*That was one of the best replies i have ever received from anyone thank you
very much...

Ill be in touch if thats ok...
*


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Mike Williams <[email protected]>wrote:

> When I run it in Firefox it loads in about 8 seconds, which seems
> reasonable for something with all those images.
>
> www.webpagetest.org clocks it at 27 seconds, but that's partly because
> it doesn't count the page as being finished when all the visible stuff
> has been rendered, but keeps counting until all those huge images have
> been fetched into the display:none divs.
>
> Some things to think about:
>
> Do you really need to load those images when the page loads, or could
> you load them when you actually need them?
>
> Do you ever display those images at full size? If you only display the
> small versions on that page, then creating copies of the images at the
> size you actually use would save a huge amount of downloading. For
> example just consider the image
>
> http://gozimmercoil.touristwayapp.com/www/public/default/imgdb/ogg_fotopi
> ccola_YLDUDEVYCIJQ_ZJTVFSUY.jpg<http://gozimmercoil.touristwayapp.com/www/public/default/imgdb/ogg_fotopi%0Accola_YLDUDEVYCIJQ_ZJTVFSUY.jpg>
>
> The 519x389 image is 142.8kb, but I can only see you display it scaled
> to 67x50. A 67x50 version of that image would be about 3kb and would
> therefore load in a fraction of the time.
>
> There's a particular problem with MSIE concerning the loading of large
> numbers of files from the same (sub)domain. MSIE has a limit of two
> connections per (sub)domain. This limit made some sense back in the days
> when the majority of Internet users had slow dial-up connections, but it
> makes no sense with today's high speed connections. For a way round this
> effect, see: http://econym.org.uk/gmap/custommapparallel.htm
>
> Your CGI script takes about 2 seconds to run. That's time before the
> browser sees the first byte of HTML created by the script. During that
> time the user can't possibly see anything happen. You might consider an
> alternative strategy. Put your static content into a static HTML file
> which doesn't need to be calculated, and have it make a call to a server
> that returns the dynamic content. That way the browser has something
> that it can start rendering as soon as the HTML arrives.
>
> Do you really need all those JS utilites? Each one of them takes about
> .5 seconds to load, but most browsers can only be loading one JS file at
> a time, so each of jquery, core, slider, form, lite, datePicker, date,
> twtbox, Google Maps API and Google Analytics add about .5 seconds to the
> startup time.
>
> --
> Mike Williams
> http://econym.org.uk/gmap
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google Maps API" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<google-maps-api%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
>
>
>


-- 
gozimmer.net - צימרים
[email protected]

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google Maps API" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.


Reply via email to