What do you expect for a page that is almost 56,000 pixels high (330 KB in file size)?
I would never scroll down that far on any page
- I get a load time of 2:31 sec @ 56kbps and that is without the need for the browser to reparse your code since you have
"formatted" it to remove all white space
IMHO
break it down into lots of smaller subwebs
PS
Repair your frame set
Change
<FRAMESET rows="82,101%" framespacing="0" border="0" frameborder="0">
To
<FRAMESET rows="82,*" framespacing="0" border="0" frameborder="0">
And your frame at SRC="ads/adpage.htm" doesn't show for most users (like me) if their security setting are set to block ads becaue
you are using a folder named "ads" and a page named ad...)
| Thanks for the suggetion. I removed the code below as you suggested, but it
| doesn't seem to resolve the problem.
|
| I also note that when the browser is "hanging" to receive this page (which
| is also a frame) my CPU usage skyrockets to 100%, for the duration of the
| hang (which is about 45 second). I've got about 1 gig of RAM and don't have
| intensive processes running in the backgroud, so whatever is going on is
| quite resource intensive. This may be a clue to whats going on. Any other
| suggestions?
|
| "Thomas A. Rowe" wrote:
|
| > Remove the following functions from your TOC page which is only supported by IE browsers and see if
| > that helps:
| >
| > <script language="JavaScript" fptype="dynamicanimation">
| > <!--
| > function dynAnimation() {}
| > function clickSwapImg() {}
| > //-->
| > </script>
| > <script language="JavaScript1.2" fptype="dynamicanimation" src="animate.js">
| > </script>
| >
| > --
| > ==============================================
| > Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
| > ==============================================
| > If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
| > a Service Pack or security update, please contact
| > Microsoft Product Support Services:
| >
http://support.microsoft.com
| > If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
| > security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
| > ==============================================
| >
| > | > > I've decreased the Discussion Board size by 1/2. There are still
| > > considerable loading issues w/ IE and not Firefox. The 'halved" Board can be
| > > seen at
www.boltonhill.org/05a . I made a duplicate child web and removed
| > > half of the contents. It still loads w/ difficulty and delays in IE and not
| > > Firefox
| > >
| > > Also note that this problem appeared acutely, after no known modifcation of
| > > the website or server. The size was approximately the same before the
| > > loading issue was apparent as after, for these reasons, and as the excersize
| > > to reduce file sizes shows, I don't believe this is due to file size. Any
| > > pointers on how to correct this loading issue w/ IE are appreciated
| > >
| > > "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
| > >
| > >> > Perhaps you could be more specific and key me into: What is it about size,
| > >> > that matters to IE but not to Firefox?.
| > >>
| > >> The size in bytes of anything downloaded from a web site makes a big
| > >> difference in the time it takes to download the data. Data is downloaded at
| > >> a speed that is derived from a combination of factors, including (but not
| > >> limited to) the client connection speed, the client hardware/software
| > >> configuration, the server connection speed, server hardware/software
| > >> configuration, the hardware/software configurations of all machines in the
| > >> transport, and the amount of traffic on the Internet.
| > >>
| > >> Now, that difference is not going to be any different to 2 applications on
| > >> the same client machine, Internet Explorer and FireFox, for example.
| > >>
| > >> HOWEVER, what the client app does with the data, once downloaded, can make a
| > >> lot of difference.
| > >>
| > >> Now, I thought I made myself clear with regards to why IE would take longer
| > >> than FireFox to parse nearly 1 megabyte of HTML:
| > >>
| > >> >> It does load faster in FireFox. For what reason, I don't know. IE is part
| > >> >> of
| > >> >> the Windows Operating System, and has quite a bit of security built into
| > >> >> it.
| > >> >> That could be a factor. FireFox has recently been shown to be a bit lax
| > >> >> in
| > >> >> some security areas, possibly contributing to the speed with which it
| > >> >> loads
| > >> >> HTML documents. I can't say.
| > >>
| > >> Have you ever run a virus scanning software to check your file system? It
| > >> can take quite awhile to run. Why is this? It is because every file has to
| > >> be scanned individually for every known virus. An anti-spyware utility has
| > >> much the same issue with regards to speed. And so does adding an anti-SPAM
| > >> filter to your client email application. Security checking adds overhead to
| > >> any application, and how long it takes to perform certain tasks. As to what
| > >> any given application does internally to manage security, well, those are
| > >> trade secrets, and not available to the public. Hence, as I said, I can't
| > >> say what exactly is the difference between how IE parses and how FireFox
| > >> parses.
| > >>
| > >> I did speculate, however, that it could be related to Security. The WWW is a
| > >> highly insecure environment, and IE is part of the Windows Operating System,
| > >> the most prevalent, most attacked Operating System in the world. Microsoft
| > >> has been working hard for years to enhance the security of their operating
| > >> systems, particularly those parts that are exposed to the Internet. That
| > >> includes Internet Explorer. FireFox has only been around for a few years,
| > >> and is only recently coming under the same level of attack. You might want
| > >> to investigate for yourself:
| > >>
| > >>
http://nvd.nist.gov/
| > >>
http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx
| > >>
http://www.mozilla.org/security/#Security_Alerts
| > >>
| > >> Again, this is purely speculation, and there is no way to know how these 2
| > >> web clients parse content, without using a de-compiler program, and spending
| > >> quite some time analyzing the vast amount of assembler code the de-compiler
| > >> would generate. Perhaps a lifetime, considering the size of the Windows
| > >> Operating System.
| > >>
| > >> Therefore, I gave you the advice that any good HTML developer would give
| > >> you:
| > >>
| > >> >> But I can say this: YOUR PAGE IS TOO DARNED LARGE!!!
| > >>
| > >> If you can find a single professional HTML developer with no serious
| > >> psychiatric issues who will tell you that a web page containing over 900 KB
| > >> of pure HTML without images is not too large, I will gladly retract that
| > >> statement and buy you a beer. However, I could save you the trouble by
| > >> recounting a little anecdote. I showed your page to our HTML/Graphics expert
| > >> here at my office, and he laughed so hard he nearly peed his pants. It might
| > >> be best to avoid the embarrassment of telling a professional that the page
| > >> in question was authored by yourself.
| > >>
| > >> Most professionals will say that an image of over 100 KB in size should not
| > >> be included in a page, as it will slow down the download speed by too much
| > >> for most users. Now, an image is not parsed by a browser. But HTML is.
| > >>
| > >> > As you can see, this is an un-moderated discussion board, as such it's
| > >> > important to keep the contents complete. If the contents need to be
| > >> > "trimmed" as you suggest is needed, could you also describe how one could
| > >> > maintain continuity between the two portions?
| > >>
| > >> Now, here is something I can help you with. Typically, this is done with a
| > >> paging mechanism of one sort or another. You have probably seen pages where
| > >> there is either a pager at the bottom (and/or top), or a link that says
| > >> "more...".
| > >>
| > >> With threaded discussions, such as newsgroups, messages older than a certain
| > >> age are not displayed by default. In fact, newsgroups themselves purge
| > >> messages that are older than a certain interval of time prior to the
| > >> present. Most newsgroup clients allow messages read to be not displayed, and
| > >> download a limited number of messages at one time.
| > >>
| > >> Another possibility is a search engine. Allow your users to search for
| > >> messages containing certain keywords.
| > >>
| > >> Of course, all this depends on the limitations of the messaging software
| > >> you're using, and your own programming capabilities.
| > >>
| > >> But whatever you do, be aware that size DOES matter! ;-)
| > >>
| > >> --
| > >> HTH,
| > >>
| > >> Kevin Spencer
| > >> Microsoft MVP
| > >> ..Net Developer
| > >> Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.
| > >>
| > >> | > >> > Mr. Spencer:
| > >> > Perhaps you could be more specific and key me into: What is it about size,
| > >> > that matters to IE but not to Firefox?.
| > >> >
| > >> > As you can see, this is an un-moderated discussion board, as such it's
| > >> > important to keep the contents complete. If the contents need to be
| > >> > "trimmed" as you suggest is needed, could you also describe how one could
| > >> > maintain continuity between the two portions? I suppose one could archive
| > >> > 6
| > >> > months worth and this may resolve the loading issue in IE, but it may
| > >> > not -
| > >> > as this file has been of far greater size in the past and has not had a
| > >> > loading issue of the type that can be seen today.
| > >> >
| > >> > So, if size does matter (to IE), why now? I will defer any submission of
| > >> > a
| > >> > record to Guinness for your further suggestions, as this thread may be
| > >> > more
| > >> > apt for Mr. Ripley.
| > >> >
| > >> > "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
| > >> >
| > >> >> Actually, using IE 5, the whole page comes up if you wait long enough.
| > >> >> Refreshing actually does nothing, except re-request the page. This in
| > >> >> fact,
| > >> >> would result in the page taking longer to load, since it is re-loading
| > >> >> the
| > >> >> whole page again.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> The problem is with the contents of "disc2_tocf.htm." This page is 328 KB
| > >> >> in
| > >> >> size, and has a FrontPage "include" WebBot in it that loads another page
| > >> >> ("tocproto.htm"), which is 584 KB in size, making the total size in KB of
| > >> >> the "disc2_tocf.htm" page 912, or nearly one megabyte. Perhaps just a wee
| > >> >> bit over the top for a web page.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> It does load faster in FireFox. For what reason, I don't know. IE is part
| > >> >> of
| > >> >> the Windows Operating System, and has quite a bit of security built into
| > >> >> it.
| > >> >> That could be a factor. FireFox has recently been shown to be a bit lax
| > >> >> in
| > >> >> some security areas, possibly contributing to the speed with which it
| > >> >> loads
| > >> >> HTML documents. I can't say.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> But I can say this: YOUR PAGE IS TOO DARNED LARGE!!!
| > >> >>
| > >> >> In fact, I have never seen an HTML document of over 900 KB in size, pure
| > >> >> text. You may want to contact the Guiness Book of World Records. But
| > >> >> after
| > >> >> you get your picture in the paper and your name in the book, you might
| > >> >> want
| > >> >> to think about making the page a wee bit smaller. ;-)
| > >> >>
| > >> >> --
| > >> >> HTH,
| > >> >>
| > >> >> Kevin Spencer
| > >> >> Microsoft MVP
| > >> >> ..Net Developer
| > >> >> Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.
| > >> >>
| > >> >> | > >> >> > The index page of my discussion child web is not displayed completely
| > >> >> > by
| > >> >> > IE.
| > >> >> > The Contents frame is not displayed and the browser reports the page as
| > >> >> > "done". To get the complete frameset, a refresh is needed.
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > The problem is experienced by other users and is not unique to my
| > >> >> > client.
| > >> >> > Please see:
http://www.boltonhill.org/bulboard/index.html
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > This does not occur w/ FireFox. The entire framse is displayed w/o
| > >> >> > delay
| > >> >> > or
| > >> >> > problem.
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > Suggestions as to whats goin on, what's causing this and any fixes
| > >> >> > would
| > >> >> > be
| > >> >> > most apprecitated.
| > >> >> >
| > >> >> > Thanks
| > >> >>
| > >> >>
| > >> >>
| > >>
| > >>
| > >>
| >
| >
| >
