Believe it or not

  Pesala 22:05 09 Mar 2003

An update in a comment in an earlier thread about large images on websites. The Computer Supplier replied to my email and said they were redesigning their site. I should hope so.

I revisited to see how they were getting on. Not much change yet. I had a look at the notebooks. One image was a 9 MByte 1764 x 1796 bitmap! Just by saving it as a JPG it reduces to 189 Kbytes.

A PC maker should know better, one might think, but I have made the same kind of mistakes myself. It is all part of the learning process.

This forum is very helpful. People with expertise in all sorts of areas. 80,000 brains are better than one — even mine (°_°)

  Pesala 09:22 05 Apr 2003

You might think that after nearly a month they would have fixed their website. Well, believe ir or not, this 9 Mbyte image is still there, and it is not the only big image on the page. You cannot avoid it if you want to look at their notebooks (unless you turn off graphics display).
click here

  watchful 10:01 05 Apr 2003

I don't believe it!!!

Tut, tut thread title Pesala?

  Djohn 17:34 05 Apr 2003

click here Not quite sure of the point you are making?

If one goes via your link, then yes, it is a rather large image, and I agree with you does seem unneccassary.

But if you use the link above to the home page then it loads quick, and all links from it to their componants and systems also load quick and are of the correct size.

  Pesala 17:43 05 Apr 2003

But many other pages are not. Click on the link to Notebooks and a page loads very slowly (on NTL Home broadband). One iamge is 9Mbytes, another is 6 Mbytes. Click on PCs and you get another 6 Mbyte image. Click on any of the Systems on that page, and then System Cases, and you get another page with four or five huge images.

I alerted them to this on 9th March, and they replied that they were looking into it. Just imagine if you was a customer on a 56K modem and wanted to take a look at the cases before purchase. Would you want to wait five or ten minutes for the privilege?

  Djohn 17:51 05 Apr 2003

Ok, I hope you realise that I am not making a criticism of your observations, just trying to understand them.

I have tried every possible combination of links, and also clicked on the laptop photo's themselves, and as I say they load quick, are of good quality and are the correct dimension on each page.

The link you supply still loads reasonably quick, allowing for it's size, but does require much scrolling in both directions.

If you can give me a precise application to try from the home page, then I will try again.

I am on AOL with a 56k modem. J.

  Brian-336451 18:14 05 Apr 2003

You wouldn't enjoy broadband - its far too quick . . . :)

  Pesala 18:15 05 Apr 2003

I am glad that you are so patient. I guess you have to be with a 56K modem.

I am using NTL 128K Broadband and this page click here took over three minutes to finish loading. The notebook page click here took about one and half minutes. My old 56K connection was about five times slower than my present one.

The images are enormous. They have been resized to fit the page, wasting huge amounts of data. By resampling the 9 Mbyte image instead of just resizing it, the size would be reduced to 144 kbytes - then the page should load in ten or fifteen seconds.

  Djohn 18:18 05 Apr 2003

I cleared my internet cache to get a true assessment of loading, and tried the following.

Your link. Time for full load, 3 Min's.

Home page. Time for full load 6 seconds.

All links and specifications, no longer than 4 seconds.

Clicking on PC's takes 2 seconds for system page to load. Click on any of the systems, takes less than 2 seconds to load.

Click on Picture of cases, takes up to 2 minutes to download, yes, I suppose that this is the one area that needs a Little attention, but otherwise all is fine. If you are waiting any longer than this, then I think there may be a problem at your end.

As I said above, I'm on 56k modem. Regards. J.

  Djohn 18:20 05 Apr 2003

Sorry crossed post, I am now timing the above links you have provided. J.

  Djohn 18:25 05 Apr 2003

Your first link is by sheer coincidence the one I refer to above, it took me 2 Min's.

Your second link takes no longer than 4 seconds!

I'm not sure why this is, but I can only report as I find, and once again, I am using a Rockwell 56k internal modem. Regards. J.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

What went wrong at the Designs of the Year 2017

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment utiliser Live Photos ?