Page Check Update

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Neredbojias, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    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/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neredbojias

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Neredbojias <> 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
     
    Dylan Parry, Sep 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 28 Sep 2010, Ed Mullen <> 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/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 30, 2010
    #3
  4. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 29 Sep 2010, Dylan Parry <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias <> 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/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 30, 2010
    #4
  5. Neredbojias

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Neredbojias <> 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
     
    Dylan Parry, Sep 30, 2010
    #5
  6. Neredbojias

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <-sep
    tember.org>,
    Dylan Parry <> 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
     
    dorayme, Sep 30, 2010
    #6
  7. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 30 Sep 2010, Dylan Parry <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias <> 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/
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 1, 2010
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dylan Parry

    Re: Page Check Update

    Dylan Parry, Sep 30, 2010, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    391
    Dylan Parry
    Sep 30, 2010
  2. Dylan Parry

    Re: Page Check Update

    Dylan Parry, Sep 30, 2010, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    Dylan Parry
    Sep 30, 2010
  3. Dylan Parry

    Re: Page Check Update

    Dylan Parry, Oct 1, 2010, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
    Dylan Parry
    Oct 1, 2010
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    387
  5. Sven Fischer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    476
    Sven Fischer
    Oct 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page