Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Page Check Update

Reply
Thread Tools

Page Check Update

 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2010
Regarding the page from the "Page Check" post:

http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

.... by using new methods, I was able to reduce the filesize of the
thumbs even while increasing their graphic sizes and still maintain
acceptable quality. The total b/w of all thumbs is now considerably
less than before and the page loads even faster. For me, in ff it's
6-7 seconds, in Chrome about 5 secs, and in Opera less than 5 secs.
Nevertheless, in the _final_ page which is now online at:

http://www.neredbojias.net/royo.php

.... I inserted a "More?" just to be prudent.

Thanks again to all those who checked.

(PS: Ed Mullen, I finally "got" your comment about "naked women" - duh!
Anyway, artists' galleries are just content to me; I hardly even look.
I choose the pics by how pleasing I consider them at the time. Once
they're "in the bank", I don't sit here and drool over them or
anything. That's why I have an adult site...)

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dylan Parry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2010
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Regarding the page from the "Page Check" post:
>
> http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

[…]

Took around 80 secs to load for me, on a connection running at a little
over 8 Mbps. Too many thumbs for one page IMHO.

--
Dylan Parry
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
On 28 Sep 2010, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Regarding the page from the "Page Check" post:
>>
>> http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php
>>
>> ... by using new methods, I was able to reduce the filesize of the
>> thumbs even while increasing their graphic sizes and still maintain
>> acceptable quality. The total b/w of all thumbs is now considerably
>> less than before and the page loads even faster. For me, in ff it's
>> 6-7 seconds, in Chrome about 5 secs, and in Opera less than 5 secs.
>> Nevertheless, in the _final_ page which is now online at:
>>
>> http://www.neredbojias.net/royo.php
>>
>> ... I inserted a "More?" just to be prudent.
>>
>> Thanks again to all those who checked.
>>
>> (PS: Ed Mullen, I finally "got" your comment about "naked women" -
>> duh!
>> Anyway, artists' galleries are just content to me; I hardly even
>> look. I choose the pics by how pleasing I consider them at the
>> time. Once
>> they're "in the bank", I don't sit here and drool over them or
>> anything. That's why I have an adult site...)
>>

>
> Gotcha. They are some beautiful images! All of them.


Thanks. I acquired them over the years, probably starting in the
mid-90s, and just saved them (-one of some "sets" I managed to save
thru various crashes.) I always liked Sci-Fi stuff and even tried to
get my wife to rename herself "Barberella", but she wouldn't do it.)


--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
On 29 Sep 2010, Dylan Parry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Regarding the page from the "Page Check" post:
>>
>> http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php

> […]
>
> Took around 80 secs to load for me, on a connection running at a
> little over 8 Mbps. Too many thumbs for one page IMHO.


As for too many thumbs, others have said likewise, but I think it's the
minority opinion. The question, though, is why is it too many? If
it's because of load time, that's not a real good reason at all. If
it's appearance and the like, I say y'all are too used to the "paging
system" in common usage now; there's room for change and improvement.

As for 80 seconds at 8 Mbps - whoa Nelly! That's a crime! You're
getting nowhere near your stated thruput, and unless the server
hiccupped, that connection was well, well under 1 Mbps. Don't believe
me? Check the original "Page Check" post and see what others were
getting with an even larger page. I remember only 1 guy around your
pace and he confessed to experiencing dsl speeds despite his advertised
b/w.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dylan Parry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> As for too many thumbs, others have said likewise, but I think it's
> the
> minority opinion. The question, though, is why is it too many? If
> it's because of load time, that's not a real good reason at all. If
> it's appearance and the like, I say y'all are too used to the "paging
> system" in common usage now; there's room for change and improvement.


It's too many for two reasons, one I describe below, and the other is
for aesthetic reasons; there are too many thumbs to take in at once, and
I could even begin to take a proper look at them all.

> As for 80 seconds at 8 Mbps - whoa Nelly! That's a crime! You're
> getting nowhere near your stated thruput, and unless the server
> hiccupped, that connection was well, well under 1 Mbps. Don't believe
> me? Check the original "Page Check" post and see what others were
> getting with an even larger page. I remember only 1 guy around your
> pace and he confessed to experiencing dsl speeds despite his
> advertised
> b/w.


I normally have no problems downloading stuff at the advertised rate—get
a full 1 MB each second downloading files for example. The problem here
is with the number of images as a browser can only make so many
connections to the server at a time which artificially slows down the
speed at which it can download the full page.

I also read the original thread, and some posters there were
experiencing times in minutes too.

--
Dylan Parry
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)-sep
tember.org>,
Dylan Parry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It's too many for two reasons, one I describe below, and the other is
> for aesthetic reasons;


One main one is that it is full of kitchy crap.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On 30 Sep 2010, Dylan Parry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> As for too many thumbs, others have said likewise, but I think it's
>> the
>> minority opinion. The question, though, is why is it too many? If
>> it's because of load time, that's not a real good reason at all. If
>> it's appearance and the like, I say y'all are too used to the
>> "paging system" in common usage now; there's room for change and
>> improvement.

>
> It's too many for two reasons, one I describe below, and the other is
> for aesthetic reasons; there are too many thumbs to take in at once,
> and I could even begin to take a proper look at them all.


OK, the aesthetics are arguable, a subjective quality that probably
can't be defended on any absolute grounds one way or t'other.

>> As for 80 seconds at 8 Mbps - whoa Nelly! That's a crime! You're
>> getting nowhere near your stated thruput, and unless the server
>> hiccupped, that connection was well, well under 1 Mbps. Don't
>> believe me? Check the original "Page Check" post and see what
>> others were getting with an even larger page. I remember only 1 guy
>> around your pace and he confessed to experiencing dsl speeds despite
>> his advertised
>> b/w.

>
> I normally have no problems downloading stuff at the advertised
> rate—get a full 1 MB each second downloading files for example. The
> problem here is with the number of images as a browser can only make
> so many connections to the server at a time which artificially slows
> down the speed at which it can download the full page.


Then why do some, I daresay many, people not experience this problem?
I simply can't "buy" a technical issue being a limiting factor here
when it seems a majority doesn't have the limitation.


--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to really disable Java Update check when there is NO "Update" tab in Control Panel? Sven Fischer Java 0 10-22-2012 07:54 AM
Update On The Windows Phone 7 Update Update Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 2 02-25-2011 08:03 AM
Re: Page Check Update Dylan Parry HTML 0 09-30-2010 10:26 PM
Re: Page Check Update Dylan Parry HTML 0 09-30-2010 09:30 PM
How to update the current web page? (delete current web page + rewrite the page) laryten@yahoo.com Javascript 3 10-12-2006 07:33 PM



Advertisments