Publisher & Graphics on Netscape

[BlueEsq]

Hey all,

Can anyone tell me why graphics load so much better on netscape vs. IE. I've
compressed all the graphics on the sites, such that they're only 96dpi
(Thanks DB...MSMVP). That helped the load on IE a bit, however everything
seems to load seamlessly on NS (without any "ghosting" reload when you
transfer back and forth between pages). Could it be my system?

Thx.

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

compressed to 96dpi?...did you optimize them too, or just change the res?

what's the url to the website?


| Hey all,
|
| Can anyone tell me why graphics load so much better on netscape vs. IE.
I've
| compressed all the graphics on the sites, such that they're only 96dpi
| (Thanks DB...MSMVP). That helped the load on IE a bit, however everything
| seems to load seamlessly on NS (without any "ghosting" reload when you
| transfer back and forth between pages). Could it be my system?
|
| Thx.

 

[David Bartosik]

Using the Compression tool on the Picture Toolbar is a recommended practice.

But, the quality of your input images is not the issue you are speaking of.

The short answer to your question is - because they're not the same graphics.

You cannot do an apple to apple comparison.

The long answer...
If you look in the folder that you saved the 2003 site files to you will
find numerous image files were generated by Pub 2003. If you open a few of
them you will find that each graphic you input in your pub file was recreated
by Pub 2003 in an assortment of qualities and file formats. The reason being
that the web page code that Pub 2003 writes is using a programming
methodology that gives the browser whatever type of image that browser will
support. Since IE supports VML graphics and PNG that technology is used with
it's supporting files. Since NS does not support VML or PNG it is loading the
simpler jpg.

Depending on the internet connection speed and quality, as well as the
systems available resources for running IE, one may or may not see a
discernable difference.