Ricsi,
Apparently NetScape lies to the user the same way that IE does. I just
tested the site, and it took Arachne 1:30 to download, handle embedded
graphics and write my virtual screen.
Now I'm going to clear *my* cache and go to that site again ...
Back. The site uses 63,926 bytes of graphics, and the html code is
33,961 bytes [I saved as a file so I could get accurate size].
According to Arachne, I downloaded the site and got everything done, in
44 seconds the second time. [browser speed is often unimportant when
severs are slow or very fast]
But back to why I wanted to know the 'size' of the page. 97,887 bytes
mulitplied by 9 is 880,983 bits. Divide by 19 and that gives a speed of
46,368 bps with no 'processing time' required at all.
And that does *not* take into account the bytes tossed upstream via
cookies that the site demands for every file!
I don't think that is very likely.
Also, MICHAEL I'VE FOUND A BUG! For some reason, something is
interferring with the screen write on the Arachne "timer." The page
that took 44 sec to load then took 1:03 to reload from cache? I don't
think so. When I went back to the page another time, it took 3 seconds
to load according to the timer, but another time it took 3:30 to load...
NOT. More on this -- if the cache is cleared each time, the times shown
by Arachne are pretty accurate compared to my old thumb and the
stopwatch. But if you go to mail, then back to the page, then reload or
whatever ... the times shown on the bottom line are messed up.
So right now using the timer on Arachne to make any comparisons can't be
fair. Anyone wanting to make comparisons in speed of d/l and
presentation will have to do it the old fashioned way -- with a stop
watch.
Having said that, I found my handy-dandy free gift watch/stopwatch/alarm
clock amid my desk clutter and went back to time again. With relatively
long delays waiting for the foreign server to respond [you know, the
yellow swirl pattern in the X ...] time from select URL to fully
rendered ready to go virtual screen was 1:03.00
I did it yet again, and this time counted the delays waiting for the
server to respond on images -- 48 times I 'got to' see the golden swirl.
And speed slowed appreciably down to 1:19.62
Thankfully I'm not set up to test NetScape. But with the bug in Arachne
tell the time, you'll have to use a stopwatch to be fair and you'll have
to get NetScape to show you how often you're waiting for a server
response.
System Pentium MMX-233 ALI chipset
128M DRAM
running hybrid DOS 5.0
Cable modem with 10Mbs downstream ability
l.d.
