faster speed in 2009), which was considered broadband back then lol. Download speed was 60 KB/s, so it can take more than 3 hours to download a movie in optimal conditions. It was annoying to share an Internet connection with multiple devices connected at once. If someone was downloading anything or watching a video clip, bye bye to Internet until they're finished lol. The speed would drop to lower than dial up tier.

Overall, with the exception of smartphones,  I think we've seen a miniaturization and increase in performance in technology, but functionally we were doing the same thing in 2005 as in 2016.


It is interesting to see how things have changed. I got a PSP in 2005 and all it came standard with was a microscopic-by-today's-standards 32 MB memory stick. I could only fit five MP3s on that thing. I went out and purchased a 1 GB memory stick for it later that year that cost almost $100! Today I can buy a 32 GB micro SD card for, like, $10! :o

Our PC in 2005 was a Compaq Presario desktop my dad bought in late 2004. It also had 512 MB of RAM, along with a 40 GB hard drive, and a big, old CRT monitor. It cost close to $1000 back in 2004, but would be considered a dinosaur in today's tech world.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/11/16 at 9:01 pm


Our PC in 2005 was a Compaq Presario desktop my dad bought in late 2004. It also had 512 MB of RAM, along with a 40 GB hard drive, and a big, old CRT monitor. It cost close to $1000 back in 2004, but would be considered a dinosaur in today's tech world.


Wow. I feel rather old just by reading that, and I'm almost 17.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/11/16 at 11:51 pm

This is the PC I had in 2005. I'm pretty sure I still have the case somewhere in the basement.  ;D

http://www.evertek.com/imageshare/E/300x300/EG137AAR-unit.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/12/16 at 5:46 am


This is the PC I had in 2005. I'm pretty sure I still have the case somewhere in the basement.  ;D

http://www.evertek.com/imageshare/E/300x300/EG137AAR-unit.jpg


I still have the case for my family's old PC in my basement as well.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/12/16 at 7:15 am


This is the PC I had in 2005. I'm pretty sure I still have the case somewhere in the basement.  ;D

http://www.evertek.com/imageshare/E/300x300/EG137AAR-unit.jpg


Can it still be used after 11 years? ???

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/12/16 at 10:52 am


Can it still be used after 11 years? ???

No it's toast now.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 12/12/16 at 12:53 pm

I still have one of these lying around somewhere:

https://ezimbabwe.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nokia-3310.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/12/16 at 1:28 pm


I still have one of these lying around somewhere:

https://ezimbabwe.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nokia-3310.jpg


Nokias are like dinosaur cell phones to me, but that's interesting to myself.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 12/12/16 at 1:38 pm


Nokias are like dinosaur cell phones to me, but that's interesting to myself.


Actually Nokia phones are more like cockroaches, they will still be alive and functional long after the human race has gone extinct. ;D

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/12/16 at 1:42 pm


Actually Nokia phones are more like cockroaches, they will still be alive and functional long after the human race has gone extinct. ;D


Yeah. I think I still see some of them, but not as common as iPhones or a Samsung Galaxy.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/12/16 at 2:08 pm


I still have one of these lying around somewhere:

https://ezimbabwe.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nokia-3310.jpg


I remember having a Nokia.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/13/16 at 9:41 am


Wow. I feel rather old just by reading that, and I'm almost 17.


Of course, my first PC was a Commodore Amiga with a Motorola 68000 processor running at 7 MHz, 1 MB of RAM and a 20 MB hard drive that cost over $500 when it was new. :o

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/13/16 at 10:41 am


Of course, my first PC was a Commodore Amiga with a Motorola 68000 processor running at 7 MHz, 1 MB of RAM and a 20 MB hard drive that cost over $500 when it was new. :o


That must have been interesting to use at the time, even though it wouldn't do anything for today's standards.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/13/16 at 11:34 am


Of course, my first PC was a Commodore Amiga with a Motorola 68000 processor running at 7 MHz, 1 MB of RAM and a 20 MB hard drive that cost over $500 when it was new. :o

My family got our first PC in 1997 and it had Windows 95 on it.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/13/16 at 2:59 pm


My family got our first PC in 1997 and it had Windows 95 on it.


Did you get to use it?

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/13/16 at 3:13 pm


My family got our first PC in 1997 and it had Windows 95 on it.


The operating system for our Amiga 600 was Amiga Workbench which, though it pre-dated Windows 95 by several years, had a pretty nifty GUI for it's day.

http://www.commodorefree.com/magazine/vol5/images/issue50/amiga_workbench.png

Just seeing that screen brings back some fun memories. I used to do my math homework on that Workbench calculator. 8)

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/13/16 at 5:50 pm


Did you get to use it?

Yeah a little.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/13/16 at 8:26 pm

Yeah, the tech of that year is definitely outdated compared to right now. I mean who still has Ipod minis, Windows XP and those cell phones?

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/13/16 at 9:21 pm

I remember in 2005 one of my friends got the brand new IPod Nano right on the week it got released. I was so jealous at the time.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4197VZ0BH5L._SY355_.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/13/16 at 10:17 pm


I remember in 2005 one of my friends got the brand new IPod Nano right on the week it got released. I was so jealous at the time.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4197VZ0BH5L._SY355_.jpg

Except all the cool kids had an iPod Classic!

http://www.everymac.com/images/ipod_pictures/apple-ipod-6g.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/13/16 at 11:11 pm


Except all the cool kids had an iPod Classic!


In 2005, most of the sleek, cool-looking iPods were very limited on space.  They were as small as 4GB or 8GB.  Meanwhile the iPod classic didn't look as cool but it had enough space for your entire media library.  That is why I preferred it until I got my iPhone in 2008.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/13/16 at 11:29 pm


In 2005, most of the sleek, cool-looking iPods were very limited on space.  They were as small as 4GB or 8GB.  Meanwhile the iPod classic didn't look as cool but it had enough space for your entire media library.  That is why I preferred it until I got my iPhone in 2008.

Those small looking IPods looked so cool at the time. They looked the future haha. Now they look outdated of course.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/14/16 at 5:48 am


Yeah, the tech of that year is definitely outdated compared to right now. I mean who still has Ipod minis, Windows XP and those cell phones?


People who find that stuff to be than the devices we have now? Although, I'm not sure why they want to upgrade to at least Windows 7, if they have an old computer.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/14/16 at 8:27 am


Yeah, the tech of that year is definitely outdated compared to right now. I mean who still has Ipod minis, Windows XP and those cell phones?


maybe a few of the majority still own them? ???

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/14/16 at 11:59 am


People who find that stuff to be than the devices we have now? Although, I'm not sure why they want to upgrade to at least Windows 7, if they have an old computer.

I actually don't know a lot of people with Windows XP anymore except for businesses. I don't know why they don't want to switch to Windows 7, it's a great OS.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/14/16 at 1:50 pm


I actually don't know a lot of people with Windows XP anymore except for businesses. I don't know why they don't want to switch to Windows 7, it's a great OS.


XP seemed like it wouldn't die the first half of this decade.  A lot of people who skipped Vista simply kept using XP until the bitter end.  It has seen significant dropoff however since end of support in 2014.  Most businesses who were on XP have upgraded.  Today, I mostly see it on very old home computers.  I wouldn't upgrade to 7 at this point being that support for it ends in 2020.  Windows 10 is the only way to go today.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/14/16 at 2:00 pm


XP seemed like it wouldn't die the first half of this decade.  A lot of people who skipped Vista simply kept using XP until the bitter end.  It has seen significant dropoff however since end of support in 2014.  Most businesses who were on XP have upgraded.  Today, I mostly see it on very old home computers.  I wouldn't upgrade to 7 at this point being that support for it ends in 2020.  Windows 10 is the only way to go today.

I bet you anything they will extend the support date of 7 like they did with XP because a lot of people will still be using it. I know a lot of people who swear by Windows 7 and thinks Windows 10 sucks, myself included lol.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 12/14/16 at 2:47 pm


Except all the cool kids had an iPod Classic!

http://www.everymac.com/images/ipod_pictures/apple-ipod-6g.jpg


That might've been the case in 2005, but by the end of 2006 all the cool kids had one of these. I know 'cause I was one of them. 8)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31H45-myY2L.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/14/16 at 2:50 pm


I bet you anything they will extend the support date of 7 like they did with XP because a lot of people will still be using it. I know a lot of people who swear by Windows 7 and thinks Windows 10 sucks, myself included lol.


Why does Windows 10 suck?

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/14/16 at 3:00 pm


Why does Windows 10 suck?

Bugs, privacy concerns, ugly UI, limited user freedom, among some other things.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mqg96 on 12/14/16 at 4:10 pm


2005 was the last vacation I used a camera with film rolls.


2004 as a whole year for us.

The very first digital pictures we took in the family I know is from 2005, because we can still put the discs in the computer and see them in crisp clear quality today.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/14/16 at 5:22 pm


That might've been the case in 2005, but by the end of 2006 all the cool kids had one of these. I know 'cause I was one of them. 8)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31H45-myY2L.jpg


The Zune was for nerds. And nerds weren't cool yet!

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/14/16 at 5:31 pm


XP seemed like it wouldn't die the first half of this decade.  A lot of people who skipped Vista simply kept using XP until the bitter end.  It has seen significant dropoff however since end of support in 2014.  Most businesses who were on XP have upgraded.  Today, I mostly see it on very old home computers.  I wouldn't upgrade to 7 at this point being that support for it ends in 2020.  Windows 10 is the only way to go today.


2020 is a bit long, so I would rather suggest upgrading to Windows 7 just for the hell of it. Windows 10 is a piece of crap to most people, and they most likely upgraded to it because of all the annoying notifications they got from Windows 7/8.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/14/16 at 5:34 pm


In 2005, most of the sleek, cool-looking iPods were very limited on space.  They were as small as 4GB or 8GB.  Meanwhile the iPod classic didn't look as cool but it had enough space for your entire media library.  That is why I preferred it until I got my iPhone in 2008.


Yep, same. 4GB/8GB wasn't enough for my podcasts/audiobooks/audio rips/videos.

My iPod broke down on me in 2008, so I got the 120GB version ;D

Which broke on me like a year later, and then I got the iPod Touch in 2010 which was cumbersome to use all around. Freed myself from Apple's clutches by the end of 2010 with the original Samsung Galaxy S. 

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/14/16 at 5:43 pm


Yep, same. 4GB/8GB wasn't enough for my podcasts/audiobooks/audio rips/videos.

My iPod broke down on me in 2008, so I got the 120GB version ;D

Which broke on me like a year later, and then I got the iPod Touch in 2010 which was cumbersome to use all around. Freed myself from Apple's clutches by the end of 2010 with the original Samsung Galaxy S.


https://media.giphy.com/media/rD209UDQUxGM0/giphy.gif

I gotta hand it to you. At least you aren't a drone for Apple. Not that I hate them, but it's just that it's rotten under Tim Crook.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/14/16 at 8:00 pm

Thr last time I had an IPod was in 2012. I lost it but then I got a smartphone and didn't need it anymore. I think around the same time IPods were already out of style anyway.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: SpyroKev on 12/14/16 at 9:25 pm

Fun thread. This topic make me feel like crying.

I got the iPod a bit late. By the time I downloaded songs off LimeWire, I used to feel the accomplishment when the picture of the artist's album would appear on the song select file.

Other than that, technology was non existent to me besides computers and phones. I can remember glimpses of the internet, to.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/14/16 at 10:03 pm


https://media.giphy.com/media/rD209UDQUxGM0/giphy.gif

I gotta hand it to you. At least you aren't a drone for Apple. Not that I hate them, but it's just that it's rotten under Tim Crook.


You mean Dim Crook? Hey, why not go all the way ;D

I bought the SGS because it could play various types of video files (iPhone in 2010 could still only play MP4), didn't require iTunes (which iPhone did, back then), and had a larger screen. iPhone has come a long way since then :o

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/15/16 at 5:52 pm


2020 is a bit long, so I would rather suggest upgrading to Windows 7 just for the hell of it. Windows 10 is a piece of crap to most people, and they most likely upgraded to it because of all the annoying notifications they got from Windows 7/8.


I disagree that Windows 10 is a "piece of crap" for most people.  Windows 8 was much worse.  I can't believe Microsoft seriously thought that was a good idea.  If you are still on 8, I don't see any reason you wouldn't want to go to 10.  I can understand sticking with 7.  However, if getting a new computer or upgrading now, I would go with 10 since 7 is only supported for three more years.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 12/15/16 at 6:01 pm


If you are still on 8, I don't see any reason you wouldn't want to go to 10. 


I have Windows 8.1 and as a result, I had the option of upgrading to Windows 10. To be honest, I always thought that it was a bit suss that Microsoft was offering Windows 10 for free to Windows 7 and Windows 8 users. My uncle, who is very knowledgeable with computers and IT in general, believes that the reason why Microsoft was offering Windows 10 for free, is so that it can add a file onto your computer device, which keeps track of your activity on the computer. The monitoring of your activity would allow Microsoft to offer products/programs which may appeal to you, which of course, would mean that it's likely that you would purchase their product and Microsoft would earn a greater profit, as a result. It wouldn't surprise me if this was indeed the case.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/15/16 at 6:28 pm


I have Windows 8.1 and as a result, I had the option of upgrading to Windows 10. To be honest, I always thought that it was a bit suss that Microsoft was offering Windows 10 for free to Windows 7 and Windows 8 users. My uncle, who is very knowledgeable with computers and IT in general, believes that the reason why Microsoft was offering Windows 10 for free, is so that it can add a file onto your computer device, which keeps track of your activity on the computer. The monitoring of your activity would allow Microsoft to offer products/programs which may appeal to you, which of course, would mean that it's likely that you would purchase their product and Microsoft would earn a greater profit, as a result. It wouldn't surprise me if this was indeed the case.


This is partially true.  It's called Cortana, which is Microsoft's answer to Siri.  However, when I installed Windows 10 the first thing I did was turn it off.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/15/16 at 6:33 pm


You mean Dim Crook? Hey, why not go all the way ;D


That sounds way better than Tim Crook, to be honest.


I bought the SGS because it could play various types of video files (iPhone in 2010 could still only play MP4), didn't require iTunes (which iPhone did, back then), and had a larger screen. iPhone has come a long way since then :o


And the iPhone hasn't been the same since it's release. Aside from the headphone jack removal, it's not really a great device as it used to be when it was introduced. After Dim Crook took over, he was like "F*ck the Macbooks, let's just make it about the iPhones". Nowadays, I can't stand seeing ads for nothing but the iPhone if it was from Apple. That's sad for me, because I used to love the company as a child. I remember seeing a lot of iPod, Macbook, iMac, and even Quicktime ads. But ever since 2012, 90% of the ads are just about the iPhone or iPad. The 10% barely get shown on the media, and people tend to forget those devices exist.


I disagree that Windows 10 is a "piece of crap" for most people.


Well, it doesn't really have a lot of great features that Windows 7 has. Especially Windows DVD Maker. Now I have to download a good alternative, since I desire to make DVDs for my enjoyment. Unless you could only play it on your computer, and have your DVD player not give a f*ck.

Windows 8 was much worse.  I can't believe Microsoft seriously thought that was a good idea.  If you are still on 8, I don't see any reason you wouldn't want to go to 10.  I can understand sticking with 7.  However, if getting a new computer or upgrading now, I would go with 10 since 7 is only supported for three more years.


If I had the chance, I would rather upgrade to Win 10 in 2019, when Win 7 is on its dying legs. But thanks to those godawful notifications I keep getting until April, I had to upgrade to 10. I didn't even want to upgrade. I accidentally upgraded it one day, to see if it could shut up for once.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/15/16 at 6:33 pm


This is partially true.  It's called Cortana, which is Microsoft's answer to Siri.  However, when I installed Windows 10 the first thing I did was turn it off.


Cortana's only good for searching up your apps, if you have a distant Start menu.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/15/16 at 6:49 pm


I disagree that Windows 10 is a "piece of crap" for most people.  Windows 8 was much worse.  I can't believe Microsoft seriously thought that was a good idea.  If you are still on 8, I don't see any reason you wouldn't want to go to 10.  I can understand sticking with 7.  However, if getting a new computer or upgrading now, I would go with 10 since 7 is only supported for three more years.

Actually no Windows 8.1 has much less bugs that Windows 10. Windows 10 is garbage. And Windows 7 will most likely stay around for much longer than 3 years as Microsoft will probably extend support.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/15/16 at 7:10 pm


Actually no Windows 8.1 has much less bugs that Windows 10. Windows 10 is garbage. And Windows 7 will most likely stay around for much longer than 3 years as Microsoft will probably extend support.


I don't think it would ever get more than 3 years left. No operating system does. People would still upgrade to Windows 10, since they were offered to upgrade in Windows 7 and 8 computers. It's not like XP, where it got a lot of praise during the mid and late 2000s, where people never wanted to upgrade. Because of that, Microsoft told everybody to move on and upgrade to at least Win 7. That might be the case if Win 7 was like that, although it had its peak in the early 2010s.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/15/16 at 7:20 pm


I don't think it would ever get more than 3 years left. No operating system does. People would still upgrade to Windows 10, since they were offered to upgrade in Windows 7 and 8 computers. It's not like XP, where it got a lot of praise during the mid and late 2000s, where people never wanted to upgrade. Because of that, Microsoft told everybody to move on and upgrade to at least Win 7. That might be the case if Win 7 was like that, although it had its peak in the early 2010s.

Windows XP got support extension multiple times because people still used it. Windows 7 will be the same case. Windows 7 will be around for a long time especially if Microsoft doesn't fix the problems with 10.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/15/16 at 7:30 pm


Windows XP got support extension multiple times because people still used it. Windows 7 will be the same case. Windows 7 will be around for a long time especially if Microsoft doesn't fix the problems with 10.


But Microsoft would still look up to Win 10, even if it has to extend support for Win 7. It was like planning to sell Nintendo 64 games by Nintendo after 2001, except that the company was already focusing more on the Gamecube. Win 10 would still be there, considering people use it more than Win 8, at least.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/15/16 at 8:38 pm


Actually no Windows 8.1 has much less bugs that Windows 10. Windows 10 is garbage. And Windows 7 will most likely stay around for much longer than 3 years as Microsoft will probably extend support.


The reason XP had its support extended is because of the rejection of Vista and the fact that XP was already an aging OS by the time Vista came out.  Most Windows releases get 10 years of support from Microsoft.  XP was the exception because of the way Vista was handled.  Had Vista come out earlier, like in 2004, or if it would have been accepted by the public, Microsoft would have pulled the plug on XP in 2011 like it had originally planned to do.

7 doesn't have that issue.  Yes, 8 wasn't very well accepted but it came out relatively early in Windows 7's lifecycle compared to Vista with XP.  I will be very surprised if Microsoft extends Windows 7 support beyond 2020.  Windows 10 adoption, for the amount of time it's been out, is actually very good.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 12/15/16 at 9:08 pm

The forced upgrade to Windows 10 bricked the Windows 8 partition of my old laptop.  >:(

Thankfully I had my files backed up on an external hard drive before I installed Ubuntu, since that was the only reason I'd be caught dead on my Windows partition. ;D

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/15/16 at 9:33 pm


The reason XP had its support extended is because of the rejection of Vista and the fact that XP was already an aging OS by the time Vista came out.  Most Windows releases get 10 years of support from Microsoft.  XP was the exception because of the way Vista was handled.  Had Vista come out earlier, like in 2004, or if it would have been accepted by the public, Microsoft would have pulled the plug on XP in 2011 like it had originally planned to do.

7 doesn't have that issue.  Yes, 8 wasn't very well accepted but it came out relatively early in Windows 7's lifecycle compared to Vista with XP.  I will be very surprised if Microsoft extends Windows 7 support beyond 2020.  Windows 10 adoption, for the amount of time it's been out, is actually very good.

No, the reason is because the user base was really high. They usually do this not just for XP. Microsoft WILL extend support past 2020 for sure. It's not just because of XP, they always extend a certain amount of aupport for their OS and they will for Windows 7 too. A lot of people will still be using it then.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/16/16 at 10:30 am


No, the reason is because the user base was really high. They usually do this not just for XP. Microsoft WILL extend support past 2020 for sure. It's not just because of XP, they always extend a certain amount of aupport for their OS and they will for Windows 7 too. A lot of people will still be using it then.


You don't really know what you are talking about.  XP's user base was just shy of 30% when they pulled the plug on it in 2014, which is no small user base.  Windows 7 currently sites at 47%, which should continue to steadily fall between now and 2020.  The extension of XP from 2011 to 2014 was a favor to businesses who had rejected Vista.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/16/16 at 10:48 am


The forced upgrade to Windows 10 bricked the Windows 8 partition of my old laptop.  >:(

Thankfully I had my files backed up on an external hard drive before I installed Ubuntu, since that was the only reason I'd be caught dead on my Windows partition. ;D


Luckily, my files were still there when I upgraded to Windows 10. Especially my desktop background. So I didn't need to get a backup disc.


No, the reason is because the user base was really high. They usually do this not just for XP. Microsoft WILL extend support past 2020 for sure. It's not just because of XP, they always extend a certain amount of aupport for their OS and they will for Windows 7 too. A lot of people will still be using it then.


They don't do that to any other OS. Windows 95, NT, and ME lasted for 6 years. Windows 3.1 and 98 lasted for 8 years. Windows Vista would be discontinued next year in 2017, which makes it 10 years, along with Windows 2000. Same with Windows 8, which would be discontinued in 2023.
Windows 7 would be discontinued in 2020, which makes it 11 years.

This is not going to be common for Microsoft to do. Considering Windows 10 is still their latest operating system, they will still take care of it more than Windows 7. Besides, Win 7 is already outdated with its features from what Win 10 has. So there's not going to be a fat chance they'll extend support for Win 7.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/16/16 at 12:00 pm


Luckily, my files were still there when I upgraded to Windows 10. Especially my desktop background. So I didn't need to get a backup disc.

They don't do that to any other OS. Windows 95, 2000, NT, and ME lasted for 6 years. Windows 3.1 and 98 lasted for 8 years. Windows Vista would be discontinued next year in 2017, which makes it 10 years. Same with Windows 8, which would be discontinued in 2023.
Windows 7 would be discontinued in 2020, which makes it 11 years.

This is not going to be common for Microsoft to do. Considering Windows 10 is still their latest operating system, they will still take care of it more than Windows 7. Besides, Win 7 is already outdated with its features from what Win 10 has. So there's not going to be a fat chance they'll extend support for Win 7.

They say they will have support for 3 years, but they usually add more than that for some extra protection especially if there are a lot of users on it. There weren't a lot of users still using 98 and Vista, I guarantee you there will be a lot using Windows 7 who refuse to use Windows 10. Even if they do not extend support, it doesn't mean everyone will still upgrade. There are still people using XP to this day even though he support isn't there. Windows 7 isn't outdated for its features. The OS works fine. Windows 10 has a couple of new stuff but it doesn't make Windows 7 outdated.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/16/16 at 12:40 pm


They say they will have support for 3 years, but they usually add more than that for some extra protection especially if there are a lot of users on it. There weren't a lot of users still using 98 and Vista, I guarantee you there will be a lot using Windows 7 who refuse to use Windows 10. Even if they do not extend support, it doesn't mean everyone will still upgrade. There are still people using XP to this day even though he support isn't there. Windows 7 isn't outdated for its features. The OS works fine. Windows 10 has a couple of new stuff but it doesn't make Windows 7 outdated.


My prediction is Windows 7 usage will drop off to around 30% by 2020, just like XP was in 2014.  Microsoft will end support and then it will slowly die as manufacturers stop producing compatible drivers and new software stops running with it.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 12/16/16 at 1:08 pm


My prediction is Windows 7 usage will drop off to around 30% by 2020, just like XP was in 2014.  Microsoft will end support and then it will slowly die as manufacturers stop producing compatible drivers and new software stops running with it.


So what happens to Windows 7? ???

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/16/16 at 3:39 pm


They say they will have support for 3 years, but they usually add more than that for some extra protection especially if there are a lot of users on it.


Windows 7 doesn't have a lot of users compared to Win 10. Even as a person who favors Win 7, I don't think it would live as long as XP.

There weren't a lot of users still using 98 and Vista, I guarantee you there will be a lot using Windows 7 who refuse to use Windows 10.

Then what about those who accidentally upgraded to Windows 10, like me? It's not like those notifications from Win 10 would've stopped anytime soon before August of this year. Even for me, it's not like I could have Microsoft shut up about Windows 10. That's not gonna help the fact that there isn't a lot of people using Win 7.

Even if they do not extend support, it doesn't mean everyone will still upgrade. There are still people using XP to this day even though he support isn't there.

Not a lot of people though. Win XP can't do a lot of stuff that would support the general public. Only businesses use it, if they want to use programs like Microsoft Office programs. Although, they would most likely upgrade to at least Win 7 for the sake of not using an archaic OS.


Windows 7 isn't outdated for its features. The OS works fine. Windows 10 has a couple of new stuff but it doesn't make Windows 7 outdated.


Windows 7 is basically an improved version of Vista. They both have the same sounds, features, and even a similar design to each other. They were even made a few years between.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/16/16 at 3:46 pm


Windows 7 doesn't have a lot of users compared to Win 10. Even as a person who favors Win 7, I don't think it would live as long as XP.


Then what about those who accidentally upgraded to Windows 10, like me? It's not like those notifications from Win 10 would've stopped anytime soon before August of this year. Even for me, it's not like I could have Microsoft shut up about Windows 10. That's not gonna help the fact that there isn't a lot of people using Win 7.


Not a lot of people though. Win XP can't do a lot of stuff that would support the general public. Only businesses use it, if they want to use programs like Microsoft Office programs. Although, they would most likely upgrade to at least Win 7 for the sake of not using an archaic OS.

Windows 7 is basically an improved version of Vista. They both have the same sounds, features, and even a similar design to each other. They were even made a few years between.

Well not "only". There are still a couple people out there who are hanging on to XP even though there is not support for it anymore. Not a lot though, I agree with that.

Windows Vista doesn't look dated either though... It's just a really bad OS. It still looks nice like Windows 7, just doesn't perform good. Windows 7 on the other hand both looks nice and performs well.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 12/16/16 at 4:17 pm


Windows Vista doesn't look dated either though... It's just a really bad OS. It still looks nice like Windows 7, just doesn't perform good. Windows 7 on the other hand both looks nice and performs well.


Which is what I'm saying. It's basically an improved version of Vista. Frankly, Win 7 might be okay as XP, but it's not like it would have a long legacy as it has. XP was legendary since it looked revolutionary compared to Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME. Plus, it was most likely the first OS that people use for broadband Internet service.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 12/16/16 at 4:23 pm


Which is what I'm saying. It's basically an improved version of Vista. Frankly, Win 7 might be okay as XP, but it's not like it would have a long legacy as it has. XP was legendary since it looked revolutionary compared to Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME. Plus, it was most likely the first OS that people use for broadband Internet service.

We'll see. But I personally believe Windows 7 is the new XP.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 12/16/16 at 5:19 pm


We'll see. But I personally believe Windows 7 is the new XP.


XP marketshare was at 44% in 2011, three years before it was retired.  It was right about where Windows 7 is now.

XP and 7 share parallels in that both were followed up by a release that wasn't as warmly received, both of which were "fixed" by another release three years later.  The difference is the length of their run as Microsoft's flagship.

2001: XP released
End of 2006 (January 2007 for home users): Vista released (Almost 6 years after XP release)
2009: 7 released (3 years after Vista release)
2014: XP end of support (5 years after 7 release)

Total lifecycle: 13 years

End of 2009: 7 released
2012: 8 released (3 years after 7 release)
2015: 10 released (3 years after 8 release)
2020: 7 end of support (5 years after 10 release)

Total lifecycle: 10 years.

XP's length of support can be pinned solely on the fact that it reigned for so long as Microsoft's flagship OS and it was followed up by a release that wasn't received very well.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: d90 on 01/19/17 at 2:07 am


Luckily, my files were still there when I upgraded to Windows 10. Especially my desktop background. So I didn't need to get a backup disc.

They don't do that to any other OS. Windows 95, 2000, NT, and ME lasted for 6 years. Windows 3.1 and 98 lasted for 8 years. Windows Vista would be discontinued next year in 2017, which makes it 10 years. Same with Windows 8, which would be discontinued in 2023.
Windows 7 would be discontinued in 2020, which makes it 11 years
.

This is not going to be common for Microsoft to do. Considering Windows 10 is still their latest operating system, they will still take care of it more than Windows 7. Besides, Win 7 is already outdated with its features from what Win 10 has. So there's not going to be a fat chance they'll extend support for Win 7.

Windows 1.0 which came out in 1985 and Windows 2.0 which came out in 1987 were supported until 2001

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/19/17 at 6:51 am


Windows 1.0 which came out in 1985 and Windows 2.0 which came out in 1987 were supported until 2001


But it's not like a lot of people actually used Windows 1 and 2 after a few years. It didn't really matter if it was supported or not, since it was very basic.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: bchris02 on 01/20/17 at 6:48 pm


But it's not like a lot of people actually used Windows 1 and 2 after a few years. It didn't really matter if it was supported or not, since it was very basic.


3.1 was the first version most people actually were familiar with.  1.0 was pretty much MS-DOS Shell (does anybody remember that?). 2.0 was a little better but third-party developers had yet to jump on the Windows bandwagon, so having Windows at the time really wasn't that useful.  In fact there were numerous other GUIs at the time that were much more advanced if all you wanted was an easier way to launch your DOS programs without having to remember DOS commands.  It wasn't until Windows 3.0 and especially 3.1 that the tide started to turn in Windows favor.  Windows 95 basically cemented Windows as the dominant platform for computing. 

Part of Windows' problem when it came to catching on in its early days is that it was very demanding on system resources compared to the average computer for sale at the time.  GeoWorks was a Windows clone that actually looked better than Windows, supported long file names, and had more useful bundled applications.  It would run in 640K of RAM and ate up about 5MB of hard disk space.  Compare that to Windows 3.0 needing 4MB of RAM and 15MB of hard disk space.  In 1991, that was a big deal.  Even into the Windows 3.1 era, you had plenty of computers being sold that could barely run the OS.  This started to improve during the Windows 95 era, but it wasn't until Windows Vista that Microsoft finally learned its lesson on this.  Windows 10 has similar requirements to Windows Vista, despite PCs being much more powerful now than they were then.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: batfan2005 on 02/05/17 at 8:18 am


So weird to see what we used as our daily gadgets back in 2005.
Very primitive compared to what we have now.


Yeah, 2005. Back when they only had VHS, the big brick cell phones, and no internet, lol. Meanwhile, 2006 was when the future began, lol.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/05/17 at 10:31 am


Yeah, 2005. Back when they only had VHS, the big brick cell phones, and no internet, lol. Meanwhile, 2006 was when the future began, lol.


This is accurate for the early 90's! The future began in 1996, when the first DVDs came out, cell phones became smaller and the internet became popular.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/05/17 at 11:49 am


This is accurate for the early 90's! The future began in 1996, when the first DVDs came out, cell phones became smaller and the internet became popular.


I think that was a joke, for anything. It's not like he was taking that seriously.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: yelimsexa on 02/06/17 at 7:39 am

2005 is truly the last year from a 2017 standpoint that feels disconnected from the present. It was the last year that VHS tapes were readily sold (though at a fraction compared to 2001 of course), HDTV and flatscreens still being a vast minority, the last real year of the sixth generation of gaming, the last year before Twitter, the last year before Facebook went public, the last year before Blu-Ray was a threat to DVDs, and the last year before I discovered YouTube, even though it was around that year. 2006+ still seems like "the future" to me, and that was when the "hipster" culture really seemed to enter the mainstream around that time. Of course, 2006 also brought the announcement of Windows Vista.

I still use Windows 7 at work and on my home PC that I purchased in February 2010 when Windows 7 was still new, along with my laptop that I got the following Christmas. Yes, they now feel a bit dated, but still find them more practical compared to the more smartphone-influenced designs of Windows 8+.

Of course, discontinuing all these OS is the nature of planned obsolescence, not necessarily in the old school way were objects are built to fail just after a warranty expires, but in this way where new advances and products renders old software obsolete. This problem for PCs was far worse in the '90s and '00s than in this decade IMO, since a nice, high-powered PC from 2007 can still run most programs today, compared to a PC from 1997 already felt outdated by 2004.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 02/06/17 at 11:20 am


Of course, discontinuing all these OS is the nature of planned obsolescence, not necessarily in the old school way were objects are built to fail just after a warranty expires, but in this way where new advances and products renders old software obsolete. This problem for PCs was far worse in the '90s and '00s than in this decade IMO, since a nice, high-powered PC from 2007 can still run most programs today, compared to a PC from 1997 already felt outdated by 2004.

I wouldn't go that far. High powered PCs from 2007 run horribly compared to high powered PCs these days, like night and day.  The specs and performance for PCs grew rapidly since 2007. Almost the same as PCs from 2004 vs. 1997.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/17 at 6:41 pm


I wouldn't go that far. High powered PCs from 2007 run horribly compared to high powered PCs these days, like night and day.  The specs and performance for PCs grew rapidly since 2007. Almost the same as PCs from 2004 vs. 1997.


Is "Crysis on max" still the benchmark for a good PC?

I remember as late as 2013/2014, it was. Crysis came out in 2007, so top-tier PCs from 2007 could run it. Those top-tier PCs from 2007 were still top-tier in 2014, because "Crysis on max" was still the common benchmark. I'm not sure if that's true in 2017 though.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 02/06/17 at 6:48 pm


Is "Crysis on max" still the benchmark for a good PC?

I remember as late as 2013/2014, it was. Crysis came out in 2007, so top-tier PCs from 2007 could run it. Those top-tier PCs from 2007 were still top-tier in 2014, because "Crysis on max" was still the common benchmark. I'm not sure if that's true in 2017 though.

Top end PCs from 2007 had 2Gb of ram, 400gb of hard drive on average, super outdated and slower processors from Intel (intel core 2 extreme was popular), same with the graphics card, and most of them came with Windows Vista, a very bad OS in its own right. Compared to these days where you get 16 - 32gb of ram, over 1tb of hardrive (if you combine SSD and HDD, SSD wasn't even available in 2007) and super fast Intel core i7 processors and graphic cards. Huge difference.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Zelek3 on 02/06/17 at 7:09 pm


2005 is truly the last year from a 2017 standpoint that feels disconnected from the present. It was the last year that VHS tapes were readily sold (though at a fraction compared to 2001 of course), HDTV and flatscreens still being a vast minority, the last real year of the sixth generation of gaming, the last year before Twitter, the last year before Facebook went public, the last year before Blu-Ray was a threat to DVDs, and the last year before I discovered YouTube, even though it was around that year. 2006+ still seems like "the future" to me, and that was when the "hipster" culture really seemed to enter the mainstream around that time. Of course, 2006 also brought the announcement of Windows Vista.

I still use Windows 7 at work and on my home PC that I purchased in February 2010 when Windows 7 was still new, along with my laptop that I got the following Christmas. Yes, they now feel a bit dated, but still find them more practical compared to the more smartphone-influenced designs of Windows 8+.

Of course, discontinuing all these OS is the nature of planned obsolescence, not necessarily in the old school way were objects are built to fail just after a warranty expires, but in this way where new advances and products renders old software obsolete. This problem for PCs was far worse in the '90s and '00s than in this decade IMO, since a nice, high-powered PC from 2007 can still run most programs today, compared to a PC from 1997 already felt outdated by 2004.

I think hipsters were more of a 2008-2009 thing

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 80sfan on 02/06/17 at 7:13 pm

It was a stale year for movies.  :P

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 02/08/17 at 4:40 pm


It was a stale year for movies.  :P


Legendary year for TV shows though :o

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 80sfan on 02/08/17 at 4:53 pm


Legendary year for TV shows though :o


What was popular in 2005 on TV??  ???

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: batfan2005 on 02/08/17 at 5:48 pm


It was a stale year for movies.  :P


I loved the movies of 2005, especially Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode III, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Fantastic Four, and so many others.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/08/17 at 6:43 pm


I loved the movies of 2005, especially Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode III, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Fantastic Four, and so many others.


https://media.giphy.com/media/jpFUqQnn4LubS/giphy.gif

That was sincerely the best remake that I've ever saw. I really liked Johnny Depp's performance as Willy Wonka (yes, even more than Gene Wilder's), and I like of how it's as accurate as the book.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 80sfan on 02/08/17 at 7:11 pm


I loved the movies of 2005, especially Batman Begins, Star Wars Episode III, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Fantastic Four, and so many others.


It's been a long time, for me, since 2005.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: yelimsexa on 02/09/17 at 7:30 am


What was popular in 2005 on TV??  ???


American Idol
America's Next Top Model
The Apprentice
Criminal Minds
CSI, CSI: NY, and CSI: Miami
Deal or No Deal
Desperate Housewives
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
Grey's Anatomy
House
NCIS
The O.C.
Survivor
Without A Trace
Law and Order: SVU
City era Cartoon Network

It was basically the peak of the reality TV crazy while legal/action dramas were experiencing a popularity not seen since the '80s, while sitcoms were no longer popular, especially following the end of Friends and Frasier in 2004. It is sort of in a weird limbo between "classic" and "modern TV" (especially for to those under 35), since HDTV was still brand new and social media and streaming hadn't yet dominated.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 02/09/17 at 9:38 pm


What was popular in 2005 on TV??  ???


^Those and Lost, Prison Break, Scrubs, Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, Little Britain and many others. :D

And yeah, reality TV was popular too. My favourites were Top Gear, Hell's Kitchen, Biggest Loser, Big Brother (and The Apprentice  :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X). There were others that I didn't like as much.. hmm, Pimp My Ride, The Simple Life and that plastic surgery show.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: mqg96 on 02/10/17 at 5:26 pm


^Those and Lost, Prison Break, Scrubs, Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, Little Britain and many others. :D

And yeah, reality TV was popular too. My favourites were Top Gear, Hell's Kitchen, Biggest Loser, Big Brother (and The Apprentice  :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X). There were others that I didn't like as much.. hmm, Pimp My Ride, The Simple Life and that plastic surgery show.


Speaking of Prison Break I heard that the show was returning this April. One of my acquaintances in school was talking to me about how good Prison Break was and he recommended me to watch it on Netflix, but I don't know if it's still on there.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 02/10/17 at 8:30 pm


Speaking of Prison Break I heard that the show was returning this April. One of my acquaintances in school was talking to me about how good Prison Break was and he recommended me to watch it on Netflix, but I don't know if it's still on there.


Watch it!! It's fast paced and badass  8) If you liked Breaking Bad you'll like Prison Break. I just checked and it's on there, at least Netflix Canada.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2000s Nostalgiaist on 02/13/17 at 3:22 pm


2005 is truly the last year from a 2017 standpoint that feels disconnected from the present. It was the last year that VHS tapes were readily sold (though at a fraction compared to 2001 of course), HDTV and flatscreens still being a vast minority, the last real year of the sixth generation of gaming, the last year before Twitter, the last year before Facebook went public, the last year before Blu-Ray was a threat to DVDs, and the last year before I discovered YouTube, even though it was around that year. 2006+ still seems like "the future" to me, and that was when the "hipster" culture really seemed to enter the mainstream around that time. Of course, 2006 also brought the announcement of Windows Vista.

I still use Windows 7 at work and on my home PC that I purchased in February 2010 when Windows 7 was still new, along with my laptop that I got the following Christmas. Yes, they now feel a bit dated, but still find them more practical compared to the more smartphone-influenced designs of Windows 8+.

Of course, discontinuing all these OS is the nature of planned obsolescence, not necessarily in the old school way were objects are built to fail just after a warranty expires, but in this way where new advances and products renders old software obsolete. This problem for PCs was far worse in the '90s and '00s than in this decade IMO, since a nice, high-powered PC from 2007 can still run most programs today, compared to a PC from 1997 already felt outdated by 2004.


I very much agree with this post, especially the part in bold.
I wonder if it's to do with age though, I don't know your age but I would have been 16 in 2006 so nearly an adult whereas someone who was a child then might have felt like it was a lot different to now.

Certainly for me though, 2006 onwards had a modern and sleek feel to it, even in subtleties like company logos becoming updated, like major brands who have had the same logo since around 2006.

For instance, this logo for British Telecom has been the same since 2005 and it still looks fresh today:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d6/BT_logo.svg/1280px-BT_logo.svg.png

Compared to the pre 2005 one which looks ancient:

http://famouslogos.net/images/bt-logo-evolution.jpg

It's subtle things like this as well as the major technologies that define eras imhao.

Random fun fact:

In 2006 I was on holiday in Turkey with my parents and we were on the first floor of this restaurant when this utility pole starting arcing (presumably due to a power surge) sending sparks flying off it and there was another group of British holiday makers (Turkey is/was a popular destination with people looking for affordable holidays) and one of the girls in the group of 20 something's sitting a couple of tables away jokingly remarked to her friends "Final Destination: Turkey" which I thought was very much a sign of the era that she would reference an item of pop culture like that.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Zelek3 on 02/14/17 at 5:02 am


2005 is truly the last year from a 2017 standpoint that feels disconnected from the present. It was the last year that VHS tapes were readily sold (though at a fraction compared to 2001 of course), HDTV and flatscreens still being a vast minority, the last real year of the sixth generation of gaming, the last year before Twitter, the last year before Facebook went public, the last year before Blu-Ray was a threat to DVDs, and the last year before I discovered YouTube, even though it was around that year. 2006+ still seems like "the future" to me, and that was when the "hipster" culture really seemed to enter the mainstream around that time. Of course, 2006 also brought the announcement of Windows Vista.

It's all subjective, but I myself think 2006 was the last year that feels disconnected from the present, while 2007+ still seems like "the future". :P

I noticed the "shift" moreso in 2007, as it was when technology advancement was at an all-time fast rate with the release of the iPhone, the internet becoming a neccisity as we see it today, social media getting big, Windows Vista was officially released(not just announced) and spelled doom for Microsoft who had been unstoppable for the past 13 years, CRT televisions began declining in sales (for some reason they had a resurgence in 2008, then went back down in 2009), HDTVs starting to become common and HD Video Game consoles, cell phones everywhere and texting now huge, etc.

And as #Infinity mention, 2007 seemed to have a high-tech, forward-thinking, "Web 2.0/3.0" feel to it, moreso than years past, that gave the year a certain volt of energy.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 02/14/17 at 9:19 am


It's all subjective, but I myself think 2006 was the last year that feels disconnected from the present, while 2007+ still seems like "the future". :P

I noticed the "shift" moreso in 2007, as it was when technology advancement was at an all-time fast rate with the release of the iPhone, the internet becoming a neccisity as we see it today, social media getting big, Windows Vista was officially released(not just announced) and spelled doom for Microsoft who had been unstoppable for the past 13 years, CRT televisions began declining in sales (for some reason they had a resurgence in 2008, then went back down in 2009), HDTVs starting to become common and HD Video Game consoles, cell phones everywhere and texting now huge, etc.

And as #Infinity mention, 2007 seemed to have a high-tech, forward-thinking, "Web 2.0/3.0" feel to it, moreso than years past, that gave the year a certain volt of energy.

2008 for me. Everything changed that year.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Looney Toon on 02/14/17 at 9:27 am

For me the change to what can be seen as the first year that can be connected with today's world is somewhere between 2007-2008. In the 1980s/First half 1990s people were interested in technology. In the Late 2000s/2010s people are obsessed with it. But in the 2nd half 1990s/1st half 2000s Technology was really a luxury. Nowadays you MUST have access to the internet in order to complete important things. And this applies to almost anything. For example my cousin started applying for colleges in 2006. At the time the idea of doing college courses online wasn't just a funny thought to most people. Now you can apply for college AND do nearly all your classes online these days. In the mid 1990s-mid 2000s people had technology, but they didn't need to use it for everything they did. They mainly only had it because of the hit new tech devices.

Mid 2000s and before feels distant from today as a lot of things that exist in 2017 certainly weren't around or as popular in 2005/6 or before.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/17 at 10:08 am


2008 for me. Everything changed that year.


Stuff between 2007 and 2008 was when things started to get modern for me.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/17 at 10:11 am

Come on, 2005 isn't that old at all. :P

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/17 at 10:14 am


Come on, 2005 isn't that old at all. :P


...

Are you sure you haven't been living under a rock for the past 15 years?

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/17 at 10:17 am


...

Are you sure you haven't been living under a rock for the past 15 years?


No. 2005 is not that old at all.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 02/14/17 at 10:40 am


No. 2005 is not that old at all.

Yeah relatively speaking 2005 isn't that old. Much more recent than the 1980s and 1990s. Just very dated.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/17 at 10:42 am


Yeah relatively speaking 2005 isn't that old. Much more recent than the 1980s and 1990s. Just very dated.


I agree! It's dated but old-old? Not really.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Looney Toon on 02/14/17 at 10:55 am

2005 isn't old-old. Didn't think anyone said that. But very dated/distant from 2017? I'd say so.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 02/14/17 at 2:44 pm


Come on, 2005 isn't that old at all. :P


It's 12 years old.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/17 at 7:18 pm


It's 12 years old.


It's pretty dated, but it's rather old to me since I'm only 17 years old.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Catherine91UK on 02/15/17 at 2:47 pm


Stuff between 2007 and 2008 was when things started to get modern for me.

In terms of technology I'd put the start of the 'modern era' as late as 2010, because that's when smartphones and tablets became mainstream. In the late 00s, social media and Youtube were mainly accessed via desktops, laptops and netbooks.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/16/17 at 8:11 am


In terms of technology I'd put the start of the 'modern era' as late as 2010, because that's when smartphones and tablets became mainstream. In the late 00s, social media and Youtube were mainly accessed via desktops, laptops and netbooks.


True. A lot of people in the 2000s were more likely to visit the Internet on their computers, rather than using mobile devices. It was a pain in the ass to visit YouTube on a flip phone, since it took so long to view a video and see it on that tiny screen.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Slim95 on 02/16/17 at 10:31 am


True. A lot of people in the 2000s were more likely to visit the Internet on their computers, rather than using mobile devices. It was a pain in the ass to visit YouTube on a flip phone, since it took so long to view a video and see it on that tiny screen.

There was no YouTube or internet at all on flip phones. Flip phones only had call/text.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 02/16/17 at 3:40 pm


There was no YouTube or internet at all on flip phones. Flip phones only had call/text.


from what I can remember 15 years ago.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/17 at 4:21 pm

I believe I got my laptop in 2005. Does Acer still make computers? ;D

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 02/18/17 at 6:52 am


I believe I got my laptop in 2005. Does Acer still make computers? ;D


I have an Acer.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Brian06 on 02/24/17 at 12:07 am


There was no YouTube or internet at all on flip phones. Flip phones only had call/text.


A lot of flip phones had the "mobile web" which was basically a very stripped down version of the real web. Some had basic java based games too, or messenger apps like AIM.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: 80sfan on 02/24/17 at 12:14 am

I'm not too much of an expert in technology. All I remember about 2005 was that I had a red phone.

Yes, it was this one.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41jFM1oWaoL._SY450_.jpg

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Howard on 02/24/17 at 7:14 am


A lot of flip phones had the "mobile web" which was basically a very stripped down version of the real web. Some had basic java based games too, or messenger apps like AIM.


It was hard to text when the phone is so small.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/24/17 at 8:10 am


A lot of flip phones had the "mobile web" which was basically a very stripped down version of the real web. Some had basic java based games too, or messenger apps like AIM.


It was also expensive to use, since a lot of people back then used computers for the Internet.

Subject: Re: The Technology of 2005

Written By: batfan2005 on 03/12/17 at 8:39 am

Here is my summary of 2005 vs. now:

- Having to carry your cell phone, iPod (or Zune if you had one of those), and a digital camera when you went somewhere, while now all you need is your phone (in the near future you won't need your wallet or car keys either)
- Having to print out directions from MapQuest.
- Uploading pics from your digital camera to the computer and then copying them to a CD or USB drive
- Having to use the click wheel to navigate through the music and videos on your iPod
- MySpace instead of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.
- Actually talking on the phone instead of texting
- AIM and Yahoo Messenger instead of Skype or mainly FB Messenger for IMs.

Overall, 2005 has come a long way since the 90's or even 2000, but we've come a lot further since then.

Check for new replies or respond here...