5 ms·

With rightly adjusted content filters, the web today is blazingly fast. The NY Times loads in under 2 seconds, the most popular German news provider (spiegel.de

by fwn 11y ago

With rightly adjusted content filters, the web today is blazingly fast. The NY Times loads in under 2 seconds, the most popular German news provider (spiegel.de) in roughly a second. No external sources loaded. Very heavy pages like Google Maps do have some speed issues, but I guess that's at least partly caused by my core i5 instead of my internet connection. Sounds like a client problem to me.

epylar 11y ago
I'm interested in rightly adjusting my content filters. How could I do this?
- programmernews3 11y ago
  Install RequestPolicy, turn off all third-party requests, turn on requests to the same domain, turn on usability/browser subscriptions. Install NoScript, uBlock etc.
- fwn 11y ago
  I mostly use ublock with many lists and a few custom filters/rules for services I don't like. I don't want pages to appear broken. Therefore no Noscript etc.
notacoward 11y ago
Under two seconds? Wow. What kind of latency and bandwidth do you have to NYC? Transfer time should be well under half a second, and processing time should be negligible. If that's what you consider a good loading time, you've done a great job proving the author's point.
- fwn 11y ago
  With Chrome, the full page is already rendered while there are still resources to load. This makes load times mostly on par with my brains content capturing speed. If that's the articles point, I don't see it.
  - kluck 11y ago
    This leads me to another thing that is really annoying: during page load stuff bounces around and changes its size and position. It freqently happens that while I want to click on something it moves away and I click some advert - really stupid.
kluck 11y ago
That it is not a problem of "how fast the browser renders stuff" can be easily demonstrated by this small experiment: just create a website that contains an infinite JS loop (maybe through the use of window.setTimeout() instead of plain recursive...) and watch the browser break... Sometimes I feel that a website that I choose to load and that should serve me, just takes control over my browser and ultimately over my system (RAM, CPU). The browser is not the good "sandbox" it used to be.

by fwn 11y ago

epylar 11y ago

I'm interested in rightly adjusting my content filters. How could I do this?

programmernews3 11y ago
Install RequestPolicy, turn off all third-party requests, turn on requests to the same domain, turn on usability/browser subscriptions. Install NoScript, uBlock etc.
fwn 11y ago
I mostly use ublock with many lists and a few custom filters/rules for services I don't like. I don't want pages to appear broken. Therefore no Noscript etc.

notacoward 11y ago

Under two seconds? Wow. What kind of latency and bandwidth do you have to NYC? Transfer time should be well under half a second, and processing time should be negligible. If that's what you consider a good loading time, you've done a great job proving the author's point.

fwn 11y ago
With Chrome, the full page is already rendered while there are still resources to load. This makes load times mostly on par with my brains content capturing speed. If that's the articles point, I don't see it.
- kluck 11y ago
  This leads me to another thing that is really annoying: during page load stuff bounces around and changes its size and position. It freqently happens that while I want to click on something it moves away and I click some advert - really stupid.

kluck 11y ago

That it is not a problem of "how fast the browser renders stuff" can be easily demonstrated by this small experiment: just create a website that contains an infinite JS loop (maybe through the use of window.setTimeout() instead of plain recursive...) and watch the browser break... Sometimes I feel that a website that I choose to load and that should serve me, just takes control over my browser and ultimately over my system (RAM, CPU). The browser is not the good "sandbox" it used to be.