Page check

[Neredbojias]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

 

[MG]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.

1 min 48 sec on my setup

Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.

Quick. About 1 sec, maybe 2 secs

Thanks much.

MG

 

[123Jim]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

--

40 seconds and 6 seconds
on a 1.69Mbps line

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is
less than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup.

Perhaps because your browser has cached the images,

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

(You score extra 42 bonus bargain magic points for that! Collect 1,000 such
points to get 1 green point and 1,000 green points to get a red point, and
with just 42 red points, you get a 10% discount of a candy bar!)

It takes about 30 seconds to load onto my screen.

According to Firefox, the size of the page is 1,547 kilobytes. It almost
entirely consists of the images. I don't quite see the point of putting such
a huge number of thumbnails on one page. The universal law of structure (to
be invented) implies that there must be some useful way to group the images
and include just one group of thumbs on one page.

 

[rf]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k.

The page might be 7K but you have 1.51 megabytes of images in there.

It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.

Twenty eight seconds, which is pretty damn good. I am getting about 20ms
round trip time per image.

Firefox. Cable, averageing 5Mb/s. In .au (the other side of the planet).

Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.

Five seconds. Four seconds with firebug turned off.

BTW at Resize: 3 the image are severely blurry, but that/s to be expected
for images enlarged in the browser.

Thanks much.

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

Now that's really amasing

 

[Mel Smith]

Neredbojias:

30 seconds at 10:45pm with my IE7 browser behind an old, 10/100 router.

-Mel Smith

 

[Andy]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.

About 6 seconds.

Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

1 second.

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

10 Mb VirginMedia cable, UK, Saturday 09:10

Andy

 

[Neredbojias]

1 min 48 sec on my setup

Hah, you must be on dial-up (-or dsl). That page is definitely one for
hi-speed internet.

Quick. About 1 sec, maybe 2 secs

That's faster than here which is appx 3-4 secs in ff. Thanks for
checking.

 

[Neredbojias]

About 25s here.

Hmm, disappointing. I could live with a general up-to-10-seconds but
half a minute is too long to wait for a page.

About 15s.

I find that odd. Do you have a slow box? Most people are saying the
resize routine is faster than that (-for them).

 

[Neredbojias]

40 seconds and 6 seconds
on a 1.69Mbps line

I suspect that's typical for such bandwidth. Too slow, though, waaaay
too slow for what I'd hoped. Merci beaucoup.

 

[123Jim]

Hmm, disappointing. I could live with a general up-to-10-seconds but
half a minute is too long to wait for a page.


I find that odd. Do you have a slow box? Most people are saying the
resize routine is faster than that (-for them).

--

The images are different size (on disk) .. and we all are certainly choosing
different images to zoom. This will be more noticeable on a slow connection.

 

[Neredbojias]

Perhaps because your browser has cached the images,

I'm beginning to wonder. I believe I cleared it in at least ff, ie,
and chrome but maybe they were still in memory or something

(You score extra 42 bonus bargain magic points for that! Collect
1,000 such points to get 1 green point and 1,000 green points to get
a red point, and with just 42 red points, you get a 10% discount of a
candy bar!)

By the time I get enough points, the candy bar will have decomposed...

It takes about 30 seconds to load onto my screen.

Yeah, that's too long. I was hoping for better over a broader
spectrum.

According to Firefox, the size of the page is 1,547 kilobytes. It
almost entirely consists of the images. I don't quite see the point
of putting such a huge number of thumbnails on one page. The
universal law of structure (to be invented) implies that there must
be some useful way to group the images and include just one group of
thumbs on one page.

Well, it's all the images I had of one artist. If they _could_ load in
a reasonable time, why not? And don't forget, the _served source_
(-the page text not counting images) is under 7k Thanks for
checking.

 

[Neredbojias]

About 10 seconds page load, about the same to rezize, on a 12 mbps
cable link.

Mmm, 10 seconds is about the upper limit of what I consider acceptable.
What do you think - short enough for a page-load? The resize
should've been a little faster. What's your cpu speed/architecture?

 

[Neredbojias]

The page might be 7K but you have 1.51 megabytes of images in there.


Twenty eight seconds, which is pretty damn good. I am getting about
20ms round trip time per image.

Firefox. Cable, averageing 5Mb/s. In .au (the other side of the
planet).

I think you're in the average range of what a median user would
experience. It's too slow, no doubt about it.

Five seconds. Four seconds with firebug turned off.

Yeah, that's about what I get. Some are getting 10 seconds and more
for some reason, maybe a slower box.

BTW at Resize: 3 the image are severely blurry, but that/s to be
expected for images enlarged in the browser.

Uh huh, I was pretty niggardly in making them in order to facilitate a
speedier loading. Since then I've come up with a better system which
should produce higher-resoluting images at very little additional
filesize cost.

Now that's really amasing

Yeah... Thanks for checking.

 

[Neredbojias]

Neredbojias:

30 seconds at 10:45pm with my IE7 browser behind an old, 10/100
router.

That seems to be about average which is way too slow in my book. But
thanks for checking.

 

[123Jim]

I have this page with many thumbnail images. However, the page is less
than 7k. It takes about 4 seconds to load on my setup. Would some
kind souls out thare check it for load time because I'm trying to get
an idea of the general or average time involved for all bandwidths.
Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
Thanks much.

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

<Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

Strange/interesting thing is: According to speedtest.net , 5MB should
download in 24 seconds here, and yet your page is only 1.63MB in total
including thumbs, and it actually takes 40 seconds here. Why the difference?
Is your script slowing things down? If so, why use a script rather than html
and css only?

 

[Neredbojias]

About 6 seconds.

Yeah! That's about what I get. Chrome = 5 secs, Firefox = 7 secs.
Opera's even a smeenchsie bit faster than Chrome but it was hard to be
sure all the images were loaded. Ie9 loaded sometimes faster than ff
and sometimes slower, dunno why.

1 second.

That's really fast, even faster than here. You got an i7?

10 Mb VirginMedia cable, UK, Saturday 09:10

Damn, in the UK yet. And "only" 10 mb. Maybe timing (re: the server)
has something to do with it. Thanks for checking.

 

[123Jim]

Strange/interesting thing is: According to speedtest.net , 5MB should
download in 24 seconds here, and yet your page is only 1.63MB in total
including thumbs, and it actually takes 40 seconds here. Why the
difference? Is your script slowing things down? If so, why use a script
rather than html and css only?

huh .. ok .. maybe some add-ons in firefox, of which I have way too many,
are causing slow rendering of your page ~here~ .. as google chrome does it
in less just less than 30 seconds, a full 10 seconds less than Firefox. I
say 'huh' because I am not inclined to use Google chrome due to Google's
domination of the web, and privacy issues.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Well, it's all the images I had of one artist.

There must be _some_ useful way to organize them into groups - by year, by
theme, whatever. The artist might have an opinion on this.

If they _could_ load
in a reasonable time, why not?

Because of the way the human mind works. Too many images is just too much.
You want to get an idea of the available images, and a dozen, or half a
dozen, well-selected images should give that. Then, if there is still
interest, one might want to look at more images, say a dozen at a time, or
maybe twenty, then proceed to the next bunch. That's how people normally
present images - or, actually, we often present them in a linear manner, one
at a time, as in a slide show. Thumnails are often a good idea, but too many
thumbnails is just too much.

And don't forget, the _served source_
(-the page text not counting images) is under 7k

That's something to be ashamed of, not proud. The page completely fails to
work, with the silly text "Javascript required". (Required for what? If I
have Javascript turned off, then I, or whoever turned it off, must be
assumed to have a good reason. It is foolish to expect me to turn Javascript
on just because some page says "Javascript required", without giving the
slightest hint of the content or functionality that might become available.

The sensible approach is to include, say, a dozen images in the normal way
on the first page and maybe, just maybe, some Javascript code that pre-loads
the other images to browser cache while the user is looking at the first
bunch.

 

[123Jim]

I used the link on the top right, that zooms all of the thumbnails,
not just one image.

ah ..I misunderstood
turns out it takes 3 seconds in Firefox and 1 second in Chrome to resize
all