4 ms·
Coincidentally, when I was a freshman in high school in the late 90's this was a topic our instructor drilled into us. I remember trying to shave off every lit
by Bluecobra 8y ago
Coincidentally, when I was a freshman in high school in the late 90's this was a topic our instructor drilled into us. I remember trying to shave off every little kilobyte for .gif and .jpg files and to make my personal website load as quickly as possible with a reasonable amount of quality over a modem.
From my perspective, it seems that everything has gotten way more bloated there is an assumption that everyone has unlimited data and bandwidth. I used to have a 1GB data cap on my phone that I would blow out in a couple of weeks from just reading news websites. For example, bloomberg.com shouldn't need to make nearly ~300 requests and download 18mb of data just to load the front page.
- MR4D 8y agoYour comment made me bring out DevTools, because I thought your number of requests you said ("~300") sounded a bit high. Boy was I wrong!!! - 500/565 requests - 7.0 MB transferred - 9.86 second to load Holy crap!!!
- Jach 8y ago"Install our app!"
- jakecopp 8y agoTry dailytelegraph.com.au for a good shock! On mobile, but last I checked was around 700 HTTP requests on a desktop without adblock.
- adventured 8y agoChecked it on Pingdom, from Melbourne, it failed after one minute of trying to load, with 585 requests and 3.4mb. I always find it difficult to imagine what kind of process leads to that result. The developers can't be happy about it, surely. It has to be a case where management and everyone else throws things they want into the project, a big concensus party, and you end up with a bloated monster at the end.
- jpgrace 8y agoIn my experience this often means that management is not measuring the right things or that the engineering team is super junior and not empowered to influence strategy.
- RugnirViking 8y agoThat's truly incredible. It took several long seconds on a usually very quick internet connection. At least they made the page reflow nicely as it loads but it's still ridiculous
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mehrdadn 8y agoThis is weird. In Chrome incognito, I get ~400 requests (without scrolling), and in Firefox private browsing, I get ~120 requests before scrolling, and ~190 after. What in the world? I disabled all the extensions in Firefox too.
- detaro 8y agoDoesn't Firefox private browsing has a tracking blocklist active by default?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mehrdadn 8y agoWow, I didn't know that! I thought the tracking protection was just about the DNT header and I didn't expect that to make much difference here. However, even disabling that, I only get ~200 requests. There's still a lot missing... is it still blocking things under the hood?
- RugnirViking 8y agoIt may also be that different resources are loaded based on browser agent to track the user in different ways/display the page correctly on different browsers/polyfill javascript differences
- MR4D 8y agoI just re-ran it in Chrome ingongito mode to get the following: - 400 requests (adds about 1 per second after that) - 6.8 MB transferred - 6.1 seconds Then I ran it AGAIN, and got this: - 307 requests - 4.6 MB - 9.03 seconds You're right - it is WEIRD!
- frozenport 8y agoMight be viewed as a heavy sales tactic for the terminals!
- newman314 8y agoI was just debugging our new corporate intranet portal. Same thing, tons of requests, 17MB page load. Turns out the intranet team had decided to add a panel for Yammer updates. It doesn't help that the Yammer implementation has errors. For example, the X-XSS-Protection header returns 1; mode=block twice in the same header. If there is anyone here from the Yammer team, let me know and I'll show you.
- mattferderer 8y agoI've been debugging a GIS application lately. We have a remote customer & a corporate connection to them that has a lot of latency. Since most GIS sites work by sending hundreds of square map tile images, there ends up being a lot of requests, especially for maps with many layers. As helpful as decreasing image size was, switching to HTTP/2 was even better. Highly recommend giving HTTP/2 a try if your dealing with a lot of file requests & latency. A small test of 150 images went from 6 seconds down to 1 second in our tests.
- theandrewbailey 8y agoI can collaborate about HTTP/2. Even my blog, with about 10 requests and 500KB (mostly images), I noticed a clear improvement (~200-500ms quicker load) by upgrading from HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2, and doing nothing else.