Is "progressive rendering" still needed in the era of Gigabit connections? This seems something that would've been useful in the dial-up era but not today.
It matters less, but more because data tends to land in 'bursts' when connectivity is poor, so unless the image is massive, you're less likely to see a partial image.
I think you missed the point. In cases of poor connectivity, you're not receiving (eg) 200 kB gradually over 10 seconds, it's more likely that you get nothing for 10 seconds then 200 kB lands.
This is why progressive rendering doesn't work in reality in the same way it does over a simulated connection.
Is "progressive rendering" still needed in the era of Gigabit connections? This seems something that would've been useful in the dial-up era but not today.
Lots of people all over the world are not in the era of gigabit connections.
It matters less, but more because data tends to land in 'bursts' when connectivity is poor, so unless the image is massive, you're less likely to see a partial image.
Arguably in the age of mobile devices with widly varying degree of connection speeds it matters more.
I think you missed the point. In cases of poor connectivity, you're not receiving (eg) 200 kB gradually over 10 seconds, it's more likely that you get nothing for 10 seconds then 200 kB lands.
This is why progressive rendering doesn't work in reality in the same way it does over a simulated connection.
most of the mobile data connections are FAR from gigabit connections
I have at home 1 Gb fiber line, but outside you would not get even to 1/10th with mobile data especially if 5G has bad signal
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49421758