1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Does anyone know which script is this site using ?

Discussion in 'Programming' started by bwsl, May 26, 2020.

  1. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    536
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    245
    #21
    None of these web sites should take 5 minutes to load on a highend Mac with a high speed connection. Sorry that is not the typical case.
    SEMrush
     
    NetStar, Aug 2, 2020 IP
    SEMrush
  2. NetStar

    NetStar Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    536
    Best Answers:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    245
    #22
    You can add that to the list. However, @deathshadow is #2. As seen in his response.


    Sure. However, a business owner does not care and shouldn't care about over complicating development to save nano-seconds.
     
    NetStar, Aug 2, 2020 IP
  3. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    532
    Best Answers:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #23
    Go re-read my post. There is NOTHING in that post about OS9 since FF will not run on any OS9 machine. My complaint in THAT post was about FF69, which I did not realize was a decade and half old browser. I thought it was a current 2020 browser when I installed it a few months ago. NO Firefox will run on OS9, so even though I STILL use OS9, I CANNOT access the internet using it.

    FF69 is SLOWER than molasses. cutcodedown.com on it takes OVER ONE MINUTE to load EACH page. Using FF3 takes UNDER TWO SECONDS to load the same EXACT page on the SAME EXACT connection. Unfortunately, I cannot use FF3 most of the time, so I am stuck with a SLOW browser that I HATE in many many ways. I probably should trash FF and find a better browser.
     
    mmerlinn, Aug 2, 2020 IP
  4. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    532
    Best Answers:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #24
    Might not be the typical case, but that is what I am dealing with.

    When a site will load dozens of magnitudes faster on a 20 year old browser than on a modern browser, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong. Since most sites now won't even work with older browsers there is no way I can benchmark them beyond knowing that I feel like I am back in the 300 baud modem days.
     
    mmerlinn, Aug 2, 2020 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,375
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Best Answers:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #25
    My bad, usually you're talking about old hardware and old OS.

    If FF3 is fast but FF60+ is slow, I'd say the problem is either outdated hardware that doesn't properly support modern features, or an outdated OS that has the same woe.

    That or the fact that FF3 is "fast" is the fact that sites viewed in it would be crippled in appearance and functionality EXACTLY like they would be in IE8/earlier. Something your hardware or OS is too old or too crippled to support.

    Since if Chrome and FF latest can both run just fine on win 7 on my old MSI 123 nettop, I can't imagine how little hardware you're on for this to even be an issue. What are you running, 512 megs of RAM off USB 1.0 flash? A pre SSE CPU?

    If my site is taking almost a minute in FF latest but not in the ancient unstable unreliable 3.x (where that infamous "It's not a memory leak" was still a thing) there's something seriously wrong with your hardware config.

    Honestly I thought you were talking FF 6.9 not 69, since nobody on FF 8/newer should be on anything LESS than 76 due to update push. in fact MOST people should be on FF 79 by now.

    -- edit -- my bad, FF 79 not 78. Just checked.
     
    deathshadow, Aug 2, 2020 IP
  6. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    532
    Best Answers:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #26
    @deathshadow, I will need to get back to you since I don't have all of the answers at my fingertips.

    What I do know right now is that FF3.6.28 is running on a G4 with Leopard OSX. FF69 is running on a later Mac, but I cannot get the details until later. They are both connected to the same ISP address via the same high speed connection, so that eliminates any external connection issues.

    Your site looks and acts the same in both browsers. Nothing crippled about it. Ditto for my site. So using those examples for comparison purposes should eliminate a "crippling" issue. Most sites are either crippled in FF3 or won't load at all, so I would never use them to compare FF3/FF69 usability. When possible I use FF3, but for crippled and non-loading sites I am stuck with slow FF69. Fortunately, DP still works fine with FF3.

    I just checked the size of Mac FF3 and FF69. Talk about code bloat!!! FF3.6.28 is 18Mb while FF69 is 67Mb! FF69 uses 3.72 times more code than FF3.6.28 does to do the same job. Like you always say, code bloat makes EVERYTHING slower. And FF79 is even WORSE at 71Mb. That may not be the whole problem, but it IS a contributing factor.

    Wow, I just realized that I am still using FF3.6.16 on this WinXP machine. I thought I had updated it to FF3.6.28 years ago. Guess I should do something about that when I have time to fix anything that breaks when I update.
     
    mmerlinn, Aug 2, 2020 IP