uhhhh, need your opinion about this

**jag5311** · Aug 31, 2004 08:26

So I am building out a site for the videographer who did our wedding and this is what I got, http://www.magichour.biz/rough

Thing is, it loads REALLY slow. So, obviously, I question there servers as I built this with mostly text but it uses images that are stored in the stylesheet.

So I send in a request for support to find out whether its the PHP that is loading slow or their servers.

Here is the response I get

--------------------------------------

Hello,

We checked the connectivity of the server and no problems were found.
We
tested opening several other pages on the server from US, HK and Europe
locations and they opened just fine.

However, your site opens somehow not very fast indeed. We investigated
this
and found out, that browsers (we tested with Internet Explorer 6 and
FireFox
0.93) do not cache images declared in the CSS file properly. As a
result of
this, the images are completely downloaded every time the page is being
reloaded. It is not the size of the image being that big, so that
loading an
image is slow, but loading 10-15 (small) images on a page means opening
10-15 separate connections from the browser to the server, which of
course
cannot be done absolutely simultaneously and slows down the overall
load
time of the page from the server to your browser.
If the images were cached properly in the browser, this would not
happen.

Please, remove the images declarations from the CSS file and put them
in the
HTML code. If we can be of any further assistance, please, let us know.

Best Regards,

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks

**jag5311** · Aug 31, 2004 08:31

Whats even more weird. The CSS when viewed in Firefox is not how I typed it out. Meaning, there are some things that are capitalized, there are some things added like background: transparent which I never said. Some weird stuff,

My css is written from top to bottom, meaning I do it the long way and this is all shortcutted.

Weird.

**Egor** · Aug 31, 2004 08:46

Very, very strange.

**carrotflowers** · Aug 31, 2004 10:23

That is odd. However it doesn't seem to be taking too long to load for me--under 30 seconds in IE6/PC, Firefox. Really not too bad at all. However I do have a broadband connection.
Very strange about the CSS. Did you just ftp the files or does the host have some sort of upload that you had to use? Also, is it just me or is there no opening html tag? I viewed source and the code starts with <head>?

**jag5311** · Aug 31, 2004 12:40

I viewed source and the code starts with <head>?

SON OF A Bit*..... How did that happen. geez.

Do you think that could be a reason its slowing down? That must have been a mondayian detail

Its including the header.php file

I ftp'd the files up to his server. To be honest, I thought there ftp was a little slow, but now I have to go home and check my work.

Thanks for seeing that Furry.

btw, on broadband, that shouldn't be taking under 30 seconds

it should be taking like 5 - 10 at the most.

what bothers me is the css. I have to look at that now because that isn't how it originally looked. I use dreamweaver to do my tags and I know for a fact dreamweaver builds them a little different then that.

**carrotflowers** · Aug 31, 2004 13:14

np. I'm assuming that you saw your stylesheet & recall it looking different,but, for what it's worth, I have seen external CSS files created in Dreamweaver look like that (the property in all caps and no semi colon after the last rule), so I would think that Dreamweaver can produce CSS likie that, maybe it is even the default.

I tried the page again on IE6--9 seconds. : )

If you have access to a different server, you might want to try it there too, just as a test to see if maybe it's the host that is a little slow. good luck, Bryan!

**jag5311** · Aug 31, 2004 13:21

got a php server available

*me thinks*

wait, my current host my support some php, maybe...

**jag5311** · Aug 31, 2004 16:15

Ok, I fixed the stylesheet and the header.

Funny, the company must have messed with it, because the footer and css were just fine on my machine. When I check the source and css now, it looks fine.

But I can't tell if there has been an improvement in speed.

If you can give it another shot, I would appreciate it.

Thank you,
Bryan

**carrotflowers** · Aug 31, 2004 16:58

Hi,

I'm at home on my mac with DSL. Still about 9 seconds on Firefox. Booted Virtual PC to do IE6 - about 7 seconds, that.

(Of course right now I'm also downloading and u/l stuff at the same time...)

hope that helps!

**carrotflowers** · Aug 31, 2004 16:59

Off Topic:

nice looking site, btw! Oh, by the way I saw a typo on one of the random quotes, absolutely spelled wrong, on the raw footage quote

**Paul O'B** · Sep 1, 2004 06:25

and found out, that browsers (we tested with Internet Explorer 6 and
FireFox
0.93) do not cache images declared in the CSS file properly. As a
result of
this

What are they talking about ! Of course the images are cached from the css once they are loaded. Unless the browsers settings have been set differently of course.

The page took 16 seconds to load in IE and in Opera on ISDN 64.0 kbps.

Paul

**jag5311** · Sep 1, 2004 07:02

Thanks Furri, I appreciate it. Its not "pro-bono" but its in exchange for his wedding services to my wife and I

So he better do a damn good job on our video

Thanks Paul.

I still think its their servers To be honest. I mean, I did the xhtml and the css no differently then my other sites, and they load much quicker.

One thing I HAVE noticed is that even in firefox or IE, if I hit F5 or Refresh, it still looks like it has to load certain images, like the rounded corners and such. Then again, I assume they are being caches properly, but after a refresh, I can still see the little areas where they are squared until the image shows up.

**carrotflowers** · Sep 1, 2004 07:30

no problem. hope the video turns out well!

**Paul O'B** · Sep 1, 2004 08:29

if I hit F5 or Refresh, it still looks like it has to load certain

Isn't that what refresh does? It loads the page from the server and not from the cache. Well that's my interpretation of it and thats how it seems to work in ie.

Paul

**jag5311** · Sep 1, 2004 21:20

Well, I officially think its there server. I might be convincing my client to go to jodohost.com where I am at.

Tell me if you see a signifcant speed increase

http://www.juicedthoughts.com/rough/index.php

Thanks

**Paul O'B** · Sep 2, 2004 02:02

About 12 seconds now

**Cam** · Sep 2, 2004 03:20

No wait here, almost instant and I'm downloading files at the same time. Probably not much help but I thought I'd share anyway

**Jehu** · Sep 2, 2004 03:49

I think it's thier servers.

**carrotflowers** · Sep 2, 2004 06:57

Speed increase? I'll say. About 3 secs max here, IE6, Firefox.

**jag5311** · Sep 2, 2004 07:01

Paul, 12 seconds!

are you being funny or serious...

**Paul O'B** · Sep 2, 2004 08:49

Paul, 12 seconds!

Serious! 12 seconds on isdn 64.0kbps on opera 7.54.

This is for loading the page from new. I clear cache and clear history and then test. Otherwise you are just loading images from your cache which probably will be a couple of seconds.

A lot of people forget that once the page has been visited then subsequent visits will use the cache and be much quicker. However you need to take into the loading time of a fresh page for new visitors.

Paul

**jag5311** · Sep 2, 2004 08:54

Ok. What was your time for the old one? Do you remember.

For me, the one on my host is like lighting fast. Almost instant.

I did a page side by side with two browser windows. I cleared the cache on both, and did my best to hit refersh on both of them at the same time (maybe a 10th of a second off) and sure enough, mine came up almost instant whereas the other one was still loading images here and there.

Quite interesting if you ask me. You should try it

Reminds me of those NetZero commercials trying to convince you that one is 10 times faster then the other

**Paul O'B** · Sep 2, 2004 09:04

If its still the link in the first post then I just checked in opera again (as it times the loading) and it was 21 seconds.

If you are on broadband then your speeds will be much quicker of course

Paul

**carrotflowers** · Sep 2, 2004 10:05

Hi Paul,
there's a new link actually (testing a new server): http://www.juicedthoughts.com/rough/index.php

**jag5311** · Sep 3, 2004 07:03

FYI, I have switched hosts for my client, so going to www.magichour.biz/rough will bring it up pretty fast.

Same price, 5 gb less in bandwidth, but its still 10gb of space.

User Tag List

Thread: uhhhh, need your opinion about this

Thread Tools

Display

uhhhh, need your opinion about this

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions