www.webdeveloper.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Could someone with a 56K modem please check this site

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Norwich, England
    Posts
    94

    Could someone with a 56K modem please check this site

    Hello everyone!!
    I've created a site, but I'm being told it takes over a minute for each page to load on a 56K modem. I'm sure it doesn't, (sure could also mean hope to god it doesn't). Trouble is I've got broadband, and no way of checking properly. So if anyone out there has got a 56K modem could you take a look at www.odysseyuk.co.uk/scheidegger and let me know how long the pages take to load and if it's a bother (if it does idea take over a minute).
    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    44
    I'm on a dial up and am currently connected at 41.2Kpbs. It took me 3 minutes 15 seconds to completely load the page. Seems kinda long, but then again I am in the states and I assume your webhost is located in the U.K. since your site is. Hope this helps somewhat.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    4,004
    It took roughly 8 minutes to completely load the page on dial-up, connected at 31.2 Kbps. Though the page was usable after about 6 minutes.
    Thousand different paths
    So many sterile ends
    I chose the Devil's path

    Never shall the sun kiss my face
    And caress me with it's burning light
    For I dwell in the shadows
    And sleep side by side with death

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The United States Site: http://kellyj.t35.com
    Posts
    2,561
    it took me 10 seconds on cable, but my cable is like 3.131 Mbps (400.8 KBps) [b = bits, B = bytes] according to McAfee Internet Speedometer, here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Jerryville, Tejas
    Posts
    11,715
    Originally posted by steelersfan88
    it took me 10 seconds on cable, but my cable is like 3.131 Mbps (400.8 KBps) [b = bits, B = bytes] according to McAfee Internet Speedometer, here.
    You've got a pretty good path to McAfee. I'm running 3Mbps, too, but I'm only getting 1Mbps between here and there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auburn, AL
    Posts
    9,224
    Took me a bit of time, I am running at 3mbit download in a dmz. Server lag is the culprit.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The United States Site: http://kellyj.t35.com
    Posts
    2,561
    IE now is 8 seconds, FF is 4 (does not include flash though, since i don't have the mozilla plugin). yea, i always get a really good path to most sites, i've hit over 4 Mbps before

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,422
    Speed: 24.0 Kbps

    Time: asslong, infuriatingly so: if i were to visit that site for business, you'd have lost mine, you need to cut down on files sizes!!!

    Actual time for full download: roughly 9-10 minutes

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    27
    Hi,

    I'm in Australia on a 256kbps connection and it took about 90 seconds to load. I do like the Flash animation and the lady contained within - sexy, in a Daryl Hannah kind of way :-) However, the effect is lost on the initial loading of the page. Once cached it looks pretty cool but not before.

    HTH
    Dan

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Hermantown, MN
    Posts
    1,777
    The site does seem to take forever to load... I'm on dialup too and I think you can dump the flash lady, nice but not needed.

    Also there are 2 images that are trying to load that just won't finish. Which seems to be the top logo flash movie, I would recheck to see of you can redo that to run smoother.
    Compguy Pete
    The Benevolent Administrator

    No child should have to deal with a Brain Stem Tumor...
    http://www.OneAna.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    A Hole in the Ground
    Posts
    151
    toooo many images man...besides, you really should not use images for navgation...at least that much. But that is just my opinion

    Take a look at my site(link in sig), I did a nav (with a lot of help) that uses lists. Hope this helps...
    Last edited by AnacondaAndy; 04-04-2004 at 02:30 PM.

    One hundred Swedes running thru the weeds being chased by one Norwegian!

    |Under Design - Andy's Personal Website|

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The United States Site: http://kellyj.t35.com
    Posts
    2,561
    and the opinions of many others

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,422
    Yes. And if you're going to use images for navigation, at least don't make them as ugly as those.. No offense, but I don't even like the look of the page, which is inexcusable after 8 minutes of loading,,, And, if you do (please do) switch to lists for the navigation, you can use CSS to put the image in the background so the silvery effect isn't lost.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Norwich, England
    Posts
    94
    Thanks for your replys, I can't believe the page took about 8minutes to load on some computers!!! Still, I'll take everything on board and by the looks of things will probably have to just start again...........oh joy!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Norwich, England
    Posts
    94
    okay, i think that's okay now. according to www.websiteoptimization.com the page now only take 17 seconds on a 56K (I know this is still quite long, but the client asked for 20seconds so we're both happy). Thanks for your feedback everyone.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles