Go Back In Time: How 10 Big Websites Looked 15 Years Ago

The year was 1997. Apple was a struggling computer company, AOL was a booming Internet service provider, Microsoft was on the verge of releasing Windows 98, and the Web was a very different place. Through the magic of the Wayback Machine, we can travel back in time and revisit the past.

Take a walk down memory lane with us as we journey back in time and take a look at what the Web used to be. If you were there at the time, you’ll feel nostalgia – if not, you might be surprised just how far we’ve come. Feel free to follow the links and do your own exploring, even revisit your own old haunts and marvel at how dated they look.

Apple

Apple, now the most valuable company in the world, was a struggling computer company back in the ‘90s. Apple’s website from 1997 seems like it’s about a completely different company from the Apple we know today. But even back then, Apple was pushing mobile devices – the eMate 300 in this case, which used Apple’s Newton platform. (It was a flop.)

Google

Google didn’t even have a website in 1997, so I’m cheating a bit here by showing you the page from 1998. The iconic, minimalistic design is present here. Here’s a little-known fact: the only reason Google started with such a simple design is because they didn’t have a webmaster or anyone that knew HTML.

Yahoo

1997 was the pre-Google era, so people used other search engines – like Yahoo. Yahoo was a pretty basic search engine and directory back then, nothing like the jam-packed front page it would become. But then, Yahoo just couldn’t be cluttered back then. It would have taken too long to download over those old dial-up modems.

Microsoft

Microsoft was working on Windows 98 at the time, and their “Where do you want to go today?” slogan featured prominently on their website. The top headline – “Internet Explorer 4.0 Debuts to Critics’ Applause” – seems hilarious in retrospect, with Internet Explorer ultimatelybecoming a drag on the Internet. At the time, Microsoft was actually trying – and they would keep developing IE until they released version 6, after which they stopped development, leaving the Web to stagnate.

Amazon

I’m going to cheat again because the Wayback Machine doesn’t have any snapshots of Amazon.com from 1997, so here’s a screenshot from 1999. The old Amazon actually looks surprisingly modern. Of course, a big part of this is because Amazon’s website had changed so little until the recent redesign.

AOL

AOL’s website really is a blast from the past. The front page advertises the beta release ofAOL Instant Messenger, which ultimately became very popular. It even offers a free AOL trial, which brought many people online for the first time.

GeoCities

If you were around in the ‘90s, I’m sure you remember GeoCities. Instead of creating blogs, people created their own personal websites – and they usually looked horrible. GeoCities was shut down in 2009, but it faded away and died many years before.

The New York Times

The New York Times shows us what a newspaper website used to be like. The website attempts to bring the familiar newspaper-style layout to a browser – luckily, newspaper websites have advanced since then. It’s also amusing to see that the early versions of Internet Explorer were considered “complex” in their time.

AltaVista

If you weren’t using Yahoo, there’s a good chance you were using AltaVista. AltaVista now just redirects to Yahoo’s search results, and Yahoo is just a frontend to Microsoft’s Bing.

The White House

The White House didn’t have a shiny website back then – the website’s front page was the “White House Virtual Library.” It offered the ability to browse and search a variety of documents. No splashy front page with the latest news and high-resolution images of the president here, just a glorified search engine with a background that made the content harder to read.

One day, someone will write about how ancient the Web looked back in 2012 and marvel at how backwards we were.

Were you online in 1997? Do you have any other interesting old websites to share? Leave a comment and let us know.

Are Mirrorless Cameras the Future of Digital Photography?

Recently, popular photographer Trey Ratcliff said he’s done buying DSLR cameras because mirrorless cameras are the future. Let’s take a look at what these cameras are, and see if Trey is onto something, or just full of hot air.

Today, we’ll be learning a bit about the history of cameras, what “mirrored” cameras are, and how this new generation of cameras fits into the history of photography and the development of better and better equipment. Keep reading to decide for yourself—is Trey on the money, and DSLR is actually dying? Or are these “mirrorless” cameras destined to be the Betamax of modern camera technology?

Wait, Cameras Have Mirrors?

Some years ago, when photography was first brought to the masses, cameras were very simple objects. They had a shutter that blocked light, and a photosensitive material that reacted to light when that shutter opened. The problem with this very simple design was that it was impossible to see what you were about to expose, and therefore very tough to compose a good shot. If you’ve ever seen or experimented with pinhole cameras, you’ll know what this is like—it’s mostly guesswork.

Later generations of cameras had viewfinders for photographers to look through to compose their images, but this viewfinder was a completely different lens than the one that focused light on the film. Since you were composing with one lens and shooting with another, this created a parallax. Simply defined, a parallax with this type of camera, called a twin lens reflex, means that what you see isn’t what you get. In order to solve this problem, camera engineers had to design a machine that was capable of allowing photographers to see and expose through the same lens.

Enter the Single Lens Reflex

Single lens reflex, or SLR cameras were the answer to the parallax problem. With a clever mechanism of moving parts, SLR cameras reflect the light coming through the lens to optical viewfinders (and to the eye of the photographer). When the shutter release button is pressed, the mirror moves, and that same light through the same single lens is allowed to expose the image on the photosensitive film.

As SLR cameras evolved, a few trends started to take place. Cameras started to normalize layouts—shutter advances, shutter releases, and film storage all moved to similar locations, despite the manufacturer. And 35mm film became the de facto format for professional and home use—with some exceptions, obviously. Eventually the professional photographers got interchangeable lenses, all with standard lens mounts and lenses tuned to the format of that specific camera. What this meant was that a photographer could carry a single camera body and exchange lenses to shoot a variety of situations, and the camera companies had a whole new line of products to develop, manufacture, and sell to consumers. In this age of 35mm film photography, most home photographers likely would not need the versatility of interchangeable lenses, and opted instead for more compact and simpler point and shoot cameras with permanent lenses. Even today, this same two market approach to camera design is obvious.

A Bit About Digital Cameras

As we’ve discussed before, digital cameras use photosensors in place of old-fashioned film to detect and record light coming in through a focused lens. Using this same single lens model (in general), digital cameras have (obviously, duh) transformed how we take pictures today. Let’s briefly talk a little bit about how.

Digital Single Lens Reflex, or DSLRs, as they’re branded, have continued the tradition of interchangeable lenses, but have the additional added benefits of through the lens metering (reading the available light through the main lens) and auto shooting modes, allowing (to the chagrin of many photographers) users to take better pictures without having much knowledge of the art or science of photography. In addition, digital cameras allow for a shorter feedback loop for those of us hoping to actually learn more. This means that we can instantly learn if a photo is bad or good, and make changes on the fly. In the past, changing ISO more or less meant changing a whole roll of film, and learning what you shot wrong took developing a whole roll and starting over if you made a mess of it.

Many modern point and shoot cameras have viewfinders with separate lenses, so we come back to the problem with parallax. However, these fixed lens, point and shoot cameras cleverly use the same lens and sensor to create an image on an LCD screen, replacing the optical second lens viewfinder altogether. This development is what allows the so-called “mirrorless” cameras to be mirrorless.

Mirrorless Cameras Are Here! Are They The Future?

Unlike a lot of innovations in digital imaging, mirrorless cameras are already commercially available. We aren’t going to mention any particular brands—we’re not making equipment recommendations or endorsements today—but there are several companies currently making high quality mirrorless digital cameras. For readers interested in sharing their experience with their own mirrorless cameras, feel free to make some noise in the comments section, and let us know what brands and cameras you’re enjoying.

What makes these mirrorless cameras truly different from both DSLR cameras and modern point and shoot digital cameras is a sort of “best of both worlds” scenario. Because the design is mirrorless, the camera body is much simpler, smaller, and easier to carry. And because the camera body has been designed differently, the lenses for these cameras are also simpler and smaller to manufacture. This allows for smaller, high quality lenses to be made at lower costs. Eventually, some of that savings is bound to be passed on to the consumer, if it isn’t already. And because this new generation design incorporates interchangeable lenses, photographers will be able to use the lens appropriate to the situation—a must to attract the professional crowd.

Like the point and shoot cameras, mirrorless cameras use the LCD screen in place of an optical through-the-lens viewfinder. The advantage of that is obvious—photographers get a larger, more accurate idea of what their final image is going to look like, even before the image is recorded. However, consumers that insist on using the optical viewfinder will find that they aren’t happy with the parallax, or being forced to use the LCD screen to compose.

When you look at the overall trend of technology improvements over the years, it does sort of make sense that these mirrorless, or, as Trey calls them, “3rd generation” cameras, would be the future of digital photography. Mirrors in single reflex cameras were an engineering feat from the late 19th to early 20th century to solve the problem of parallax without exposing film. With today’s technology, it’s simple to use one lens to create a preview of an image on an LCD, solving the parallax problem in a much more modern way. Is this way inherently better? Depends on whom you ask.

Are DSLRs on the way out? It might not be as cut and dry as Trey lays it out, despite his very reasonable points. It may depend more on marketing and the reaction of camera buyers, and the amount of resources camera manufacturers will put behind this generation of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. You might draw a parallel to photographers buying “mirrorless versus DSLR” to “Betamax versus VHS”, or “Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD.” It’s a complicated question, and even if some photographers or experts call the fight, if camera companies can’t convince their customers that mirrorless is truly the future of professional digital photography, it never will be, despite any advantages.

---

What’s your take on the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens, aka 3rd Generation cameras? Will they have to pry your digital SLR out of your cold, dead hands? Tell us about your thoughts on the topic, one way or the other, in the comments section below.

Image Credits: PENTAX Q (mirrorless) by Jung-nam Nam, Creative Commons. Old studio camera Alter Studio Fotoapparat by Janez Novak, GNU License. Twin Lens Camera in public domain. Rolleiflex medium format camera by Juhanson, GNU License. 1957 Kodak Duaflex IV by RAYBAN, GNU License. Pleasure, little treasure (top) by Javier M, Creative Commons. SLR Cross section by Colin M.L. Burnett, GNU License. Sensor Klear Loupe by Micheal Toyama, Creative Commons. 7D DSLR Rig version 1 by Dean Terry, Creative Commons. Canon Digital Elph PowerShot SD780 IS (3) by Studioesper, Creative Commons. Cameras from Large to Small, Film to Digital by Tom Photos, GNU License. The Yosemite 2012 Photowalk by Scobleizer, screenshot from video, Creative Commons.

What Was The First (Well-Known) Encryption Machine?

Answer: Enigma
Long before the advent of digital encryption there were mechanical encryption tools. The earliest commercial encryption tool was the Engima machine. Patented in 1918, brought into production in the 1920s, and made popular by world wide military use (most notably/infamously by Nazi run Germany in World War II), the Enigma series of machines peaked at 100,000 production units.
Although the Enigma code was cracked during World War II and the devices fell out of popular use over the following decade, the public remained largely unaware of the Enigma machines, the role they played in World War II, and the great lengths the Allied forces went to crack the German Enigma codes. Upon declassification of this information in the 1970s there was a surge of interest in the devices. The majority of the remaining machines are found in museums and the hands of private collectors.

What Was the First Computer Virus?

Answer: The Creeper Virus
While the technical definitions for computer virus, worm, and malware might have a little overlap, it’s generally accepted that the first type of computer “virus” occurred in 1971 on ARPANET, the scientific/military network that preceded the modern internet. Creeper was an experimental self-replicating program that infected DEC computers across the network — this would be considered a computer worm today.
Written by Bob Thomas at the BBN Technologies lab, Creeper propagated itself throughout ARPANET by exploiting a vulnerability in DEC PDP-10 computers running the TENEX operating system. The worm wasn’t malicious and, upon gaining access to a machine and replicating itself, broadcast “I’m the creeper, catch me if you can!” on the terminal screen. The first virus removal program, dubbed The Reaper, soon followed, designed to ferret out Creeper infections.
Note: the term “computer virus” usually means a computer program that can replicate itself and spread from one computer to another. In modern terms, this is usually done by infecting a file, so a worm is not necessarily a virus. The term computer virus is also used in a more broad sense to describe malware, so the Creeper Virus is still a valid choice for the first virus — plus, it was created 10 years before the next viruses (Elk Cloner and Brain), making it a big milestone.

Apple iPod: 10 Years of the Ubiquitous Media Player

A decade ago, Apple launched an MP3 player that can be partly attributed with shaping the landscape of today's mobile computing market. Along with being the best-selling portable media player and saving Apple from near irrelevance, the iPod influenced many of Cupertino's ambitious and revolutionary projects, forcing much of the industry into a perpetual state of catch-up. Apple's iPhone birthed the smartphone as we know it and stands as the top-selling device of its kind -- likewise with the iPad and the tablet segment, despite Microsoft's early dabblings. Software-wise, the iTunes Store paved the road for digital music sales and represents the world's largest music retailer, while the App Store's sales dwarf all the competition combined -- Android included.
In fact, the iPod and related products prompted Apple to change its name from "Apple Computer, Inc." to just "Apple Inc.” Without fawning over Apple's every endeavor, we'd like to pay homage to the company's game-changing gadget on its 10th birthday. Join us as we take a brief stroll down memory lane.

First iPod 5, 10GB -- Oct. 23, 2001

The first iPod was developed in less than a year and although it didn't flip the music industry upside down overnight – in fact received a lot of criticism – it laid the conceptual framework for grander things to come. Powered by a dual-core 90MHz ARM-based PortalPlayer processor and 5GB 4200RPM Toshiba HDD (a 10GB version came later), the rudimentary device only supported Mac computers as well as AAC, MP3 and WAV audio files. The first version of iTunes for Mac was released the same year in January. Also: Watch the first iPod being introduced by Steve Jobs.

iPod 2nd Gen 10, 20GB -- July 2002

Apple's second-generation music player arrived less than a year after the original device and brought several refinements including a cover for the FireWire port, an improved Hold switch and double the storage capacity. It also abandoned the first-gen's mechanical scroll wheel in favor of the touch-sensitive wheel used on many future iPods. This model introduced support for Windows via Musicmatch, prior to this tech-savvy users were forced to use workarounds for Windows compatibility.

iPod 3rd Gen 10, 15, 20, 30, 40GB -- April 2003

By April 2003, Apple prepared a full redesign of the iPod, adding an all-touch interface, a dock connector, a slimmer body and the maximum storage capacity was doubled to 40GB. The company also brought its own media platform (iTunes 4.1) to Windows, severing ties with Musicmatch. The iPod's increasing popularity prompted retailers Best Buy, Target and Dell to carry the device between 2002 and 2003. Microsoft and Creative prepared their rivals, the Media2Go and Nomad Zen.

First iPod Mini 4GB – Jan. 2004

After focusing on adding features to its original design, Apple went back to the drawing board and introduced a scaled-down minimalist iPod. The $249 iPod Mini was the first to have Apple's Click Wheel and only offered 4GB of storage. Despite its slimmer, trendier design, many criticized the device's value. Around the same time, Apple replaced its $299 10GB iPod with a 15GB model, forcing retailers to reduce the 10GB model to $249. This caused consumers to be even more skeptical of the Mini.

iPod 4th Gen & iPod Photo 20, 30, 40, 60GB -- July 2004

The first fourth-gen version came in July with a redesigned Hold switch and the iPod Mini's Click Wheel. In October, Apple introduced a premium version called the iPod Photo ($499-$599), which had improved battery life (15 hours versus 12), a color screen and support for common image formats, which was especially cool for album art. In February 2005, Apple replaced the 40GB iPod Photo with a thinner, cheaper 30GB model. By June, it decided to merge the iPod Photo and iPod “Classic” lines. (Picture shows first U2 special edition iPod).

iPod Shuffle: First and 2nd Gen Jan 2005 & Sep 2006

Shrinking its media player further, Apple introduced the first iPod Shuffle in early 2005. It served as an entry-level model with only 512MB or 1GB of storage and no display. Pricing was originally set at $99-$149. The second-gen Shuffle arrived well over a year later. It was roughly half the size of its predecessor with a belt clip and a more attractive aluminum case. Apple called it the "most wearable iPod ever." Despite its smaller size, it doubled storage capacities to 1GB and 2GB.

First iPod Nano 1, 2, 4GB -- Sep. 2005

The second-gen iPod Mini landed shortly after the first Shuffle and offered an incredible battery life of 18 hours (the first Mini lasted 8 hours). It also introduced a 6GB model along with minor cosmetic tweaks. The Mini line was discontinued later in 2005 when Apple shipped the first iPod Nano, which was essentially a smaller version of the Mini (half the thickness and roughly 11mm narrower). However, it had less maximum storage (4GB max versus 6GB) and a shorter 14-hour battery life.

iPod 5th Gen (Video) 30, 60, 80GB -- Oct. 2005

2005 was a monumental period for the iPod. Along with refining the fourth-gen iPod and releasing the Mini 2, Nano 1, Shuffle 1, Apple unveiled a completely redesigned fifth-gen iPod with a thinner case, a larger 2.5-inch 320 x 240 screen, and support for common video formats such as MP4 and H.264. The latter feature earned it the nickname "iPod Video." Additionally, sales skyrocketed 400% to 22.5 million units this year, dwarfing all previous years combined.

iPod Nano 2nd Gen 2, 4, 8GB – Sep. 2006

Compared to the year prior, 2006 was fairly mild for the iPod, though its sales remained strong and represented nearly half of Apple's total revenue. It brought a new version of the increasingly popular Nano, which offered a scratch-resistant anodized aluminum casing, more color choices, a brighter display, double the storage size and a huge boost in battery life from 14 to 24 hours. The second-gen Shuffle was also released, as was a 80GB version of the fifth-gen iPod.

First iPod Touch 8, 16, 32GB -- Sep. 2007

In an ironic twist, considering the iPod is arguably responsible for the iPhone's creation, Apple introduced the music player's greatest overhaul. Utilizing existing iPhone hardware and software, it was the first iPod to feature a multitouch display and Wi-Fi, the latter of which allowed users to browse the Web via Safari as well as access the iTunes Store and YouTube. It only lacked the iPhone's cellular connectivity and services along with its speakers and camera.

iPod Classic and iPod Nano 3rd Gen 80, 120, 160GB / 4, 8 GB -- Sep. 2007

The "Classic" branding for the traditional iPod didn't come until its sixth generation. Apple's latest addition shed the familiar white polycarbonate front plate for silver anodized aluminum and it abandoned the special edition models. It also had a thinner shell, a revamped user interface, and offered up to 36 hours of music and 6 hours of video playback.

Although the iPod Touch garnered much of the spotlight during Apple's launch in September 2007, the company also unveiled a promising Nano revision that scraped the rectangular shape in favor of a smaller, nearly square design. It was 19mm shorter and 11mm wider than its predecessor with the same storage capacities and battery life. It more than doubled the resolution from 176 x 132 to 320 x 240 and received a Cover Flow interface. Some folks criticized the third-gen Nano's lack of a touchscreen.

iPod Nano 4th Gen 4, 8, 16GB -- Sep. 2008
iPod Nano 5th Gen 8, 16GB -- Sep. 2009

The fourth-gen Nano reintroduced the elongated shell, though Apple managed to shave 0.5mm off the thickness and 12.5mm off the weight despite adding a larger display, more storage, as well as an accelerometer for horizontal viewing (videos, namely) and the ability to shuffle songs by shaking the device. This design was refined the following year as the fifth-gen iPod Nano gained a larger screen, a camera, an FM radio, a speaker, a pedometer, improved jack placement and a polished paint job.

iPod Touch 2nd Gen 8, 16, 32GB -- Sep. 2008
iPod Touch 3rd Gen 32, 64GB -- Sep. 2009

As with the iPhone, the iPod Touch remained largely unchanged through its first few revisions. The second-gen device received a tapered chrome back, volume buttons and a built-in speaker. More importantly, it was the first iPod to ship with Apple's recently launched App Store. Unsurprisingly, the third-gen iPod Touch mirrored the iPhone 3GS' changes, which included a quicker processor and graphics core, more RAM, Voice Control support, and a model with 64GB of flash storage.

iPod Shuffle 3rd Gen 2, 4GB -- Mar. 2009

Although Apple refreshed the second-gen Shuffle several times with new colors, the series went nearly three years without a serious overhaul. Its successor shipped in March 2009 with twice the storage (4GB), a smaller body that was reminiscent of Apple's first Shuffle design, and a completely new interface. Instead of hardware buttons on the device itself, Apple moved the volume and playback controls to the right earbud cable and introduced VoiceOver functionality for hands-free control.

iPod Nano 6th Gen 8, 16GB -- Sep. 2010
iPod Shuffle 4th Gen 2GB -- Sep. 2010

The sixth (and current) generation iPod Nano borrowed elements from 2007's iteration but it delivered what the third-gen couldn't: a touchscreen. The device features a 240 x 240 multitouch display and given its 1.47 x 1.61-inch dimensions, Apple cut its predecessor's camera and video playback, but retained functionality relevant to active users like the pedometer. Meanwhile, the fourth-gen iPod Shuffle essentially serves as an entry-level Nano without its touchscreen interface and accelerometer.

iPod Touch 4th Gen 8, 32, 64GB -- Sep. 9 2010

Some three years and four generations after the first touchscreen model, iPod sales began a noticeable decline -- a fate largely induced by the iPhone and competing Android handsets. The line between portable music players and smartphones (especially the iPod Touch and iPhone) has grown incredibly blurred. Nonetheless, the fourth-gen iPod Touch represents Apple's finest offering to date with a high-res "Retina" display, Apple's A4 SoC, as well as front and rear cameras for FaceTime and video recording.

 

So, which iPod models have you owned over the years? Share your thoughts in the comments.