i agree bandwidth question is silly and that the application usage is more the issue
i also like your example, but i think it bears rethinking. consider a typical vlog... In the first time visit scenario, the browser most likely consumes less bandwidth than the aggregator. This depends mainly on how much media is automatically downloaded versus how much is viewed in browser. I think a person is likely to be more selective in the browser. in the repeat visit scenario, much of the website and/or media is already cached in both cases. in this case (and assuming no recent formatting changes to the vlog's template), it is generally just the page html and the most recent image that needs to be fetched as the stylesheets, scripts and other images will most likely have been cached during previous visits. on the other hand, a media aggregator will download a comparably sized document if there are full descriptions) and the new content. Again, we may choose not to view the content once we see the title and so the browser again may be more efficient. But then who wants to wait on the browser? Not me. :) I love fireant. And we have not even addressed the issue of how many times do you visit a site via your aggregator vs browser question. Joshua Kinberg wrote: >BTW, the bandwidth question is kind of silly... you'd use up more >bandwidth if those people were viewing your website with all the >images and style formatting and so forth. > > > -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
