Speeding up loading?

[T.J.]

I am trying to increase the loading time of this page,
http://www.sim64.co.uk/fps.html
I've reduced the quality of the images as low as possible
(maybe to low?) and tried to tidy up the HTML.
I think it is still a bit slow though.
It has to have the background, so I cant lose that, but would
like the top image (background) to load quicker.
Is there a way to force this to load first.
Comments on page appreciated.
TIA.

 

[rf]

I am trying to increase the loading time of this page,

Why would you try to *increase* the loading time? ;-)

http://www.sim64.co.uk/fps.html

It has to have the background,

Yep. It's the biggest thing around.

so I cant lose that, but would
like the top image (background) to load quicker.

FWIW the page loaded plenty fast enough for me. Compare it to your
compeditors, you know, the ones with huge images.

Is there a way to force
No.

this to load first.
Comments on page appreciated.

Finally a page that adjusts itself to the size of my browser viewport! Well
done.

 

[Sid Ismail]

: I am trying to increase the loading time of this page,
: http://www.sim64.co.uk/fps.html


Loaded fine here - 16 hops.

btw, I would reduce the font size of your top links as well the text
in left-hand column. And keep the same font on the left throughout.

Regards

Sid

 

[Philip Ronan]

I am trying to increase the loading time of this page,
http://www.sim64.co.uk/fps.html
I've reduced the quality of the images as low as possible
(maybe to low?) and tried to tidy up the HTML.
I think it is still a bit slow though.
It has to have the background, so I cant lose that, but would
like the top image (background) to load quicker.

It loads OK for me too.

However, your top banner doesn't need to be 1249 pixels wide. Make it
narrower, and fade it out to a solid colour to blend with the background
colour. (You should also set the CSS background-image to "no-repeat")

The GIF background with the yellow sun thingies can be cropped to half its
width.

General comments:
It's rather hard to work out which bits of your text are links and which
aren't. For example, "Please Register Here" and "seller" are both in bold
text. One is a link, the other isn't. Try making things a bit clearer. And
get the English fixed.

 

[T.J.]

It loads OK for me too.

However, your top banner doesn't need to be 1249 pixels wide. Make it
narrower, and fade it out to a solid colour to blend with the background
colour. (You should also set the CSS background-image to "no-repeat")

Would that not make it look a bit strange to anbody using a
1280 x 1024 or higher screen resolution? or am I worrying
too much.

The GIF background with the yellow sun thingies can be cropped to half its
width.

Nice tip, thank you

General comments:
It's rather hard to work out which bits of your text are links and which
aren't. For example, "Please Register Here" and "seller" are both in bold
text. One is a link, the other isn't. Try making things a bit clearer. And
get the English fixed.

I've changed the colour of the links no problem, but correcting the
grammar and the spelling is a bit more daunting (not my strong point ( )
Thank you

 

[Philip Ronan]

Would that not make it look a bit strange to anbody using a
1280 x 1024 or higher screen resolution? or am I worrying
too much.

I don't understand what you mean. I'm using a 1600x1200 monitor here. When I
view your top banner full-screen, I get this:

French Property Sales French Prop
South of France Property Specialist South of Fr

That's because the background is repeating when it shouldn't be. and it
doesn't need to be that wide. Make it narrower, and fade it into a
background colour. Here's an example of what I mean
<http://www.japangarden.co.uk/>. Well OK it's a rather bad example because
it uses tables, but look what happens when you resize the window. You can
achieve the same effect with CSS

*Pay* someone to fix the English. It's a real turn-off to some people.
Including me!

Good luck with it!

 

[Henry]

I don't understand what you mean. I'm using a 1600x1200 monitor here. When I
view your top banner full-screen, I get this:

OT.


How you can use 1600x1200?

Visually could be OK but with that resolution the refresh rate is much
slower and at evening it must hurt your eyes enormously.

I have ViewSonic P95f+ 19" CRT and I use it in 1024x768 with 120 Hz of
refresh rate.

I can read stuff almost all day. Is so comfortable for eyes. I've tried
higher res and... no joy.

That's the reason I will no go for LCD, until they will get their
refresh rate 100 Hz or higher.



Cheers...

 

[Timothy]

I am trying to increase the loading time of this page,
http://www.sim64.co.uk/fps.html
I've reduced the quality of the images as low as possible (maybe to low?)
and tried to tidy up the HTML. I think it is still a bit slow though. It
has to have the background, so I cant lose that, but would like the top
image (background) to load quicker. Is there a way to force this to load
first. Comments on page appreciated.
TIA.

Loaded quite fast for me. I put your page through:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

and it came back with this as your speed rating:

Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 47.77 seconds
28.8K 23.99 seconds
33.6K 20.59 seconds
56K 12.43 seconds
ISDN 128K 3.95 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps 0.53 seconds

Seems fast enough for the type of content that your serving.

 

[mbstevens]

Finally a page that adjusts itself to the size of my browser viewport!
Well done.

I have to agree, and it loads quickly. Might be nice, though, to rethink
snippits like these:
__________
<br>
<br>
<br>
__________
<a........
<a.........
<a.......
--for lists of links instead of--
<ul>
<li><a.........
<li><a........
<li><a.......
</ul>
__________
<div class="offer3"><br>
__________
alt=""
__________

 

[T.J.]

I have to agree, and it loads quickly. Might be nice, though, to rethink
snippits like these:
__________
<br>
<br>
<br>
__________
<a........
<a.........
<a.......
--for lists of links instead of--
<ul>
<li><a.........
<li><a........
<li><a.......
</ul>
__________
<div class="offer3"><br>
__________
alt=""
__________

The frequent use of <br>'s was going to be my next question.
I don't know enough about positioning things yet and are using
<br>'s as a work around.
For instance when I have an image in a div with text on the side
of it, if there isn't enough lines of text the image below it jumps up.
I assume I need to learn more about margins and padding?

I had the links in a list originally, but when the text size was increased
it messed the layout up to much.
ideally, I would like it so that if the text dropped on to a 2nd line,
it would align itself with the text above it rather than the list button.
Is this possible without using an image as the button?

I assume {margin-top:5px} in my "offer3" div will eliminate the
need for <div class="offer3"><br>
I will be playing around with that today.

Thank you

 

[SpaceGirl]

OT.


How you can use 1600x1200?

Visually could be OK but with that resolution the refresh rate is much
slower and at evening it must hurt your eyes enormously.

I have ViewSonic P95f+ 19" CRT and I use it in 1024x768 with 120 Hz of
refresh rate.

I can read stuff almost all day. Is so comfortable for eyes. I've tried
higher res and... no joy.

That's the reason I will no go for LCD, until they will get their
refresh rate 100 Hz or higher.



Cheers...

uh. What if he has a 21" display? Or two 19" flat panels and a desktop
split over them

Personally I run at 1280x1024 on my 19" panel on my desktop, but my
15.4" laptop runs at 1600x1200 (with extra large fonts turned on).

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Philip Ronan]

Might be nice, though, to rethink
snippits like these:

[snip]

alt=""

I agree with your other suggestions, but not this one. Removing these might
make the page load marginally faster, but it won't be valid HTML any more.

 

[Henry]

uh. What if he has a 21" display? Or two 19" flat panels and a desktop
split over them

Personally I run at 1280x1024 on my 19" panel on my desktop, but my
15.4" laptop runs at 1600x1200 (with extra large fonts turned on).

The same thing. Higher refresh rate, easier on eyes. Lower is causing a
strain on eyes and after two hours you feel sleepy and you think that
you are tired. You are not. You eyes are tired.

I'm a computer technician and I'm testing LCD screen from time to time.

I have purchased ViewSonic 19" for the same price I would pay for a LCD
screen about a year ago. Every month I'm checking some new LCD screen
for a weekend and unfortunatelly they don't even come closer to my CRT.

Try one day some CRT if you can and crank up refresh rate to max. If
Sony, can get to 120-160. Than you will see the difference.

LCD screen usually are running at 75 Hz.

In daylight, in a bright room, when your pupils are small, it's OK.

At evening is a hell after two hours.

Cheers...

 

[Oli Filth]

The same thing. Higher refresh rate, easier on eyes. Lower is causing a
strain on eyes and after two hours you feel sleepy and you think that
you are tired. You are not. You eyes are tired.

I'm a computer technician and I'm testing LCD screen from time to time.

I have purchased ViewSonic 19" for the same price I would pay for a LCD
screen about a year ago. Every month I'm checking some new LCD screen
for a weekend and unfortunatelly they don't even come closer to my CRT.

Try one day some CRT if you can and crank up refresh rate to max. If
Sony, can get to 120-160. Than you will see the difference.

LCD screen usually are running at 75 Hz.

How I understood it, refresh rate is essentially irrelevant for
solid-state screens, because the individual pixels have a slow,
low-pass-like response time, and hence would remain their status for
some time regardless of refresh, hence no flicker, hence no problem.

This would explain why refresh rate is generally not quoted as a spec
for LCD monitors, and the manuals usually recommend running your
graphics card at 60Hz, even though that would be insanity with a CRT.

Is that wrong?

 

[rf]

How I understood it, refresh rate is essentially irrelevant for
solid-state screens, because the individual pixels have a slow,
low-pass-like response time, and hence would remain their status for
some time regardless of refresh, hence no flicker, hence no problem.

In fact this (the persistance time) is in itself a problem. Designers
strive to bring the persistance time down to something that is usablle. They
have only just barely got there.

The issue is with moving images. A high persistance time causes moving stuff
to blur.

Remember those old black and white (well, black and grey) LCDs. They had a
persistance time of hundreds of milliseconds and were totally unusable for
moving things such as TV images. I know, I tried. I make teleprompters and
we really wanted to use LDCs for the camera displays. Had to wait until the
high speed stuff came out only a few years ago.

Move the mouse cursor on an old LDC and it effectively disappears. The
workaround is, of course, to introduce mouse trails

This would explain why refresh rate is generally not quoted as a spec
for LCD monitors, and the manuals usually recommend running your
graphics card at 60Hz, even though that would be insanity with a CRT.

Is that wrong?

That would be correct.

In addition the eye itself has a persistance of around 20 milliseconds. This
is longer than the 60Hz (16. odd milliseconds) refresh rate of NTSC
television so NTSC TV appears to be almost flicker free. In contrast PAL
which uses 50Hz, or 20 milliseconds, flickers quite noticably, especially
when glanced at out of the corner of the eye. Why does PAL use 50Hz? Well,
because they can get away with it, and it also corresponds to the flavour of
electricity in countries that use PAL.

That said, 60Hz is a good minimum for glass monitors. 75Hz is admirably
adequate. I defy anybody to be able to tell the difference between a 75Hz
refresh and a 120Hz refresh. The eye is phisiologically unable to discern
anything happening in less than 15 or so milliseconds.

60Hz is on the borderline, anything above that is totally flicker free.

Once it *is* flicker free (75Hz) it can't be made *more* flicker free. It's
like being out of beer. When you are out, that's it!

 

[Oli Filth]

In fact this (the persistance time) is in itself a problem. Designers
strive to bring the persistance time down to something that is usablle. They
have only just barely got there.

The issue is with moving images. A high persistance time causes moving stuff
to blur.

Well yes, the response time causes sluggishness, but I wouldn't have
thought that's as much of a concern as actual flicker, as headaches are
concerned.

That would be correct.

Do you mean that what I wrote is correct, or "is that wrong?" is correct?

That said, 60Hz is a good minimum for glass monitors. 75Hz is admirably
adequate. I defy anybody to be able to tell the difference between a 75Hz
refresh and a 120Hz refresh. The eye is phisiologically unable to discern
anything happening in less than 15 or so milliseconds.

60Hz is on the borderline, anything above that is totally flicker free.

I'll tell you now, it makes me feel physically ill (literally) to use a
60Hz CRT for more than about a minute. When I used to have a CRT
monitor, I think I used 85Hz (the highest my card supported). Out of the
corner of my eye (the extremities of the retina are the most sensitive
to movement), I noticed the flicker at 75Hz.

Once it *is* flicker free (75Hz) it can't be made *more* flicker free.

I would argue that with a CRT there's no such thing as truly
flicker-free, it's just a matter of how smooth you are willing to accept
(an analogy would be the rectification of AC mains. The result is never
truly DC, but can only be specified as below a certain level of ripple.
In fact, thinking about it, the analogy is almost perfect).

It's like being out of beer. When you are out, that's it!

In my case, I just "borrow" my house-mate's!

 

[rf]

Do you mean that what I wrote is correct, or "is that wrong?" is correct?

Er, triple negative alert. What you wrote is correct. "Is that wrong?" is to
be answered in the negative.

I'll tell you now, it makes me feel physically ill (literally) to use a
60Hz CRT for more than about a minute. When I used to have a CRT
monitor, I think I used 85Hz (the highest my card supported). Out of the
corner of my eye (the extremities of the retina are the most sensitive
to movement), I noticed the flicker at 75Hz.

<checks monitors/> One of mine is 75Hz. The other two are 60Hz. I look at
these all day, it's my job. I have no problem. In fact I can not see any
flicker at all when looking directly at them. I can just detect some when I
look *past* the 60Hz ones. In fact there is far more flicker due to the
proximity of the monitors to each other, and the resultant interferance (at
15Hz of course).

<opens a random notebook/> It's LDC display is 60Hz, its secondary glass
monitor is 60Hz.

Maybe I'm just used to it, living in a 50Hz country. Even the flouro lights
flicker if you peer at them sideways. I *have* had comments made to me by
north americans at australian TV trade shows about all the flicker
everywhere

In my case, I just "borrow" my house-mate's!

So *that's* where they've all bloody gone! :-(

 

[Henry]

Er, triple negative alert. What you wrote is correct. "Is that wrong?" is to
be answered in the negative.




<checks monitors/> One of mine is 75Hz. The other two are 60Hz. I look at
these all day, it's my job. I have no problem. In fact I can not see any
flicker at all when looking directly at them. I can just detect some when I
look *past* the 60Hz ones. In fact there is far more flicker due to the
proximity of the monitors to each other, and the resultant interferance (at
15Hz of course).

<opens a random notebook/> It's LDC display is 60Hz, its secondary glass
monitor is 60Hz.

Maybe I'm just used to it, living in a 50Hz country. Even the flouro lights
flicker if you peer at them sideways. I *have* had comments made to me by
north americans at australian TV trade shows about all the flicker
everywhere

Maybe because you've never saw better!



Some Sony models are going to 160 Hz.

I can ALWAYS spot higher frequency. Picture at 120 HZ is rock solid.

In a room where I'm are four monitors. LG 17" CRT, ViewSonic 17" (2) and
my loved so much 19" with 120 Hz.

When I'm working on these 17", coming back to 19 is a relieve.

Also, what is important, is the distance from the monitor and it's
evening or day.

In a cinema we have 25 or 30 fps (Hz) the same thing. When you are
sitting close to screen, you may have problems.

The same is with monitors and TV. TV we are watching from few meters and
that's why we have no problems.

Monitors are much closer to eyes and that's where is the problem and the
industry always was striving to achieve as hight refresh rate as possible.

Two reasons.

1. Smoother movement.

2. Strain on eyes.

On TV or in cinema that blur, because of the low frequency is actually
helping to smooth things out and from the distance is even pleasant
cheat, causing us to think that picture is really moving fast. Like on
blurry photo from racing.

On LCD screen is different story and that's why they are talking about
response times (lately 8 ms) but seldom about refresh rate. Lover
response time will force them to rise refresh rate.

So... try some decent monitor at 120 Hz and you will feel the difference.



That's why SONY picture tubes are the most desirable in computer graphics.