nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

  • Thread starter Thread starter Turbguy
  • Start date Start date
T

Turbguy

Guest
Try visiting nfl.com with process explorer running. Note that IE now uses
50%-100% of CPU resources after the page fully loads.

Is your experience the same? What gives with this page??? Too busy with
animations?? What can be done in IE to reduce the demands??
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

"Turbguy" <wkarberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>Try visiting nfl.com with process explorer running. Note that IE now uses
>50%-100% of CPU resources after the page fully loads.

>Is your experience the same? What gives with this page??? Too busy with
>animations?? What can be done in IE to reduce the demands??

IMHO, the page is using lots of Flash and/or Shockwave, enough to
yield those figures. I have no inside information, it's just a
more-or-less educated guess.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:37:26 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>"Turbguy" <wkarberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Try visiting nfl.com with process explorer running. Note that IE now uses
>>50%-100% of CPU resources after the page fully loads.
>
>>Is your experience the same? What gives with this page??? Too busy with
>>animations?? What can be done in IE to reduce the demands??
>
>IMHO, the page is using lots of Flash and/or Shockwave, enough to
>yield those figures. I have no inside information, it's just a
>more-or-less educated guess.

I'm using Opera. With Flash disabled, the site's impact on CPU usage
(AMD K6-2 450MHz) is almost nothing.

If I load up the topmost banners, the usage hovers around 50%. The
"Gamepass" loses me another 10%, while the "Party of Four" flash
consumes all my CPU time.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

Turbguy wrote:

> Try visiting nfl.com with process explorer running. Note that
> IE now uses 50%-100% of CPU resources after the page fully
> loads.

Probably because it's been hacked to deliver trojans and other
malware.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

I know about Opera and the zero current vulnerabilities according to
searching the search box in secunia.com but I just prefer Mozilla Firefox
even though it does have some less critical vulnerabilites. Why do you like
Opera better, Franc Zabkar? I am not likely to change browsers but want to
hear how Opera is better than Mozilla. Please feel free to post here or in
the Browser Wars thread which may be more appropriate. Thanks in advance and
have a nice week.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

This is always a possibility. I may try to go to that site later. Please
fully scan with Spyware Search and Destroy and AVG or Avast Antivirus.
Please post back your results because it may take more drastic measures such
as HiJack This and or CWShredder and let us know how your scans went. Do you
read always in plain text by blocking HTML code, do you surf only to known
sites and/or use a site advisor such as McAfee Site Advisor, etc. Have a
great weekend!
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

Dan wrote:

> This is always a possibility.

Why don't you at least quote a little bit of the message you're
replying to so that we know the context of your reply...
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

Okay, the other 98 Guy said not to quote or top post so maybe I just will do
things my way.

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
> > This is always a possibility.
>
> Why don't you at least quote a little bit of the message you're
> replying to so that we know the context of your reply...
>
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

Dan wrote:

> > Why don't you at least quote a little bit of the message you're
> > replying to so that we know the context of your reply...
>
> Okay, the other 98 Guy said not to quote or top post so ...

He said not to full-quote.

Selective quoting, with bottom posting, is preferred. Do you see why
this is a more readable format?
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:14:00 -0700, Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>I know about Opera and the zero current vulnerabilities according to
>searching the search box in secunia.com but I just prefer Mozilla Firefox
>even though it does have some less critical vulnerabilites. Why do you like
>Opera better, Franc Zabkar? I am not likely to change browsers but want to
>hear how Opera is better than Mozilla. Please feel free to post here or in
>the Browser Wars thread which may be more appropriate. Thanks in advance and
>have a nice week.

I switched to Opera from Netscape many years ago. At that time
Netscape was very unstable, whereas Opera was very light and reliable.
Now that I've become used to it, I'm reluctant to change, even if
there are better browsers. I also consider Opera's very low market
penetration to be a plus, as I expect that would make it less of a
malware target. One feature which I have added via a user JS routine
is the ability to disable flash and other embedded multimedia
annoyances. I'm not sure how you would go about doing the same in
other browsers.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why



"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:p90gg314qe84at58djv38d9qkjmkq54i4o@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:14:00 -0700, Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com>
| put finger to keyboard and composed:
|
| >I know about Opera and the zero current vulnerabilities according to
| >searching the search box in secunia.com but I just prefer Mozilla Firefox
| >even though it does have some less critical vulnerabilites. Why do you
like
| >Opera better, Franc Zabkar? I am not likely to change browsers but want
to
| >hear how Opera is better than Mozilla. Please feel free to post here or
in
| >the Browser Wars thread which may be more appropriate. Thanks in advance
and
| >have a nice week.
|
| I switched to Opera from Netscape many years ago. At that time
| Netscape was very unstable, whereas Opera was very light and reliable.
| Now that I've become used to it, I'm reluctant to change, even if
| there are better browsers. I also consider Opera's very low market
| penetration to be a plus, as I expect that would make it less of a
| malware target. One feature which I have added via a user JS routine
| is the ability to disable flash and other embedded multimedia
| annoyances. I'm not sure how you would go about doing the same in
| other browsers.

Well ,you can't bait us with a script and not tell us what it is ...

|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.


--
MEB
________
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:08:48 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>| I switched to Opera from Netscape many years ago. At that time
>| Netscape was very unstable, whereas Opera was very light and reliable.
>| Now that I've become used to it, I'm reluctant to change, even if
>| there are better browsers. I also consider Opera's very low market
>| penetration to be a plus, as I expect that would make it less of a
>| malware target. One feature which I have added via a user JS routine
>| is the ability to disable flash and other embedded multimedia
>| annoyances. I'm not sure how you would go about doing the same in
>| other browsers.
>
> Well ,you can't bait us with a script and not tell us what it is ...

This is the script I use but it appears to be Opera specific:
http://userjs.org/scripts/general/enhancements/hide-objects

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why



"98 Guy" wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you at least quote a little bit of the message you're
> > > replying to so that we know the context of your reply...
> >
> > Okay, the other 98 Guy said not to quote or top post so ...
>
> He said not to full-quote.
>
> Selective quoting, with bottom posting, is preferred. Do you see why
> this is a more readable format?
>

Actually, I would like some clear guidelines on how people post properly.
 
Re: nfl.com site demand lots of resources, why

Thanks Franc.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:jg2hg3djg6sbvgp5jpt1kfn294864q589l@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:08:48 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
| put finger to keyboard and composed:
|
| >| I switched to Opera from Netscape many years ago. At that time
| >| Netscape was very unstable, whereas Opera was very light and reliable.
| >| Now that I've become used to it, I'm reluctant to change, even if
| >| there are better browsers. I also consider Opera's very low market
| >| penetration to be a plus, as I expect that would make it less of a
| >| malware target. One feature which I have added via a user JS routine
| >| is the ability to disable flash and other embedded multimedia
| >| annoyances. I'm not sure how you would go about doing the same in
| >| other browsers.
| >
| > Well ,you can't bait us with a script and not tell us what it is ...
|
| This is the script I use but it appears to be Opera specific:
| http://userjs.org/scripts/general/enhancements/hide-objects
|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Back
Top