|
|
Posted by dorayme on 04/16/07 08:18
In article <evv5jk$51m$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org>
wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <evv33a$voh$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high
> >> speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is
> >> that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all
> >> the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely
> >> by content).
> >
> > It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill
> > it out when that content could have simply been left out to
> > enable a superfast download of nothing.
>
> Unfortunately in the case of too many sites even a slow load
> of nothing would be better than a fast load of what they offer.
> Except you cannot tell until they're loaded.
>
> Considering that my broadband connection has to be satellite
> or it's 56k landline, and that it costs exactly nine times the
> 56k it replaces, I'm actually considerig terminating it and
> returning to 56k. That of course will mean that any home page
> that takes more than 3 seconds to load just won't sell me
> anything because I'll never read it. Come to think of it, that
> would make a very good standard: 3 seconds on 56k or forget it.
I absolutely agree with everything you say. I have examined the
difference between not downloading anything on 56K and
downloading nothing and it is an interesting difference. I know
this: it takes the same time.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|