slow pages report

[plg]

In FP2002 I run the slow pages report and see that a page will take 14 seconds @ 56k, but when I am in page view it tells me 9 seconds at the bottom of screen... Which one is right?

[justjay]

14 seconds is what I would gauge by...as that is probably the true download including all includes...wereas the 9 seconds may only be the actual code on that certain page excluding includes etc....

[Blacklace1955]

Justjay is correct. If you watch (as I have) when you add an "included page", the amount of download time does not event change if you're viewing the page in FP.

--Barb

[plg]

OK, so if I create a new background page with my own graphics added in photoshop and when I save it, photoshop says it has a 44 second load time at 56k. I then edit my theme and replace the backgound image with my new one from photoshop and it says I have a ZERO load time, is this giving me a false sense of load time? Once I start adding other content to the page, I start to see FP saying the load time is 3 seconds, or whatever. When I finish the page and FP says 9 seconds at 56k and I run the slow page report, it says this page is 10 seconds... OK I can live with this, but how can FP take the 44 second jpg file placed into the theme come away with a ZERO load time??? I find this a little un-believable. Is FP doing some serious compression to these themes, or is it simply not giving a correct answer?

[stilltrying]

FP is giving both an incorrect and a correct answer. :crazy: How's that for obfuscation. I think (not positive) the way it works is that the load time displayed is for the "basic" initial display page and not for the photo's or any "includes" I have noticed somewhat the same thing with a photogallery & (includes) I am experimenting with.

Therefore the initial page load time is correct but the load time estimate doesn't "include the 'includes' ". :crazy:

"I'm starting to lose myself here". :?:

[MandyJay]

Hi,
Front page will only estimate load time for anything actually "embedded" on the page. When you use an FP theme, the background image is not inserted into the body tag, you will jsut get a reference in the head tags of the name of the theme being used - if you use a shared border and have a banner in it .... it is not embedded into the page, you will have code like this

<!--webbot bot="Navigation" S-Type="banner" S-Orientation="horizontal" S-Rendering="graphics" -->

so the image used in the banner will not be noted correctly by FP -

But, if you insert (embed) an image onto your page .... then FP will recognise it - and add that to the download time. Same thing with background sound, or hover buttons, they are not directly embedded onto the page, so FP cannot estimate properly the download time.

MJ
:furball:

[plg]

so what you are saying is, the REAL load time of the theme page will be what photoshop said the jpg's load time is... in this case the 44 seconds plus the includes:cry: I guess that templates would be the same?
The bottom line seems to be, to stay within the 10 second acceptable load time, don't add graphics to theme backgrounds...

[MandyJay]

Hi,
Never having used photoshop ..... how can you be sure their estimate is correct?? ONe way to check, is insert your background image onto the page ... then FP will give you the approx load time. But I think 10 seconds is probably on the low side for a page. I have 56k dial up - but it is much slower than that, and I find as long as I have something of interest to look at i.e. the content/text of the page, then I dont mind waiting a bit for the images to load. But, 44kb for a background image is large ..... I would imagine the rest of your page would have loaded before the background image has, and personally I find that spoils the look of the loading of the page. If you check out FP themes backgrounds they are only few kb most of them.....
MJ
:furball: