Page check

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Neredbojias, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    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.)

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neredbojias

    MG Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >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
     
    MG, Sep 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neredbojias

    123Jim Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >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
     
    123Jim, Sep 24, 2010
    #3
  4. Neredbojias wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 24, 2010
    #4
  5. Neredbojias

    rf Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >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 :)
     
    rf, Sep 25, 2010
    #5
  6. Neredbojias

    Mel Smith Guest

    Neredbojias:

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

    -Mel Smith
     
    Mel Smith, Sep 25, 2010
    #6
  7. Neredbojias

    Andy Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    > 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
     
    Andy, Sep 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, "MG" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >>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


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

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

    >
    > Quick. About 1 sec, maybe 2 secs


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

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #8
  9. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, Sherm Pendley <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias <> writes:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.

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

    >
    > 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

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #9
  10. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, "123Jim" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >>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


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

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #10
  11. Neredbojias

    123Jim Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFE348EC7935neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    > On 24 Sep 2010, Sherm Pendley <> wrote:
    >
    >> Neredbojias <> writes:
    >>
    >>> 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.

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

    >>
    >> 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).
    >
    > --


    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.
     
    123Jim, Sep 25, 2010
    #11
  12. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >> 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,


    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

    >> 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!)


    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

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #12
  13. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> 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.)
    >>

    >
    > 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

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #13
  14. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, "rf" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >>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).


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

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

    >
    > 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.

    >> Thanks much.
    >>
    >> http://www.neredbojias.net/roy.php
    >>
    >> <Yea! -I remembered to include the url.)

    >
    > Now that's really amasing :)


    Yeah... Thanks for checking.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #14
  15. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 24 Sep 2010, "Mel Smith" <> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #15
  16. Neredbojias

    123Jim Guest

    "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >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?
     
    123Jim, Sep 25, 2010
    #16
  17. Neredbojias

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 25 Sep 2010, "Andy" <> wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >> 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.


    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.

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

    >
    > 1 second.


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

    >> 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


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

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Sep 25, 2010
    #17
  18. Neredbojias

    123Jim Guest

    "123Jim" <> wrote in message
    news:i7kq6h$81b$-september.org...
    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9DFD3BAC45385neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >>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?



    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.
     
    123Jim, Sep 25, 2010
    #18
  19. Neredbojias wrote:

    > On 24 Sep 2010, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    [...]
    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 25, 2010
    #19
  20. Neredbojias

    123Jim Guest

    "Sherm Pendley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "123Jim" <> writes:
    >
    >> "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9DFE348EC7935neredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112...
    >>> On 24 Sep 2010, Sherm Pendley <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Neredbojias <> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Also, you can try the resize (thumbs) app to see how fast that is.
    >>>>
    >>>> 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).

    >>
    >> The images are different size (on disk) .. and we all are certainly
    >> choosing
    >> different images to zoom.

    >
    > 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
     
    123Jim, Sep 25, 2010
    #20
    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. Davisro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    695
    Michael D. Ober
    Jun 14, 2004
  2. mit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    815
    Ramu Pulipati
    Jan 25, 2006
  3. kris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
  4. kris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
  5. kris
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,212
Loading...

Share This Page