Browser Issues

[DanekJovax]

I don't know if this is a browser issue or not, but I'm noticing that every time I go back to a posting page that the browser is ALWAYS redownloading ALL of the graphics on the page - even the standard format graphics like the page backgrounds, mastheads, bullets and posting borders!

Not just once a session or once a day.... every time I revisit the page, usually between posts or hopping between pages of a thread.

Is there a reason for this? It's taking a huge performance toll on IE for refreshing the page between posts, as I see on average about 35-65 images loading every time.

I've just checked my IE settings, and it's set to "Automatically" check for updates to pages. That doesn't necessarily mean every time, though it could. Or I wonder is there an HTML tag telling the browser to not cache the info?

Well, if there's anything that can help me in optimizing things here, I'd really appreciate it. If not, I'll live with it nontheless.

Any help is already appreciated ahead of time! ;2)

[Straylight]

CAA is set so that the browser caches images.

I also have IE (although I don't really use it) and mine is set for automatic as well... it doesn't load up the images each time for me. To be honest I have no idea what is going on.

In that box there is a slider for the number of MB you want to reserve for web files, make sure some space is set aside. You could also try deleting cached files .. maybe the space has been filled up. Or perhaps you have run out of hard disk space.

Failing that, go to http://www.mozilla.org and get yourself Mozilla Firebird, it's a lot better, stabler, and smaller in memory. It also has little tabs for various pages you are on, so you don't have to open new windows all the time.

[Mithrandir]

Considering that the the page IS changing everytime, it may really think it needs to download. Also, the images are not statically linked, they are pulled out of the database. This is sloppy, IMHO, but it DOES make it easier to back the whole site up. Anyway, I'd have to agree with noz on the mozilla thing. IE has WAY too many security problems for me to be able to recommend it.

[DanekJovax]

I may give that Mozilla a swing then, and if I like it, I'll stick to that.

Like Shooby-san, I also like programs that stay small and use exactly the memory you tell it (or program it) to use.

:2)

[Straylight]

Considering that the the page IS changing everytime, it may really think it needs to download. Also, the images are not statically linked, they are pulled out of the database. This is sloppy, IMHO, but it DOES make it easier to back the whole site up.

The trouble with this is that I have accessed this site from IE on a 56k conenction before and it caches fine. Also the images (eg. the buttons, bar backgrounds, headers) are stored in folders. The only images pulled from the database are attachments.

Since then I have made no relevant changes, which is why I'm a bit confused as to why this happened. I suspect the problem lies somewhere on your computer, DanekJovax

[TheMelodyMaker]

Maybe you could try a temporary solution, Danek--just set up IE to never check for new versions; that way pages you've already been to won't actually be refreshed unless you click "Refresh" (or if the cache is full, then do what Noz said and increase the cache size as well).

Just a thought; I'm going to give it a try myself. ^_^

[TheMelodyMaker]

*sigh* So much for that idea; it still kept re-downloading pages on its own.

[DanekJovax]

Well, I set the refresh to "Never" and that seems to help, and just for the record, I have 256MB set aside for cache use.

I'll try a couple other settings and stick with whatever seems to work best.

Thanks for the help, minna-san!

[Fsiphskilm]

um. sorry

[andyroo]

No. It all gets cached on the hard disk. So there wouldn't be any memory issues, but only hard disk issues if there isn't enough space left.

[DanekJovax]

I was meaning the Internet Cache, which is separate than the primary Cache, a-la Virtual Memory (which on my PC is set to dynamic - which I SHOULD change, and it's currently 786MB).

[Mithrandir]

Possibly OT:
I would hope that means you have 512+ MB ram, otherwise, as Volt said, you are in danger of the 'blue screen blues.' Then general rule of thumb (to keep VM happy) is that useing VM should give you no more than 1.5 times your current physical ram. EG:
[indent]
RAM = 512 MB
VM = 256 MB
Total = 768 MB.
[/indent]
I would strongly suspect a simple transposition typo in Jovax's post, as 786 MB is a rather odd (and potentially dangerous) amount of space to set aside. (NOTE: It's only dangerous if you have not adjusted your default block size on your machine, if I remember correctly).

Anyway, to DJ, I was refering to the avitar/sig graphics, not the i/f or system graphics. It would be very silly to pull THOSE out of the database, and thus the cache. The avitar/sigs change any time you post (because you add yours to the page, changing the size and 'last mod date'.) On the subject of avitar/sig graphics, your system may not be caching them because they don't end in a normal extension for a graphic or page.

Just a thought.

[Straylight]

That's a valid point

[DanekJovax]

Let me recheck... I do have 512MBs of RAM, so feel more comortable, please... I also have a 768 MB pagefile.sys. Sounds about right, ne?

On the memory side of things, I'm doing alright... just the refresh thingy was getting on my nerves. I'll still have to check out some low-fat browsers and see if they do just as good as IE.

Don't ask me to check out Netscape... I haven't messed with it since 4.7 and I'll never go back.... I'd rather be force-fed 100 hours of portuguese-dubbed Smurfs and Care Bears.

[inkhana]

May I put in my two cents?

Netscape = bad
Mozilla/Firebird = good!

*exit Ink*

[Mithrandir]

2 very tasty cents, indeed!

[madphilb]

um. sorry for butting in but if you only have 256 MB of RAM and you set aside 256 MB of cache... isn't there a risk of the blue screen blues?

If you run Windows you run the risk of the blue screen blues

PHIL

[madphilb]

Questions Re: Modzilla.

I stopped using Netscape a long time ago mostly because of the Javascript interpreter lockup problems that seemed to plague it (though for some reason I was never able to quite track down that everyone had the problem).

The problem was this:

Loading a page with Javascript on it, and then stopping the load (either hitting the stop button or selecting a new page) would crash the JS engine (behind the scenes).

The symptoms where that you couldn't click on links anymore (they would just sit there an look stupid at you), though I could right-click and select "open" on them.... that and when I'd shut it down "netscape" would still be listed as running task, when you'd try to "end task" it would eventually tell you the task was not responding and ask if you wanted to kill it.

Does this happen with Modzilla/firebird? If not, I might have to give it a look... otherwise I'll stick with Opera (which works well).

PHIL

[Mithrandir]

I think it's fixed. I recall a simlar problem, but I haven't seen any issues with mozilla derivitives. As for whether NS fixed theirs or not, I can't really say. It was so slow that I had to move off it. If you're on a Mac OS X box, then the best browser by far is Camino. If you aren't on Mac OS X, you have my condolences.

NOTE: This post not intended to start "Browser Wars Oct." The last thing we need is another one of those...

[Straylight]

I've never had any javascript problems with Firebird. As far as Netscape goes, these days it's the full Mozilla browser with a load of AOL junk tacked on top. Not something I could recommend. However Mozilla on its own, or the "lite" browser Firebird are both excellent browsers. I prefer Firebird myself.

[inkhana]

At first I wasn't sure I would like Firebird as well because of the fact that it didn't have mail/composer/etc integration, but heck, I downloaded 1stPage to take care of the webpage editing (a nice program, I might add), Thunderbird for mail, and on top of that, Firebird seems to run more quickly on my machine. So I'm pleased with it...^^ I have never had trouble with it in terms of Javascript.

[Straylight]

Exactly. My laptop has only 256mb of ram, so it becomes a pain when things like IE start to clog it up.

[DanekJovax]

Well, I've been testing with IE a little, and have come to the conclusion that to keep the refreshing on the CAA pages to a minimum (read: almost none), I have to set the reload new versions of pages ot NEVER, and just remember to refresh the pages at other websites (F5) when I need to. Not a big hassle, but something new deal with anyways.

Nope, no bluescreen blues for me, though I'm having other issues with this OS as it's been almost 2 years since "fresh" WinXP installation and it's gathering its accumulated "mold" that I'll need to remove with another "wipe n clean" installation again.

:2P

[Mithrandir]

Sounds like it's time for a Mac, or a Linux box, if you are up for it.

[DanekJovax]

If you're up for buying it for me, sure! >;2)

[Straylight]

Linux is free! (Not easy to use though)

[DanekJovax]

Ya, I know, and I can hack that (pun not intended) config stuff too... just the time factor... I dont' have a lot of it, and the little free time I have I'd like to relax... configuring a Linux server isn't exactly my cup of relaxing tea. ;2)