Topic

I would say 10 would be the best balance.

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

David; you tend to post larger file size photos than most and yours do tend to load slowly for me. I've just tried page 13 of the Invasion Scotland thread and it loaded for about 50 secs and then stopped altogether with quite a lot of photos only half loaded.

That is a valid point, and I am trying to reduce the file size of my photos, but I don't want to lose too much quality either.

I just tried page 13 of the Scotland invasion thread and it loaded in 4 seconds. I have about 3 meg broadband.

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

David; you tend to post larger file size photos than most and yours do tend to load slowly for me. I've just tried page 13 of the Invasion Scotland thread and it loaded for about 50 secs and then stopped altogether with quite a lot of photos only half loaded.

That is a valid point, and I am trying to reduce the file size of my photos, but I don't want to lose too much quality either.

I just tried page 13 of the Scotland invasion thread and it loaded in 4 seconds. I have about 3 meg broadband.

If I refresh, it does eventually load the pics fully.

Courtesy car thread page 1 took about 8 secs to load.
Just text pages usually load in around 2 secs.

Of course, if the computer happens to be downloading updates then this also creates a whole load of issues

Downloaded latest itunes last week which took 83 minutes. I think it worked out at 1 meg a minute

cjj wrote: wrote:

I would say 10 would be the best balance.

That would be my choice also. Seems a good compromise.

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

Downloaded latest itunes last week which took 83 minutes. I think it worked out at 1 meg a minute

+
I remember when we used to dream of speeds like that.

cjj wrote: wrote:

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

Downloaded latest itunes last week which took 83 minutes. I think it worked out at 1 meg a minute

+
I remember when we used to dream of speeds like that.

Remember Dial up?56k.

I've set it to 10 posts per page, Lets see how we get on with that

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

cjj wrote: wrote:

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

Downloaded latest itunes last week which took 83 minutes. I think it worked out at 1 meg a minute

+
I remember when we used to dream of speeds like that.

Remember Dial up?56k.

Even better was the 9.6k that WAP mobiles used to run at. Now I get bored waiting for 3G on my smartphone.

Thanks Psymon and David, certainly makes it better for me

I like it better too on iPhone. Only awkward for VERY picture heavy posts, and thats just because of scrolling up and down, not load time.

Seems fine on my slow broadband. Slightly longer to load the threads with pics on, but if you weigh that against the time it would take to swap pages when there are only 5 per page it doesn't really make much difference.
Nice one fellas.

David Aiketgate wrote: wrote:

cjj wrote: wrote:

rog1963 wrote: wrote:

Downloaded latest itunes last week which took 83 minutes. I think it worked out at 1 meg a minute

+
I remember when we used to dream of speeds like that.

Remember Dial up?56k.

56k, that's fast, I started with 14k.

These pages are taking just over 1 second to download.

10 messeges works well for me.