No one at this forum lately?

[Robby]

I have 2800 Kbits/sec (350 Kbytes/sec) at home and I still find it too slow.

 

[PWNettle]

50% of internet users are still on dialup. It requires a lot of patience to bother to navigate this place with a 56k modem.

I can believe it since people worldwide use the internet and high speed access probably isnt quite worldwide and it costs more. Id guess that for a lot of users that dialup works fine for their needs. 56k and hitting the forums from Europe is undoubtably slow.

I have 2800 Kbits/sec (350 Kbytes/sec) at home and I still find it too slow.

That seems odd, but perhaps geographic location is a factor for you...or maybe you have a slow PC (unlikely methinks). I mean, you must not be seeing that speed when you actually hit this site.

Paul

 

[Arch4ngel]

Geographic location might be a point... but me and Robby are from Montreal... its not that far... and I dont see slow web site that are hosted in USA (unless they have a high usage and everyone else is using the bandwidth).

Might this be PHP that process information too slowly ? Kinda ironic no ? Forum that talk about .NET using PHP

Dont know if PHP might be in cause...

 

[Robby]

My location should have nothing to do with it, even while Im on VPN its the same thing, my VPN resolves in NJ and/or VA, all other sites fly compared to this one.
I host my own site in AZ and thats an extra couple of thousand miles further and its still lightning fast.

 

[Arch4ngel]

I agree with Robby. Had same kind of experiences...

Questions to admins : Is the PHP script is "lightning fast"(Quoted from Robby) or it lags some times ?

 

[Robby]

One of us miss-understood the other, my site while using asp.net is "lightning fast"
I never used PHP and have no intention to do so.

 

[PWNettle]

Kinda ironic no ? Forum that talk about .NET using PHP

This forum spawned off of the VB6 forums and I always found it funny that both feature MS-oriented programming and use PhP-based forums (that probably run on Linux boxes).

Speaking of the VB6 forums, Im a mod over there and I have never heard of a single complaint about forum performance. Im sure its slow for some folks but there have been no formal complaints or discussions about forum performance that I recall.

*shrug*

Paul

 

[Divil]

Internet connection speed aside, the design of both forums is pretty graphics-intensive. Not everybody wants a ton of graphics and every conceivable option listed in the pages they view. Nor do they want popup menus, inline CSS or gradients.

Some would rather simply read the forum

 

[PWNettle]

Internet connection speed aside, the design of both forums is pretty graphics-intensive.

I would disagree. And graphics get cached and shouldnt be an issue over time. These pages are loaded with CSS and javascript stuff but thats all text. This is a graphically intense site. This is a graphically intense site. This is optical overload. Thats not even counting purely Flash-based attrocities that are pretty much nothing but graphics. The graphics here are fairly static - the ads change occasionally. A lot of more graphically intense sites have a lot more dynamic graphical content that isnt cached. The forum is not pure text, but then few sites are. I think this site is pretty tame graphics-wise.

Not everybody wants a ton of graphics and every conceivable option listed in the pages they view. Nor do they want popup menus, inline CSS or gradients.

True. I think its a matter of opinion. I happen to like a lot of the features like quick access to search, get new and subscriptions. Do I use every feature? Probably not, but something I dont use might be someone elses favorite feature. I like the collapsing sections. There are some things I dont like (ads) but thats just a part of paying the bills (and the ads here arent very obnoxious). I loved the old layout and didnt care for the new layout (after the ownership change) when it first arrived but Ive grown to like the feel and features (and have grown to tolerate the look and name change). Thats just me though.

Over time the VB (and not dotnet) forums have evolved to become more and more complicated (as far as offering more features and (debatable I guess) ease of use) - which has always been well received.

Some would rather simply read the forum

Well, thats what I come here for - to simply read the forum. A lot of the features of the forum make my day to day browsing even easier.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Banjo]

This forum spawned off of the VB6 forums and I always found it funny that both feature MS-oriented programming and use PhP-based forums (that probably run on Linux boxes).

Speaking of the VB6 forums, Im a mod over there and I have never heard of a single complaint about forum performance. Im sure its slow for some folks but there have been no formal complaints or discussions about forum performance that I recall.

*shrug*

Paul

Theres a simple reason for that. There are no MS based forum packages that have comarable feature sets to vBulletin.

 

[Volte]

Funny you should mention that MMORPG.com is "optical overload" -- looks to me like it has less "non-content" (that is, the non-essential borders and stuff) graphics (and it looks much nicer to boot) than this forum.

I really dont care how it is rationalized, but the forum is too graphically intensive for me, and clearly for many others. Plus its ugly. It lacks color (unless I use one of the other skins which just clash completely, given that the aforementioned unnecessary border graphics prevent any headers or borders from being altered color-wise) and has too much dynamic bloat. Am I the only one that preferred the old Lite w/ Blue style from the old forum? :-\

 

[PWNettle]

mmorpg.coms layout is way too busy for me - and all the animations wear on me. But different folks like different styles.

I really dont see how you can say this forum is graphically intensive compared to that.

I liked the previous forum layout too.

I dont really mind this layout - it loads instantly for me at home so the "bloat" doesnt affect me negatively.

As admins cant you design or suggest alternative skins?

but the forum is too graphically intensive for me, and clearly for many others.

It probably wouldnt do much good to do an objective survey, since the style decisions have been made by the forum ownership, but itd be interesting to see what people think. Im not sure that "many others" think the forum is too graphically intensive or bloated - just a handful of people in this thread - some admins in particular. Ive never seen a single similar comment outside of this thread (although I dont read every thread in both forums so its possible there have been comments).

*shrug*

Paul

 

[Robby]

I have never liked black backgrounds until I saw mmorpg.com, I agree with Paul that its busy but I really like the look, and yeah Simon I used Lite w/ Blue from day one.

Paul, do a Save As (complete htm) on this thread, there are 94 images at 169 KB the HTML is 362 KB.
I have a P4 2.6, 1 gig RAM it is a very fast system, just not on this site.

One more thing, the Text-Area is terrible, I dont like the WYSIWYG feature.

 

[PlausiblyDamp]

The main index alone runs to over 160K of text and images (no avatars to slow that down), that has got to be an issue for dialup users however you look at it. Basic maths says that it would take 20+ seconds (assuming full 100% speed on a 56K modem) to download the index page.

Lite w/ Blue was the only style I ever used before the migration - simple, fast and did the job.

 

[Arch4ngel]

PWNettle mentioned earlier that all images would be cached after the fist use. Am I wrong ? The 20sec and more are only for the first access. And I dont think that Avatar in posts could cause some slowdown. Normally... all the text load and after you should see images loading.

Does the cache work here ?
I would like to have to comments from a 56K user who think that this site is NOT cached and is awfully slow to load.

 

[Robby]

Depends on your browser settings, if you select "Every visit to a page" or some of the other options.

 

[ThePentiumGuy]

admins:
is it possible to create a lite skin for this forum? what about something that detects your connection speed and sets the lite skin for the 56kers?

becuase i think the bottom line is clear: this forum is filled with graphics and may (or may not) take quite some time to load,

this could be the reason why many people dont tend to visit this forum lately - but dont quote me on this, its one factor out of many

-Pent

 

[samsmithnz]

I used to come here several times a day, but then I solved all (most) of my .NET questions and Ive spent the last 4 monthes implementing them. Maybe when I have more questions or start my new project in August Ill be back here more.

This site loads far too slow for me too, and I have comcast cable, I guess that probably put me off a little bit too...

 

[PWNettle]

Paul, do a Save As (complete htm) on this thread, there are 94 images at 169 KB the HTML is 362 KB.
I have a P4 2.6, 1 gig RAM it is a very fast system, just not on this site.

Wouldnt most of those images be cached (except the occasional new avatar youd encounter) for typical browsing. I dont know of any good reasons to disable caching of images for a typical user on a typical machine for typical browsing. Im not sure doing a save as on the whole thread is an accurate measure of what you really have to download. So you might suffer the first time you visit or after clearing your cache but in general graphics shouldnt be an issue.

Im not sure that 362k is accurate - I believe its creating some kind of total of the htm, includes, and graphics (although Id like to know how it comes up with that figure since nothing seems to add up). If you either view source and save it as text its smaller. If you change the main .htm file thats created in the save as (complete) to a .txt its also smaller (120k). Granted - the text only version isnt accounting for includes - like the .js and .css files, but even with those (58k in the folder created by save complete) it weighs in at less than ~360k. Still, 180k isnt exactly lightweight.

Im not gonna disagree that the forums here use a lot of CSS, javascript, and a lot of tiny graphics. Im just saying its not a factor for me - the pages load almost instantly. I also think that most robust websites tend to be a bit on the heavier side. I can see 56k users having some problems - but I would imagine that theyd be having similar problems on just about any other site they visit that isnt pure simple text.

I dont see an explanation as to why these pages are extremely fast for me compared to others on cable with good PC specs (like Robby). That is definitely odd. I still contend that it has to be something other than the forum html/graphics/script/css size - otherwise how do you explain that any given forum page, even the largest threads, will load for me in 0-2 seconds but others with similar specs claim theyre painfully slow?

One more thing, the Text-Area is terrible, I dont like the WYSIWYG feature.

Id have no opinion on that since I never use it. I would guess that some folks like it. *shrug* Ive always typed in my markup stuff out of habit, I guess. One can always go into display options and change the WYSIWYG to a simple textbox. Actually, I had the WYSIWYG enabled and since I never use it I just switched to basic textbox...

Paul

 

[Divil]

Caching has never worked quite right on either forum. Though its difficult to notice now I have broadband, when I was on 56k it would be downloading all images on every visit to every page.

I dont see an explanation as to why these pages are extremely fast for me compared to others on cable with good PC specs

Senility?