Loadig time

[thanidu75]

Hi guys,

I just wanna know if its x10's problem, my server, my web file size that's taking forever to open. my home page takes about 20 seconds to load and i only have 3 pages. You can check it on your own browsers its http://www.thanidu.co.cc please dont shoot me for the domain its just easier to remember. Oh, one more thing. Please send your links as well just to compare loading times.

Kind regards,
Thanidu

 

[ChatIndia]

it's slow but not "forever". perhaps because of 583 kb background image.

The image is half a MB large.

btw, my site is www.chatindia.co.in

 

[essellar]

The problem is that your page isn't so much a web page as a picture of a web page.

PNG-24 is a horribly "expensive" format for graphics, at least where the web is concerned; the only place you should be using it is for your logo (since you need alpha transparency to place it wherever it needs to be). Your main picture should be a JPEG -- that will reduce the filesize and bandwidth required immensely. Your text should be text, not a picture of text; you can place it on a semi-transparent background that overlays the main image easily enough. That, too, will help to greatly reduce the load time.

Using text rather than a picture of text will help you in almost every way possible. Not only will it reduce load times, it also makes your site accessible both to users with special needs (due to disability or alternate devices) and to search engines (Google, Bing, etc.). It may mean paying a little more attention to the development end of things (due mostly to cross-browser compatibility issues), and may mean compromising on your font of choice, but it's a better solution all around. If you need help with the transition, let us know.

 

[anonymousplayer33]

only took 3 sec to load...what kind of old internet are you using?
and agree with what essellar said, dont use png for such thing

 

[nullcity.dev91]

Your website has one flaw preventing my (suckish, please dont ban me for saying that) DSL from Verizon to make the background image give out 5% ping loss.
Anyways, good website!

---------- Post added at 05:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 AM ----------

only took 3 sec to load...what kind of old internet are you using?
and agree with what essellar said, dont use png for such thing

if you want to use png, compress it with GIMP (http://gimp.org) edit the image, save as, then set compression level to 9, then a 1 MB PNG turns into a 190 KB PNG

 

[essellar]

if you want to use png, compress it with GIMP (http://gimp.org) edit the image, save as, then set compression level to 9, then a 1 MB PNG turns into a 190 KB PNG

Not losslessly -- to get that size, you either need to palletize (like GIF) or use lossy compression (like JPEG). Since the site's text is part of the picture, lossy compression and the edge
artifacts it creates are out of the question, and since the background is a full-colour photograph, palletizing's out of the question. PNG-24/PNG-32 (full-colour with or without alpha) is already compressed losslessly, rather like an LZW-compressed TIFF, but with a better algorithm. A large file is just the nature of the beast in this case.

That's not to say that the background image for the content section (as opposed to the page texture background) couldn't be a lossy PNG as easily as a JPEG once the page is redesigned (well, except for browser support -- and again, IE, I'm looking at you). But lossy PNG doesn't offer any advantages over JPG (other than the satisfaction, I suppose, of knowing you are using a compression algorithm that was never patented), unlike the other PNG formats.

 

[Smith6612]

Site took literally no time at all (half second) to fully load on my end. Keep in mind I am on a fast connection with Ethernet connectivity to my network. I'm also using pipe-lining in my browser to send some odd amount of requests to the server at once, making sites load up faster than traditional ways, though this also means the more content that needs to be loaded up, the harder the server gets hit in one blow. Your issue has been outlined above, so you should have all the answers you need. I took the main image of your site, saved it to my PC and then recompressed it into the JPEG format using the highest quality possible. It not only retained image quality from what I could tell, it cut the file size in half.