Page Check Update

[Neredbojias]

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...)

 

[Dylan Parry]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

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]

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.

 

[Dylan Parry]

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.

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]
tember.org>,

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

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.