[ 60K ] RE: [thelist] File size limit?

Flavia Silveira-Tarzwell (FayeC) fayec at canada.com
Sun Jun 3 09:23:15 CDT 2001


Thank you Deke :))))))
I was going to post a message today asking for more info as the messages
before didn't really answer my questions...
Now Richard's answer kind of confused me....full sites sized
60-100K?.....

Thanks again,

FayeC

deke wrote:
> 
> On 2 Jun 2001, at 19:50, nate posted a message which said:
> 
> > all that said tho, i'll put out there that the new benchmark is 60K. i
> > almost never build a site under 40K. the most common sign-off i get from
> > clients is 60K. If it's snazzy, 80-100 is the high end. If you want to pin
> > me down tho, i'd say a site should weight 60K.
> 
> Not to be picking on Nate, but this thread is getting to be rather
> confusing because people are answering a different question than
> Flavia asked. She was specifically asking about *IMAGE* file
> size, not the total of all files used to build a page.
> 
> I generally look to shrink photos until they are under 20K. There
> rarely is any visible difference, and I deal with that on an individual
> basis. Other images are usually GIFs, not JPGs, and tend to be
> under 10K and often under 4K.
> 
> There is a theory that one can download large images faster if
> they are sliced. This has always struck me as being equivalent
> to the Yogi Berra joke about slicing the pizza into six slices, not
> eight, because he wasn't hungry enough to eat eight slices. The
> HTTP/1.1 standard says that you open a maximum of *two*
> sockets between server and client, so cutting a big image into
> pieces *increases* the amount of time doing overhead, without
> doing anything substantive to reduce the download time.
> 
> Because large files compress more effectively, slicing an image
> into many pieces *increases* the number of bytes that must be
> downloaded.
> 
> I've done time trials between sliced and unsliced images, and
> found that sliced images occasionally have a little advantage, but
> most of the time, the unsliced image won hands down.
> 
> The differences are small enough that you won't see the difference
> on a T-1 line. Like most of America, though, I cannot buy DSL,
> cannot buy cable, and I get a 24K-28K connection most of the time
> using a rockwell-chip v.90 modem.  Instead of taking the time and
> the extra HTML to slice an image, spending the same amount of
> time shrinking the image gives much better results.
> 
> deke
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about professional, highly-designed, info-rich sites.
> >
> > When starting a project, it's a fun exercise to put competitors sites into
> > http://websitegarage.netscape.com/ and see what they weigh. You'd be amazed
> > how many sites tip the scales at 120-150K.
> >
> > I think it's worth noting that it's possible for mr. x's site to weight 60K
> > and load/render much faster that mr. y's 60K site.
> >
> > happy saturday everyone,
> > nate
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
> > [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of richard winter
> > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 2:05 PM
> > To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> > Subject: Re: [thelist] File size limit?
> >
> >
> > agreed..
> > im usually at a 28.8 and im in the shadow of microsoft
> > flash is the worse..
> >
> >
> > rick
> >
> >
> > At 01:15 PM 6/2/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > >On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:45:20 -0400, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >i'm writing this while connected via a 33.6 modem... i'm so sick of
> > > >fatter and fatter pages that i surf with images turned off for the most
> > > >part, and backpedal out of Flash pages (not just file size, but CPU
> > > >cycles)...
> > > >
> > > >granted, i may be the only person on this list using a 4.5-year-old
> > > >machine, but hey, i'm out there...
> > >
> > >Due to attenuated phone lines, I average about 26k when connecting.
> > >The kicker is that I live within 25 miles of the high-tech mecca
> > >Seattle.  Large sites rarely hold my attention of 30 seconds f they
> > >take to long to load..........
> > >
> > >=============================================
> > >Brendan W. Vittum                 webwarrior at directionx.com
> > >
> > >This email may be confidential and contain commercially
> > >sensitive information.  Only the intended recipient may
> > >access or use it.  If you are not the intended recipient
> > >please delete this email and notify us promptly. We use
> > >virus scanning software but exclude all liability for
> > >viruses or similar in this email or any attachment.
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------
> > >For unsubscribe and other options, including
> > >the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> > >http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > For unsubscribe and other options, including
> > the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> > http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > For unsubscribe and other options, including
> > the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> > http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
> >
> >
> 
> ------------------------
>  "The church is near but the road is icy;
>   the bar is far away but I will walk carefully."
>                             -- Russian Proverb
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !




More information about the thelist mailing list