4 ms·
Took 15 seconds to load the landing page. Honestly, you lost me as a user after the first 5 but I wanted to see the rest of the page. Scrolled to the bottom q
by notduncansmith 12y ago
Took 15 seconds to load the landing page. Honestly, you lost me as a user after the first 5 but I wanted to see the rest of the page.
Scrolled to the bottom quickly, had to wait for it to animate in so I was staring at a blank page for a few seconds.
Can't be bothered to try the product, since I'll be old and gray by the time it boots.
- jiggy2011 12y agoIt's probably loading slowly because being linked on HN is giving the server too much traffic. It's self hosted anyway, so that doesn't really matter.
- notduncansmith 12y agoIt does really matter - the landing page loads 1.9MB of content. This is easily 10x the size one should expect from a landing page. It's reasonable to assume that the app itself would follow similar proportions, and that means (most likely) load times upwards of 45 seconds. No thanks.
- jiggy2011 12y ago45 seconds? That sounds like a huge overestimate, especially after you've cached the assets. A reasonable internet connection should shift 1.9MB in 2-3 seconds.
- ishansharma 12y agoDepends which country's reasonable you are talking about. In my country, broadband is anything more than 256 kbps! So, to call their services broadband, almost all providers drop speed after FUP limit (anywhere from 8-200 GB) to 256kbps. And average speed is something like 2-3 Mbps.
- staunch 12y agoShitty internet is your problem. Fix it so you can experience the internet properly in 2014.
- DanBC 12y agoOr devs could stop including fucking huge but pointless assests in what should be a simple web page. "Test on real hardware" includes testing on the reduced bandwidth that most people have.
- staunch 12y agoDon't forget to make sure it works on IE6 and on an ISDN too. The only problem here is shitty internet in 2014. No civilized country has any excuse. Running fiber is incredibly inexpensive relative to almost all major infrastructure costs. A 2MB web page is not the problem.
- srgpqt 12y agoDon't forget to make sure it only works on 48 core supercomputers equipped with 8 TB of RAM. The only problem here (and everywhere) is shitty developers thinking that being in 2014 is an acceptable excuse for extremely shoddy work. No self-respecting developer has any excuse. At the global scales, it must be costing trillions of dollars in wasted electricity. All 2MB web pages in the world only compound the problem when they should be < 100kb. As with everything, there should be balance. This certainly isn't it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- staunch 12y agoDamn shitty developers like John Carmack wasting computing power on better graphics! Where's my pong!?
- 12y ago
- 72deluxe 12y agoIf that's the case, why do we make thumbnails of pictures instead of just using an img width tag and resizing giant pictures down to thumbnail size? 1.9MB is as large as some ENTIRE pieces of software executables (though they may be dynamically linked). EDIT: Not meant nastily, more food for thought.
- sharth 12y agoIt took 49 seconds for me to load the __landing page__. It would have been done in 3 seconds (which is still an insanely long amount of time) except that this image: https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/4.0/88x31.png https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/4.0/88x31.png took 49 seconds to load. Chrome's network panel shows: Blocking 27.15 s DNS Lookup 0.137 ms Connecting 21.76 s SSL 20.59 s Sending 0.129 ms Waiting 78.344 ms Receiving 1.252 ms For a damn 5kb image.
- dba7dba 12y agoLoaded fine for me. Rest of site looks good. Will definitely try this out. May sound strange to others but I could use a project management software, even though I'm a one man project operation...