I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get better than
28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.

If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the boondocks,
I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:21:04 GMT, Tom Veatch wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P." wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get better than
28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.

If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the boondocks,
I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Have you complained to the phone company about that? If so and to no
avail, have you contacted your PUC (state regulator)? Your state
rep/senator? In some states the "standard" has been simply clear voice
service, modems be damned. (Even in upscale, close-in suburban areas
telcos would spli the bandwidth on copper wires to serve two homes rather
than run new wires, thereby capping dial-up speeds.) But that has been
changing as Internet service is coming to be considered as a "basic"
service. By federal mandate a lot of money is collected from telephone
users around the country to subsidize local phone facilities in rural
areas. If this were just 2-3 years ago, things might be different, but by
now I think your telco could do better on dial-up speeds.

Certainly there are only so many hours in the day and a list of things to
be done, but it could be worth the effort of a few phone calls and/or
letters.

While I have not investigated the particulars, there are some ISPs (local
to your area?) that enhance effective speeds by compressing data at their
end before sending it down the local wires to you and then your computer
expands them so they can be displayed. Whether that is available and
effective at 28.8, I don't know.

Good luck. -- Igor

All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

"Olebiker" wrote in message
oups.com...
All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense for your ILEC to do
anything about data transfer speed. It's just not in their interest to do
so. They would just as soon you get tired of dialup and move to DSL. Why
should they make an investment in improving data on the phone lines when
they see the direction broadband is going? In 10 years, I suspect there
will be maybe 10% of internet users in the US on dialup. I just wish the
satellite internet service would get to be usable so I would be free to move
out to the country.

todd

On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor

In article ,
igor wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.

Dick Durbin

Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor


If FAX, at 14,400 (possibly even only 9600) will connect, *NO* public-utility
commission in the U.S. will take your complaint. Some won't take a
complaint if you can get a 1200 baud data connection.

Over POTS (analog) phone lines, _ALL_ speeds above 14,400 require end-to-end
circuit connections that are 'higher quality' (higher bandwidth, less distort-
ion, lower noise) than voice circuit specifications require. Even 14.4k is
running 'right at the limits' of the specifications.

Some limits are _inherent_physical_characteristics_ of the length of wire
between the customer premises and the telephone company switching equipment.
Needless to say, you _cannot_ legislate around the laws of physics. grin

(BTW, this is also the reason that you *cannot* get DSL 'out in the country'.)

Other -legal-restrictions- arise from the need not to interfere with 'adjacent'
phone circuits. This is why you -cannot_ get a true '56k' connection (only
54k max.) *anywhere* in the U.S., today. the actual 56k rate signalling puts
"too much" energy on the wire pair; over the limit established to prevent
interference (e.g. 'cross-talk') with adjacent circuits in the multi-pair
cable.


THEN you get into the situation, on "longer" phone lines, where there are
things that are needed to make voice work 'well', which are detrimental to
high-speed data. If the phone line is _tariffed_ as a "voice circuit",
guess which kind of things are *required* to be done to that line?

Alternatively, you can pay the -higher- tariff for a dedicated "data circuit",
and the telco _will_ 'remove" those 'things' from that wire-pair. One of the
things that you, the 'data circuit' customer _pay_extra_ for, however, is the
cost for a technician to _physically_ go out to the various points on the line
where those 'things' are installed, and disconnect them, *AND* the cost of his
time for the 'return trip' _after_ you're through with the circuit, to
*RE-CONNECT* them -- so the line can be used for "normal" voice service again.


Any change in the 'technical requirements' for phone service would simply
_have_ to "grandfather" in any _pre-existing_ 'physical plant'. If it
wasn't, considering that the ILEC _is_ a 'regulated' service, with rates
set by the government -- at a level that *guarantees* that the company
can/will make a 'reasonable' profit -- then the ILEC would immediately
file for a tariff increase to 'pay for' those required upgrades. Base
phone rates would probably climb somewhere between 500% and 5000% percent.

Oddly enough, _voice_ customer's aren't willing to pay *that* kind of money
for an 'upgrade' that *they* don't need. wry grin

Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
14.4 modem was "smokin".

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

Dialup with such rotten phone lines that I've never been able to get
better than
28.8 on a very good day. Typically it come in at 26.4.

If they ever get cable (or DSL capability) out to our neck of the
boondocks,
I'll abandon this dialup so fast it'll make you dizzy.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Oh, yeah! Many years ago I spent the enormous money it took to buy a
Hayes Ultra 96 modem. An incredible 9600 baud. Wow! About 4x faster
than the one it replaced. But it was it's own problem. It cost so
very much I held onto it with a death grip. When I finally let go, I
got a 56.6 (?) modem. I managed to skip all the steps inbetween.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:39:11 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
14.4 modem was "smokin".

In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


My first was one of those clickity, clackety teletype machines with an
acoustic coupler. You'd dial up a remote bulletin board, listen for the
beeeeeeeeep and jam the phone handset onto the modem. Mine even had a
paper punch to store some of my machine code programs. I'm glad those good
ole days are gone.

Larry

Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
slow down a tiny bit.

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.




"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff P. wrote:
Man, that sucks. I remember getting my first real PC and thinking that
the
14.4 modem was "smokin".


Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

In article ,
Norman D. Crow wrote:
Currently dialup 56K, switching to DSL this week. Tried RR a year or so
back, loved it, but couldn't afford it. Right now I've got DSL through my
local ISP for $29.90/mo. for 1 yr. with option to renew for 2nd yr. @ same
price.

9600 memories; mid 80's, data entry system running entry terminals @ 9600 on
a big MX'er, they were complaining of losing data. Watched the girls, they
were faster than the connection, over-running the buffers. They just had to
slow down a tiny bit.

9600 baud is almost _ten_thousand_ words per minute.

Postulating that the mux _uplink_ was at 9600, and supporting 32 terminals,
They _each_ would have had to be typing at close to 300 words/minute to over-
load the link. color me *very* skeptical.

Now, if it was a 64-terminal mux, on a 9.6k uplink, that's getting closer to
'believable'.

In article , -
bonomi.com says...
Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
turnaround was 24 hours :-).

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

You forgot 5a. Drop deck and spill cards on floor ... start over.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , -
bonomi.com says...
Bah! You're a newbie. grin

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,


And the BBS's only downloaded new messages once a day. so your effective
turnaround was 24 hours :-).

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

1. Write program on coding sheets.
2. Give to keypuncher.
3. Wait - usually at least 24 hours
4. Check deck for obvious errors (after running cards through
interpreter).
5. Hand deck to computer operator.
6 Wait - depending on your priority level.
7. Check results.
8. Find bug - start over.

Heck, I went to a _modern_ university -- they let the students use the
keypunch machines themselves.

Then there was the day I went into the prep room, and saw a friend of
mine sitting at one of the work-tables, staring disconsolately at a print-out,
with a _moderately small_ deck (maybe 80-100) of cards beside him.

I went up, looked over his shoulder, and said "OH! the problem is obvious."

He looks up, and says (hopefully) "what is it?"

I said: "FORTRAN programs have to be on the cards with the purple stripe."

He, *knowing* I was pulling his leg, replied, absolutely deadpan: "Oh, so
_that's_ it. They told us that in class, I should have remembered."

At about this point, some kid sitting on the other side of the table, with
a *BIG* deck (like almost an entire 'box') of _plain_ cards, comes out of his
seat like a marionette on wires, eyes bugged out of his head, and in a rising
wail of absolutely *petrified* anguish/despair exclaims:

"FORTRAN has to be on the *PURPLE* cards????!!!!!!!"

Neither my friend or I could keep a straight face, and broke out laughing.
A few moments later one of us manages to explain that we were just joking,
and the guy collapses back into his chair.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody else so close to having to go change
underwear, just as a result of something that was _said_.


I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).

Should I mention plug-board programming an IBM 046 ??

Or analyzing timing for various algorithms for dividing a large collating
job among multiple 049 sorters?

Larry Blanchard apparently said,on my timestamp of 1/02/2005 5:50 AM:

I go back to the days when 1200 baud was considered _very_ high speed.

The guys with money could afford 300-baud capable terminals -- us poor
*******s suffered with stuff that maxed out at 110 baud,

Hehehe! Carrier pigeons anyone?

Of course, some of us remember before networks and even terminals:

Ah yes. My pet hate was the Hollerith punching machine:
the crap computer dept at uni couldn't afford electric ones,
so students had to punch Fortran programs with the manual
puncher, one column-at-a-time... ARRRGHH!

Shall I mention the demented coronel who wanted us to
destroy the confetti for security reasons?

I could go back to tabulating machines, but most of you wouldn't even
know what those were :-).


Oh yes we would!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
am

"Jeff P." wrote in message
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

Theoretically, at least, you should design for the lowest common
denominator. That means shoot for comfortable downloading of a web page,
with graphics, at 56K. That generally means holding graphics to a minimum
cumulative per page and offering "thumbnails" linked to the larger size
graphics ... and that's OK, words can still convey information, despite what
the X generation producers do on TV and the big commercial websites.

Used to be a picture was worth a thousand words, but these days a picture
that moves, morphs, dances, spins and makes noise is probably worth a damn
sight less.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article , says...
Theoretically, at least, you should design for the lowest common
denominator. That means shoot for comfortable downloading of a web page,
with graphics, at 56K. That generally means holding graphics to a minimum
cumulative per page and offering "thumbnails" linked to the larger size
graphics ... and that's OK, words can still convey information, despite what
the X generation producers do on TV and the big commercial websites.

Agreed. And make sure it works with most browsers and OS's, not just M$
and Windoze.

Oh yes, I'm on 56K and will be till the price of DSL or cable can get
close to my current $9.95 a month.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Jeff P." wrote:
snip
I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet.
Dial up. I considered DSL, but they have issues with too many
devices on one line. Cable was considered, but I'd have to set up
a router (and you know I prefer Neandering) and wire all the
computers. Expensive and pricey along with the security hassles.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

Dave in Fairfax wrote:

Dial up. I considered DSL, but they have issues with too many
devices on one line. Cable was considered, but I'd have to set up
a router (and you know I prefer Neandering) and wire all the
computers. Expensive and pricey along with the security hassles.

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I'd say the truth is "I just
don't really care."

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Comcast Cable, recently upgraded for us without asking, and for no
additional charge, to 4MB download speed.


"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Unrestricted DSL - leaves the CO at 8, but it's down to 6-7 megs by
the time it gets to my end of the cable.

Barry

DSL $24.95 per month


"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?


I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo) and DSL
won't sync up (I guess too far from the Central Office), so I'm
sticking to the $12.95 a month. I suggest making thumbnails. Use
pictures no more than 150 dpi. Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

"Phisherman" wrote

I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo)

$84 A MONTH!!! Holy crap. I just got Roadrunner to give me a promotional
rate of $35 a month for a year by complaining and I thought that was still
too much. I guess it's all relative.

Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds. Now, I'm
never going to get it there because I DO want to use a lot of graphics but
I'm finding that if I optimize my graphics as much as possible and still
retain quality that I'm getting it down to 15 to 20 seconds on a 56k dialup
line. I managed to get the total size of my projects page down to under
100k from a high of almost 200k by running all my images through Adobe
Imageready. I'm still working on the rest of my site but it's almost there.

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

"Jeff P." wrote in message

My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds. Now,
I'm
never going to get it there because I DO want to use a lot of graphics but

Good graphics are good. Clutter and music and I hit the stop button.

Broadband has spoiled me. Years ago with a 14.4 modem I would hit a link
and go get a drink of water, take a leak and come back.to see it finish.
Long times were acceptable. Today, I would not wait 30 seconds.unless at
least part of the page was loaded and visible.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

Broadband has spoiled me. Years ago with a 14.4 modem I would hit a link
and go get a drink of water, take a leak and come back.to see it finish.
Long times were acceptable. Today, I would not wait 30 seconds.unless at
least part of the page was loaded and visible.


Yeah, I remember those days.

Good graphics are good. Clutter and music and I hit the stop button

I hit the "back" button faster than you can bat an eyelash when a site has
music.


--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:06:22 -0600, "Jeff P."
wrote:

"Phisherman" wrote

I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo)

$84 A MONTH!!! Holy crap. I just got Roadrunner to give me a promotional
rate of $35 a month for a year by complaining and I thought that was still
too much. I guess it's all relative.

Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

My pages should all load in less than 30 seconds.
From what I've researched, however, the magic mark is 10 seconds.

It's a time-decay function. The longer it takes for the page to load
the more users you will lose. 6 seconds is where it starts getting
noticable and the percentage you lose doubles every few seconds after
that. At 30 seconds you're probably losing a significant number of
potential viewers.

There are ways around this. One of the easiest is to use a
fast-loading page with no graphics that displays information in text
while the main page finishes loading. Often this is the same text that
is on the main page, just with no graphics, background, etc.

But the rule is: The sooner you start giving them some useful content,
the more of them will stick around.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and
I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that
some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a
slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most
of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but
I'll never
go back. How about all of you?


I'm on dialup. Broadband cable is too expensive here ($84/mo) and DSL
won't sync up (I guess too far from the Central Office), so I'm
sticking to the $12.95 a month. I suggest making thumbnails. Use
pictures no more than 150 dpi. Yes, I become impatient if I have to
wait more than a minute for a page to load.

DPI is meaningless when it comes to on display graphics. DPI is ONLY
used when printing images. Pixel quantity is the only measurement
that means anything on screen.

Cable here.

Ian


"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

Nowadays a cable modem. Yeehaw!

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:54:59 GMT, "Jeff P."
wrote:

I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?

Jeff P. wrote:

have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey, but I'll never go back.

I hope.

It's hard to beat going from taking 30 hours to 20 minutes to download
something big.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:22:59 -0500, Silvan
wrote:


It's hard to beat going from taking 30 hours to 20 minutes to download
something big.

Even the web and usenet is so much better on broadband, ANY broadband.
G

Barry

"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

I have cable and wireless router hooked to the cable modem.. There is some
degradation during peak cable use hours but it's worth the $$$$. Only thing
faster that I've used is the WiFi 'hotspot"down at the public library where
they have a fiber-optic feed. Life's too short to wait with dial-up..

Larry

4.1mb cable
"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

Jeff P. wrote:
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll never
go back. How about all of you?


Check out

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0501/

The data as of January was 55% broadband, 45% dialup at HOME. Growth of
broadband is about 10%/year roughly. These are US figures. Canadian
numbers are probably more skewed in favour of broadband.

At work, 81% of users have highspeed.

As for content, a picture is a good thing if it is really necessary,
like a picture of an article I am bidding on on ebay. A huge flash
presentation that is automatically displayed for me is annoying even
with broadband. So is sound.

You can do alot with pictures, even for users with 56K dialup accounts
if you process all your pictures to reduce the number of colours and
resolution. JPEGs, or PNGs don't need to be 32bit colour multi-megabit
for most things. Good clear pictures can be a few K compressed and that
should take only a second to download.

If you have video, use RealVideo which lets you embed multispeed
datastreams to support low speed and high speed alike.

I second the request to support more than just MS Explorer (I'm Linux)

I run a commercial website and you can be successful with a clean, clear
presentation, lots of content, and graphics and pictures where needed.

Rob

Rob Mitchell responds:

As for content, a picture is a good thing if it is really necessary,
like a picture of an article I am bidding on on ebay. A huge flash
presentation that is automatically displayed for me is annoying even
with broadband. So is sound.

Yes. Flash sucks, and not as if it is a gloat. I forgot to hook up my speakers
for nearly three months after we moved. I then decided I wanted to listen to
some Bill Haley and the Comets, so hooked them up, but when music isn't on (it
isn't on often, because I don't like to try to work with it in the background),
the sound is turned almost off.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?


DSL. Love it.

--

-Mike-

"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
I've been in the process of do a complete redesign of my website and I'm
always trying to balance using tons of graphics with the fact that some
people might get frustrated with download times if they have a slower
connection. I'm just curious to know what type of connection most of you
have to the internet. Personally, I'm on cable. It's pricey but I'll
never
go back. How about all of you?

--
Jeff P.

"A new study shows that licking the sweat off a frog
can cure depression. The down side is, the minute
you stop licking, the frog gets depressed again." - Jay Leno


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com

I got cable when it first came to my neck of the woods about 8 years ago.
We're looking to move to a new house sometime soon, and broadband access is
at the top of my "need" list. There's just no possible way I'm going from
3,000,000 bps to 50,000 bps (at best). Unfortunately, web designers, like
public school teachers, have to work to the lowest common denominator. So,
when you're testing your redesign, either test it using a modem or configure
your web server to throttle the bandwidth accordingly.

todd