Re: Dial-up holdouts ask: Why go to broadband?

I was using a clients dial-up that was too far out for DSL, and hence

> too far out for a "56K" connection. The actual sped was 22 Kbps and > Yahoo and CNN took at least two minutes to load.

Most web sites are now designed an the assumption that they'll be accessed at high speed. For example, the HTML alone for Yahoo's home page is over 100kB. Add in images, scripts, style sheets, and such -- which are unfortunately no longer just eye candy but often necessary for viewing and navigation -- and a single page can easily exceed 300kB.

"Surfing" the web on dialup isn't practical any more. It's more like a slow paddle, hoping that the page you're trying to read doesn't automatically refresh too often.

Reply to
Neill Massello
Loading thread data ... (Neill Massello) hath wroth:

What tool are you using to determine the page size?

Using Mozilla Firefox with "List all images" and "Extended Status Bar" add-ons, for Yahoo, I get 40KB for the base HTML plus 14 images at about 54KB in images for a total of about 100KBytes. However, it's a pain to do the arithmetic for each page, and even worse to do the calcs for benchmarking the load time. Is there a better and easier way to get these numbers?

Use Lynx or one of the other text browsers?

Many sites have text only alternatives. Same with over-simplified versions for cell phone and PDA browsers. For example, a WML emulator will convince many popular web sites that you're using a mobile phone with a WAP browser and deliver minimal web pages.

When I enable the WAP mode, Yahoo delivers 12KBytes of HTML and

2KBytes in images. Same with Google, but you have to start at:

Think small.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.