A few days ago when Jez invited us to look at
http://www.nothere.be I clicked onto it and was amazed at how slow it is to
load. Because it uses Flash.
I don't understand why people use Flash programming.
I'm on dialup, and my new house has a connection speed at the time of
these checks of about 33.6 kbps.
"Broadband" as supplied here is not on fibre-optic cable, but copper cable,
and for the extra cost one might get anything from 20 to 100 kbps. Not
worth paying for.
So I decided to run a few checks.
www.nothere.be took 6 minutes 15 seconds for the first image to appear,
and
25 minutes 10 seconds (4,750.706 bytes) for the first 14 out of ?96 to
appear. I spent no more time there.
At about the same time Chris Barker invited us to inspect his flower shots.
Another site using Flash ...
http://mobile.me/
6 minutes 15 seconds until the first image appeared at 650,000 bytes
at 9 minutes 57 seconds they had all showed up at 2,127,056 bytes.
In contrast my"commercial" site (brianswale.com) which uses only html
loaded the front page in 3 minutes 23 (706,000 bytes)
and the next step, the gallery page with lots of thumbnails, in a further 2
minutes. About five and a half minutes for a lot more graphic content.
One of the Zuiko Solstice sites that I host
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/solstice/2004/2004.htm now 6 years
old with an image on the initial main page and 31 thumbnails
took 6 minutes to load them all - 1.3 MB data
Incidentally, the quality of those images is amazingly good by todays digital
standards.
For people on fibre-optic broadband, these differences are probably trivial; I
can't tell. But for me they may make the difference between me looking, or
not looking.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|