Hi
16 Feb 2001, "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CV> Will you accept full page transfer or do you want to stick with a mix
CV> of HTML and images ?
I hope that this was meant as a joke !
CV> On complex pages, full page is a major speed winner.
And a *MAJOR* bandwidth LOOSER !!!
IMHO Linux Netscape has the ability to receive GZipped HTML.
That is good, because it reduces the network traffic, and it can be
decompressed rapidly.
But sending the String 'Richard Menedetter' as GIF/JPG/PNG/BMP/ZBMP
whatever is not a good idea !
And I can't believe that graphics are THAT speed winner.
Today the CPU power is usually very high. (You can get socket 7 computers
[i586, AMD K6II/III] for VERY low prices)
But the network connection mostly used is still a 56K Modem ...
CV> On trivial pages (that don't exist anywhere except Virtual Arachne),
CV> straight HTML wins on speed. I think breakeven is about 16 sec load
CV> time. i.e. Arachne homepage downloads, builds and displays in about
CV> 1:10. The IMAGE of that page only takes 26 sec. My dial page downloads
CV> and displays in 2 sec. The image of my dial page takes 6 sec.
It all depends on the speed of your CPU.
Arachne page downloads here in 7 seconds. (Netscape with clear cache)
(I guess that a picture of the page would take longer ... and it
would SURE require MUCH more bandwidth)
And IMHO Arachne page is a VERY bad example ...
because it consists of zillions of small images ...
(36 images, of which 22 are smaller than 1000 bytes)
why not make one big image of that green goo ??
CV> - Clarence Verge
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Incontinence Hotline...Can you hold, please? <=-
