Normal web page loading time

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobster
  • Start date Start date
B

bobster

Guest
I have a ten year old computer with the following characteristics:

300 MHz Intel P11 CPU
320 megs ram
Win 98SE
4 MHz cable connection
Host file active
SpywareBlaster
AdAware
ie-spyad
ZoneAlarm
AVAST! antivirus

And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of the protection
apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag regularly.

My question/problem:

My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a high content URL
like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or eBay, it seems to take typically as
much as 30 seconds to load completely - sometimes as much as one minute.
While this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load in a
second or two..

Other info:
I have not re-loaded Windows from my CD for several years

I have no viruses according to AVAST!

AdAware/SpywareBlaster/Host file/ie-spyad shows no spyware

Rarely get a freeze or BSOD

I have several apps -- DNSKong, eDexter, TClockEx, Tweak UI, which load on
boot but when I disable them and re-boot, there is no effect on computer
speed. Same for the AVAST! and ZA

I have temporarily removed most everything from my startup menu except the
minimum -- tray and iexplore, with no improvement in page loading speed
noted.

Is the page loading speed I am currently experiencing the best I can expect
of a P11 300MHz Win 98SE machine? If not, what can I do to bring it back to
the previous fast performance?

Thanx in advance
 
Re: Normal web page loading time


"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:eOA8dG5NIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a ten year old computer with the following characteristics:
>
> 300 MHz Intel P11 CPU
> 320 megs ram
> Win 98SE
> 4 MHz cable connection
> Host file active
> SpywareBlaster
> AdAware
> ie-spyad
> ZoneAlarm
> AVAST! antivirus
>
> And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of the protection
> apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag regularly.
>
> My question/problem:
>
> My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a high content
URL
> like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or eBay, it seems to take typically as
> much as 30 seconds to load completely - sometimes as much as one minute.
> While this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load in a
> second or two..
>
> Other info:
> I have not re-loaded Windows from my CD for several years
>
> I have no viruses according to AVAST!
>
> AdAware/SpywareBlaster/Host file/ie-spyad shows no spyware
>
> Rarely get a freeze or BSOD
>
> I have several apps -- DNSKong, eDexter, TClockEx, Tweak UI, which load on
> boot but when I disable them and re-boot, there is no effect on computer
> speed. Same for the AVAST! and ZA
>
> I have temporarily removed most everything from my startup menu except the
> minimum -- tray and iexplore, with no improvement in page loading speed
> noted.
>
> Is the page loading speed I am currently experiencing the best I can
expect
> of a P11 300MHz Win 98SE machine? If not, what can I do to bring it back
to
> the previous fast performance?
>
> Thanx in advance
>
>
>

Control Panel

Internet Options

Delete Temporary Files
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

Thanks for the suggestion, philo. I empty my temporary internet files
daily. Also forgot to mention that my Win98SE and IE6 are updated to the
latest fixes available from Windows Update

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:eTZfnK5NIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:eOA8dG5NIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a ten year old computer with the following characteristics:
>
> 300 MHz Intel P11 CPU
> 320 megs ram
> Win 98SE
> 4 MHz cable connection
> Host file active
> SpywareBlaster
> AdAware
> ie-spyad
> ZoneAlarm
> AVAST! antivirus
>
> And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of the protection
> apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag regularly.
>
> My question/problem:
>
> My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a high content
URL
> like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or eBay, it seems to take typically as
> much as 30 seconds to load completely - sometimes as much as one minute.
> While this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load in a
> second or two..
>
> Other info:
> I have not re-loaded Windows from my CD for several years
>
> I have no viruses according to AVAST!
>
> AdAware/SpywareBlaster/Host file/ie-spyad shows no spyware
>
> Rarely get a freeze or BSOD
>
> I have several apps -- DNSKong, eDexter, TClockEx, Tweak UI, which load on
> boot but when I disable them and re-boot, there is no effect on computer
> speed. Same for the AVAST! and ZA
>
> I have temporarily removed most everything from my startup menu except the
> minimum -- tray and iexplore, with no improvement in page loading speed
> noted.
>
> Is the page loading speed I am currently experiencing the best I can
expect
> of a P11 300MHz Win 98SE machine? If not, what can I do to bring it back
to
> the previous fast performance?
>
> Thanx in advance
>
>
>

Control Panel

Internet Options

Delete Temporary Files
 
Re: Normal web page loading time


"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:%23Eej3T5NIHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the suggestion, philo. I empty my temporary internet files
> daily. Also forgot to mention that my Win98SE and IE6 are updated to the
> latest fixes available from Windows Update


I use this from time to time

http://www.ccleaner.com/

maybe it will cleanup what all the other stuff might have missed
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:eOA8dG5NIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> I have a ten year old computer with the following
> characteristics:
>
> 300 MHz Intel P11 CPU

There were no 300MHz PII's ten years ago. My computer is 10
years and 2 months old and it's a 166MHz PI-MMX.

> 320 megs ram
> Win 98SE

Nor was there win98 (let alone SE) in 1997 :-)

> ie-spyad

What the hell is that?

> ZoneAlarm
> AVAST! antivirus
>
> And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of
> the protection apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag
> regularly.
>
> My question/problem:
>
> My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a
> high content URL like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or
> eBay, it seems to take typically as much as 30 seconds to
> load completely - sometimes as much as one minute. While
> this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load
> in a second or two..

Delaying temp files (and cookies), not to mention NEVER USING
THE MOST PROBLEMATIC PROGRAM EVER WRITTEN - MSIE/OE - is always
a good idea.

But I think it's a little more complicated.

As internet (and computer) technology has developed (or bloated,
if you prefer), people have been making their web pages more and
more complicated. For a while you got awards if you managed to
fit 25 frames on the homepage. Now one would think there is an
award for the stupidest, longest and most boring and pointless
"flash intro" or the amount of java pop-ups and other garbage
you can stuff into your page.
Save one of those long-loading pages and open it in a real file
viewer (like EDXOR or something). It is UNBELIEVABLE what you'll
find there...

A 300MHz machine (let alone MY 166MHz with Win95B) simply cannot
handle some of these new-fangled pages. I can **not** for
instance load an /average/ "MySpace" page at all - a minor
blessing, actually. (All those stupid "Thanks for the ADD!"s
which seem to be little more than a competition for how big an
animated GIF you can make without crashing the entire internet,
etc. are just ridiculous.)

Get rid of IE/OE (www.litepc.com) or at least NEVER use it.

Get OffByOne (BION, www.offbyone.com) and Opera 7.x.

Delete the profile\cache4 subdirectory after each Opera session.

Ob1 doesn't have a cache, and has one cookies file, HPSW.CKI,
which you can delete. It is not always in the Ob1 directory, it
will be found in whatever directory you "start" OffByOne "from",
e.g. if you click on a link in a newsgroup post, the cookies
file will be in your newsreader's root directory, along with
whatever pages/contents you save.

Ob1 does not RECOGNIZE java, scripts or flash, which I consider
a major advantage. It is therefore 100% immune to web malware.
It is also fast as hell. You will NOT see ALL of the brilliant
artistic statements by pimply computer and art dropouts which
some refer to as "web design". That is ALSO a major advantage.

Ob1 does SSL encryption although most pages that use it also
require javascript - I use Opera for those.

See what happens and let us know.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time


<snip>
>
> Ob1 doesn't have a cache, and has one cookies file, HPSW.CKI,
> which you can delete. It is not always in the Ob1 directory, it
> will be found in whatever directory you "start" OffByOne "from",
> e.g. if you click on a link in a newsgroup post, the cookies
> file will be in your newsreader's root directory, along with
> whatever pages/contents you save.
>
> Ob1 does not RECOGNIZE java, scripts or flash, which I consider
> a major advantage. It is therefore 100% immune to web malware.
> It is also fast as hell. You will NOT see ALL of the brilliant
> artistic statements by pimply computer and art dropouts which
> some refer to as "web design". That is ALSO a major advantage.
>
> Ob1 does SSL encryption although most pages that use it also
> require javascript - I use Opera for those.
>
> See what happens and let us know.
>


Though there may be some web pages that Off-by-one cannot fully render...
it is one hell of an amazing browser.
It's small enough to transfer to another machine on a single floppy!!!!
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

Thanks, thanatoid for the detailed reply.


Sorry, but I fudged a bit when I said my computer was 10 years old. It is
only 9.77 years old. I bought it on Feb 27, 1998 from the now-deceased
company, Qantex. At 300MHz, it was a top of the line "screamer". It came
with Windows 95 which I replaced with Windows 98 on the first day of its
availability and subsequently upgraded it to SE.

I believe your comment about software bloat is probably the root of my
problem. With 2-4 gig processors being the norm, there isn't much incentive
to write efficient software since the current processors can handle bloat
pretty well. Not so for machines with ancient processors like yours and
mine.

As for using IE/OE, I have used them both, updated at every opportunity, for
the 9.77 years that I have had my computer and have never had a virus or any
significant spyware problems. As I said, I use a lot of protection and keep
it updated.

As for browsers like Firefox or Opera, I have tried them both and always
returned to IE because I like its features, am comfortable with it and have
never experienced the problems that the ABM crowd complains of. I admit
that I am not a power user but when I have tried various so-called "lite"
browsers, I found them wanting in features. Although I was at first
enthralled with the tabbed browsing of Firefox and Opera, after awhile I
realized that for me, at least, it was a not particularly useful gimmick.

After all of the above comments, I am still looking for a ways to get back
some of the speed I once had (with my current configuration and apps I might
add) so any additional suggestions will be appreciated.
===============================================================
"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99FDB3FEF9752thanexit@66.250.146.158...
"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:eOA8dG5NIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> I have a ten year old computer with the following
> characteristics:
>
> 300 MHz Intel P11 CPU

There were no 300MHz PII's ten years ago. My computer is 10
years and 2 months old and it's a 166MHz PI-MMX.

> 320 megs ram
> Win 98SE

Nor was there win98 (let alone SE) in 1997 :-)

> ie-spyad

What the hell is that?

> ZoneAlarm
> AVAST! antivirus
>
> And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of
> the protection apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag
> regularly.
>
> My question/problem:
>
> My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a
> high content URL like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or
> eBay, it seems to take typically as much as 30 seconds to
> load completely - sometimes as much as one minute. While
> this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load
> in a second or two..

Delaying temp files (and cookies), not to mention NEVER USING
THE MOST PROBLEMATIC PROGRAM EVER WRITTEN - MSIE/OE - is always
a good idea.

But I think it's a little more complicated.

As internet (and computer) technology has developed (or bloated,
if you prefer), people have been making their web pages more and
more complicated. For a while you got awards if you managed to
fit 25 frames on the homepage. Now one would think there is an
award for the stupidest, longest and most boring and pointless
"flash intro" or the amount of java pop-ups and other garbage
you can stuff into your page.
Save one of those long-loading pages and open it in a real file
viewer (like EDXOR or something). It is UNBELIEVABLE what you'll
find there...

A 300MHz machine (let alone MY 166MHz with Win95B) simply cannot
handle some of these new-fangled pages. I can **not** for
instance load an /average/ "MySpace" page at all - a minor
blessing, actually. (All those stupid "Thanks for the ADD!"s
which seem to be little more than a competition for how big an
animated GIF you can make without crashing the entire internet,
etc. are just ridiculous.)

Get rid of IE/OE (www.litepc.com) or at least NEVER use it.

Get OffByOne (BION, www.offbyone.com) and Opera 7.x.

Delete the profile\cache4 subdirectory after each Opera session.

Ob1 doesn't have a cache, and has one cookies file, HPSW.CKI,
which you can delete. It is not always in the Ob1 directory, it
will be found in whatever directory you "start" OffByOne "from",
e.g. if you click on a link in a newsgroup post, the cookies
file will be in your newsreader's root directory, along with
whatever pages/contents you save.

Ob1 does not RECOGNIZE java, scripts or flash, which I consider
a major advantage. It is therefore 100% immune to web malware.
It is also fast as hell. You will NOT see ALL of the brilliant
artistic statements by pimply computer and art dropouts which
some refer to as "web design". That is ALSO a major advantage.

Ob1 does SSL encryption although most pages that use it also
require javascript - I use Opera for those.

See what happens and let us know.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time



Okay, whether you agree or not, here's what's going on with web developers
[since I happen to receive a dozen or so publications]:

Most have now upgraded their designs for IE 7 capabilities, new JAVA and
scripting, and IE 6 updates which are NOT officially available to
9X/unsupported systems. To achieve those aspects one MUST be using a browser
like FF or Opera [or suffer through determining and testing what unofficial
files you can safely run for IE 6 in 9X]. Or using something like offbyone.
In addition, as posted by others, the flash, advanced scripting, SSL
changes, massive amounts of ActiveX and JAVA, IP changes, and other aspects
now being used on sites which like those aspects or require them, you really
can't expect to continue to use IE 6, it is extremely outdated.
In conjunction with your older system and its slow PROCESSOR speed, which
has to run all that crap in addition to the normal system functions:
Remember you are downloading the stuff off the net first, caching the files,
opening, virus checking, then running the scripts and JAVA while you are
still downloading other html, scripts, and JAVA for the rest of the page and
generally a few off site advertisements as well, meanwhile your system is
processing application requests, writing files, moving files, processing IP
code, handling device requests, 'yadayada', and doing the standard
non-Internet system functions. So you are regretfully at the end of such use
[high content / scripting / JAVA / Flash / etc. pages], UNLESS you make an
effort to use a different browser and reduce some of your running tasks
[none that protect you though].
Would you expect to be able to run Office, PhotoShop, OmniPage, and a
couple other programs at the same time with your computer?
Monitoring what's going on in your system while you're connecting to one of
these pages might be extremely enlightening...

For instance the old MSN used 3 or 4 scripts, MSN LIVE uses 12 in addition
to the four or so for secured login, which is also slow due to changes made
therein [takes me at least two attempts to login]. Hotmail used 2, LIVE mail
uses 4 additional just for the limited web version {I think} not the full
blown LIVE MAIL. Anyone monitored that yet?

Having said that, perhaps some speed can be recovered.
So what does msinfo say you have running, how much leftover/free resources
do you have with everything running?
Have you run any diagnostics yet?

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
news:O3u1ru5NIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

>
> <snip>
>>
>> Ob1 doesn't have a cache, and has one cookies file,
>> HPSW.CKI, which you can delete. It is not always in the
>> Ob1 directory, it will be found in whatever directory you
>> "start" OffByOne "from", e.g. if you click on a link in a
>> newsgroup post, the cookies file will be in your
>> newsreader's root directory, along with whatever
>> pages/contents you save.
>>
>> Ob1 does not RECOGNIZE java, scripts or flash, which I
>> consider a major advantage. It is therefore 100% immune to
>> web malware. It is also fast as hell. You will NOT see ALL
>> of the brilliant artistic statements by pimply computer
>> and art dropouts which some refer to as "web design". That
>> is ALSO a major advantage.
>>
>> Ob1 does SSL encryption although most pages that use it
>> also require javascript - I use Opera for those.
>>
>> See what happens and let us know.
>>
>
>
> Though there may be some web pages that Off-by-one cannot
> fully render... it is one hell of an amazing browser.
> It's small enough to transfer to another machine on a
> single floppy!!!!

Preaching to the converted ;-) but yes, it is an astounding
little browser. Nice to meet someone else who has seen the Ob1
light.

Don't know if you have the latest version (meaning about a year
and half ago or smth) but it has tabs and png images support.
Still no FTP, but downloads everything else just great. Press
Win-X to see exactly how many bytes you've dl'd. (Or did you
already know that?)

Regards
t.

P.S.
If you like Ob1 may I suggest this one for mail: nPop. Under
200KB of Japanese genius at work. There is an English-speaking
(which the author is not) support group.

Does *not* do web-mail and also largely immune to most garbage.
--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:##J7M65NIHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> Thanks, thanatoid for the detailed reply.

My pleasure.

> Sorry, but I fudged a bit when I said my computer was 10
> years old. It is only 9.77 years old. I bought it on Feb
> 27, 1998 from the now-deceased company, Qantex.

I'm just an anal-retentive so I HAD to correct your .33 years
inaccuracy :-)

WHERE have all the good computer makers gone? Oh where oh where
(to the tune of whatever it's called...)

> At 300MHz,
> it was a top of the line "screamer". It came with Windows
> 95 which I replaced with Windows 98 on the first day of its
> availability and subsequently upgraded it to SE.
>
> I believe your comment about software bloat is probably the
> root of my problem. With 2-4 gig processors being the
> norm, there isn't much incentive to write efficient
> software since the current processors can handle bloat
> pretty well. Not so for machines with ancient processors
> like yours and mine.
>
> As for using IE/OE, I have used them both, updated at every
> opportunity, for the 9.77 years that I have had my computer
> and have never had a virus or any significant spyware
> problems. As I said, I use a lot of protection and keep
> it updated.
>
> As for browsers like Firefox or Opera, I have tried them
> both and always returned to IE because I like its features,
> am comfortable with it and have never experienced the
> problems that the ABM crowd complains of. I admit that I
> am not a power user but when I have tried various so-called
> "lite" browsers, I found them wanting in features.

Ob1 IS /limited/, but I believe in content not eye candy.

> Although I was at first enthralled with the tabbed browsing
> of Firefox and Opera, after awhile I realized that for me,
> at least, it was a not particularly useful gimmick.

I agree 100%. Opera has always had tabs, and the latest Ob1 has
tabs, but I always just open another window. Ob1 especially is
so small even on MY 166 (96MB RAM) I can run up to 10 instances
as long as the pages are not huge.

> After all of the above comments, I am still looking for a
> ways to get back some of the speed I once had (with my
> current configuration and apps I might add) so any
> additional suggestions will be appreciated.

Try Ob1 just for general browsing (it's like a 1.5 MB DL). When
you find a page it will not handle properly or at all (there ARE
some, especially those pesky all-java or flash intro ones), or
one that looks like it actually MAY have some "eye candy" worth
seeing (doubtful but /possible/, use IE to visit. Ob1 is fast as
hell, as previously mentioned.

<SNIP>

--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:#7sc406NIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

> For instance the old MSN used 3 or 4 scripts, MSN LIVE
> uses 12 in addition
> to the four or so for secured login, which is also slow due
> to changes made therein [takes me at least two attempts to
> login]. Hotmail used 2, LIVE mail uses 4 additional just
> for the limited web version {I think} not the full blown
> LIVE MAIL. Anyone monitored that yet?

I'm neither enough of tech guy nor do I care enough to "monitor"
but I find this info interesting, thanks.

Old hotmail was bad enough (remember how nice it was BEFORE MS
bought it? No Java, scripts, popups, no NUTHIN! Just the mail!),
but Live is infuriating. I always log in on the first attempt
(strange, your computer HAS to be considerably "better" than
mine - see "thanatoid's computer is 10 years old today from 2
months ago or so), but it is slow and annoying as hell and while
it (oh so helpfully) runs the "legacy" version - and suggests I
upgrade to the new IE *or* Firefox (?!?!?) - it displays badly,
e.g. I can not see how many messages in the inbox, just the
first "(", etc. etc. MUCH slower to change between boxes and
folders too, etc. Sigh.

Oh well, I only check my two throwaway accounts often enough not
to get cancelled... I have a real pop e-mail account which I pay
$15 a year for. WELL worth it.

At least they have added a log-out function, although of course
it does not end there, you have to click on 1 or 2 more pages to
/fully/ log out. So I just shutdown Opera - like I did BEFORE
the log-out option appeared.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time



> >
> >
> > Though there may be some web pages that Off-by-one cannot
> > fully render... it is one hell of an amazing browser.
> > It's small enough to transfer to another machine on a
> > single floppy!!!!
>
> Preaching to the converted ;-) but yes, it is an astounding
> little browser. Nice to meet someone else who has seen the Ob1
> light.
>
> Don't know if you have the latest version (meaning about a year
> and half ago or smth) but it has tabs and png images support.
> Still no FTP, but downloads everything else just great. Press
> Win-X to see exactly how many bytes you've dl'd. (Or did you
> already know that?)
>
> Regards
> t.
>
> P.S.
> If you like Ob1 may I suggest this one for mail: nPop. Under
> 200KB of Japanese genius at work. There is an English-speaking
> (which the author is not) support group.
>
> Does *not* do web-mail and also largely immune to most garbage.


I'll have to look at nPop
and also the newest OB1

I built a little experimental computer. Wanted to see what I could get with
absolute minimum hardware.

It's a 386 40mhz AMD cpu with 16 megs of RAM running win95.

I xcopied a pared down installation onto a 40 meg drive. Yes , just 40
megs.

I even went so far as to compress executable files using the UPX utility.

I think I got the size of OffBy1 down to about 600k or so???

Anyway...the machine runs quite well...and had been using it in my workshop
for a while
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

Toid,

I downloaded offbyone and played around with it for several hours last night
and again today. Qualitatively speaking, it doesn't seem to load web pages
much faster than my IE6 and while the basic content is there, the
presentation is pretty minimal. I have looked very hard for reasons to use
it and am having a tough time finding any. Yes, offbyone may be safer than
IE6 but as I have said, I've used various forms of IE for almost ten years
and have never had a problem with security. That's probably because I use
lots of protection and have always updated it with every available fix.

I am keeping offbyone on my computer and will continue to play with it. I
find the tab browsing almost unusable compared to Opera or Firefox, both of
which are pretty much set- it- and- forget- it functions i.e., when one
reboots, the tab list and its order return just as you left them. Maybe I
just haven't yet discovered how to do that with offbyone. Anyway, tabbed
browsing is, IMHO, more of a gimmick than a useful function for users like
me.

I guess my bottom line is that I don't find much down-side to using IE6 and
very little up-side to using offbyone or for that matter, Firefox or Opera.
And, I guess there is probably no way I can significantly improve my page
load times short of going to an XP or Vista/IE7 2-3gig machine. After
nearly ten years with this old clunker, I probably should bite the bullet
and do it.

Anyway, its been fun. Thanks for the many interesting suggestions from you
and others on this thread.

=================================================================
"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99FDB3FEF9752thanexit@66.250.146.158...
"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:eOA8dG5NIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> I have a ten year old computer with the following
> characteristics:
>
> 300 MHz Intel P11 CPU

There were no 300MHz PII's ten years ago. My computer is 10
years and 2 months old and it's a 166MHz PI-MMX.

> 320 megs ram
> Win 98SE

Nor was there win98 (let alone SE) in 1997 :-)

> ie-spyad

What the hell is that?

> ZoneAlarm
> AVAST! antivirus
>
> And many other apps not on my startup list. I keep all of
> the protection apps up to date. I scan disk and defrag
> regularly.
>
> My question/problem:
>
> My computer seems to be getting slower. When I click on a
> high content URL like MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post ,Yahoo! or
> eBay, it seems to take typically as much as 30 seconds to
> load completely - sometimes as much as one minute. While
> this is not a huge problem, time was when a page would load
> in a second or two..

Delaying temp files (and cookies), not to mention NEVER USING
THE MOST PROBLEMATIC PROGRAM EVER WRITTEN - MSIE/OE - is always
a good idea.

But I think it's a little more complicated.

As internet (and computer) technology has developed (or bloated,
if you prefer), people have been making their web pages more and
more complicated. For a while you got awards if you managed to
fit 25 frames on the homepage. Now one would think there is an
award for the stupidest, longest and most boring and pointless
"flash intro" or the amount of java pop-ups and other garbage
you can stuff into your page.
Save one of those long-loading pages and open it in a real file
viewer (like EDXOR or something). It is UNBELIEVABLE what you'll
find there...

A 300MHz machine (let alone MY 166MHz with Win95B) simply cannot
handle some of these new-fangled pages. I can **not** for
instance load an /average/ "MySpace" page at all - a minor
blessing, actually. (All those stupid "Thanks for the ADD!"s
which seem to be little more than a competition for how big an
animated GIF you can make without crashing the entire internet,
etc. are just ridiculous.)

Get rid of IE/OE (www.litepc.com) or at least NEVER use it.

Get OffByOne (BION, www.offbyone.com) and Opera 7.x.

Delete the profile\cache4 subdirectory after each Opera session.

Ob1 doesn't have a cache, and has one cookies file, HPSW.CKI,
which you can delete. It is not always in the Ob1 directory, it
will be found in whatever directory you "start" OffByOne "from",
e.g. if you click on a link in a newsgroup post, the cookies
file will be in your newsreader's root directory, along with
whatever pages/contents you save.

Ob1 does not RECOGNIZE java, scripts or flash, which I consider
a major advantage. It is therefore 100% immune to web malware.
It is also fast as hell. You will NOT see ALL of the brilliant
artistic statements by pimply computer and art dropouts which
some refer to as "web design". That is ALSO a major advantage.

Ob1 does SSL encryption although most pages that use it also
require javascript - I use Opera for those.

See what happens and let us know.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

<snip>


>
> I guess my bottom line is that I don't find much down-side to using IE6
and
> very little up-side to using offbyone or for that matter, Firefox or
Opera.
> And, I guess there is probably no way I can significantly improve my page
> load times short of going to an XP or Vista/IE7 2-3gig machine. After
> nearly ten years with this old clunker, I probably should bite the bullet
> and do it.
>
> Anyway, its been fun. Thanks for the many interesting suggestions from
you
> and others on this thread.



If you get a new machine...look for one with XP

They still have not gotten the bugs out of Vista


BTW: Your present machine would run Win2k fairly well...
though it would not hurt to put in a 450mhz cpu
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:epqNZbGOIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> Toid,
>
> I downloaded offbyone and played around with it for several
> hours last night and again today. Qualitatively speaking,
> it doesn't seem to load web pages much faster than my IE6

That's hard to believe but possible. I *think* you said you had
a BB connection? That may be a significant factor.

> and while the basic content is there, the presentation is
> pretty minimal.

I consider that an advantage. Eye candy is for people who would
just allow themselves to get fat from real candy if they weren't
so superficial.

> I have looked very hard for reasons to use
> it and am having a tough time finding any. Yes, offbyone
> may be safer than IE6 but as I have said, I've used various
> forms of IE for almost ten years and have never had a
> problem with security. That's probably because I use lots
> of protection and have always updated it with every
> available fix.

With Ob1 you NEVER have to DL/install ANY security updates etc.
It's there, it works, it's 100% safe. That's what I like.

Before I discovered Ob1 I used a gizmo called "proxomitron". Ob1
pretty much has it all built-in, by omission!

> I am keeping offbyone on my computer and will continue to
> play with it. I find the tab browsing almost unusable
> compared to Opera or Firefox, both of which are pretty much
> set- it- and- forget- it functions i.e., when one reboots,
> the tab list and its order return just as you left them.
> Maybe I just haven't yet discovered how to do that with
> offbyone. Anyway, tabbed browsing is, IMHO, more of a
> gimmick than a useful function for users like me.

I never use tabs. Stupid. I just run another instance of the
browser.
In fact I almost (I actually MAY have, I can't remember at the
moment) went back to the previous version because the tabs
option just complicated things. (The less options on the menus,
the better!)

> I guess my bottom line is that I don't find much down-side
> to using IE6 and very little up-side to using offbyone or
> for that matter, Firefox or Opera. And, I guess there is
> probably no way I can significantly improve my page load
> times short of going to an XP or Vista/IE7 2-3gig machine.
> After nearly ten years with this old clunker, I probably
> should bite the bullet and do it.

Nooooooooooooooooooo! Noooooooo!
Use it until it is dead for good! Fight against the
brainwashing!

> Anyway, its been fun. Thanks for the many interesting
> suggestions from you and others on this thread.

My pleasure.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
The only cure for brilliance is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time


thanatoid, you said,

"Nooooooooooooooooooo! Noooooooo!
Use it until it is dead for good! Fight against the
brainwashing!"

Although from time-to-time, I have considered getting a new computer but I
always seem to back away as I am so comfortable with 98SE; and my old
hardware seems to be working just fine. Also I doubt that 2000, XP, and
Vista have drivers for my old reliable printer and scanner. Same for many
of my old apps.

I don't see much downside in staying with what I have and no great upside to
upgrading. Living with slow loading web pages is a small price to pay for
the reliable, stable performance that I get from this old 98SE machine.
Sorta like my wife of 58 -- oops -- 57.54 years ;-).

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99FF92FEA94C9thanexit@66.250.146.158...
"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:epqNZbGOIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> Toid,
>
> I downloaded offbyone and played around with it for several
> hours last night and again today. Qualitatively speaking,
> it doesn't seem to load web pages much faster than my IE6

That's hard to believe but possible. I *think* you said you had
a BB connection? That may be a significant factor.

> and while the basic content is there, the presentation is
> pretty minimal.

I consider that an advantage. Eye candy is for people who would
just allow themselves to get fat from real candy if they weren't
so superficial.

> I have looked very hard for reasons to use
> it and am having a tough time finding any. Yes, offbyone
> may be safer than IE6 but as I have said, I've used various
> forms of IE for almost ten years and have never had a
> problem with security. That's probably because I use lots
> of protection and have always updated it with every
> available fix.

With Ob1 you NEVER have to DL/install ANY security updates etc.
It's there, it works, it's 100% safe. That's what I like.

Before I discovered Ob1 I used a gizmo called "proxomitron". Ob1
pretty much has it all built-in, by omission!

> I am keeping offbyone on my computer and will continue to
> play with it. I find the tab browsing almost unusable
> compared to Opera or Firefox, both of which are pretty much
> set- it- and- forget- it functions i.e., when one reboots,
> the tab list and its order return just as you left them.
> Maybe I just haven't yet discovered how to do that with
> offbyone. Anyway, tabbed browsing is, IMHO, more of a
> gimmick than a useful function for users like me.

I never use tabs. Stupid. I just run another instance of the
browser.
In fact I almost (I actually MAY have, I can't remember at the
moment) went back to the previous version because the tabs
option just complicated things. (The less options on the menus,
the better!)

> I guess my bottom line is that I don't find much down-side
> to using IE6 and very little up-side to using offbyone or
> for that matter, Firefox or Opera. And, I guess there is
> probably no way I can significantly improve my page load
> times short of going to an XP or Vista/IE7 2-3gig machine.
> After nearly ten years with this old clunker, I probably
> should bite the bullet and do it.

Nooooooooooooooooooo! Noooooooo!
Use it until it is dead for good! Fight against the
brainwashing!

> Anyway, its been fun. Thanks for the many interesting
> suggestions from you and others on this thread.

My pleasure.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
The only cure for brilliance is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}
 
Re: Normal web page loading time

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in
news:uftBuGSOIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

>
> thanatoid, you said,
>
> "Nooooooooooooooooooo! Noooooooo!
> Use it until it is dead for good! Fight against the
> brainwashing!"
>
> Although from time-to-time, I have considered getting a new
> computer but I always seem to back away as I am so
> comfortable with 98SE; and my old hardware seems to be
> working just fine. Also I doubt that 2000, XP, and Vista
> have drivers for my old reliable printer and scanner. Same
> for many of my old apps.

Agreed 100%. Anyway, the older the better, and just as fast,
since the new "versions" require 20x the resources and are
bloated hogs - and add no important funtionality.

> I don't see much downside in staying with what I have and
> no great upside to upgrading. Living with slow loading web
> pages is a small price to pay for the reliable, stable
> performance that I get from this old 98SE machine. Sorta
> like my wife of 58 -- oops -- 57.54 years ;-).

Hee hee.

While I have never found a woman *I* liked who could endure /me/
for longer than a few days, I get along with music quite well. I
have a second machine, a 2GHz on which I run 98SE Lite and
pretty much the only reason I bought it is because I finally got
tired of THIS machine taking 4 hours to convert a 3 minute mp3
or ogg to wav or vice-versa, etc. Aside from the music programs,
it runs almost exactly the same apps as this one.

This is a 166MHz with 95B. Does everything I want as fast as can
be reasonably required except the music conversion and editing.
The other machine does not have an internet connection and never
will, at least for now ;-)
 

Similar threads

S
Web browser control freezing when loading long page
Replies
0
Views
133
Sudip_inn
S
V
HTTP response 503 Service Unavailable from IIS: one common generic cause
Replies
0
Views
339
Viorel-Alexandru
V
Q
Issues Hosting ASP.Core 2.2 in ISS (inprocess)
Replies
0
Views
261
Q-tec
Q
EDN Admin
Problems waiting for web browser control to finish loading page
Replies
0
Views
115
EDN Admin
EDN Admin
AWS
Samsung Infuse 4G review
Replies
0
Views
286
AWS
AWS
Back
Top