Hi, > Om, Justin, please read the following. If it does not change your mind > about taking Erik's change then we will take it since I will have then been > outvoted. No vote here just voicing my opinion and while I have been following the conversation I admit don't know the all the details. However 6K doesn't seem like a lot to me.
> 1. You only get once chance to make a first impression. A slightly unfair comparison re Flex I feel, Flex apps can be 100's of KB or even a few megabytes and bandwidth has greatly improved since a few years ago. Yes caching may not occur all the time, but there's going to be more overhead in creating an HTTP connection and latency (20 -100ms/request) than downloading 6K (a few ms). If the JS files are combined and downloaded in one request it's unlikely to add any significant real time. For instance the Adobe front page is about 120K but takes 3-4 seconds to download fully at 100 KB/s or so. Most of that (90%+) is not download time but the number of connections needed and latency and waiting for the server to respond. Even a highly optimised (and simple) site like google.com weights in at 30K but still takes 300ms at 100 KB/s or so 80% of that is latency/overhead/waiting for server. My advice - run some tests with Charles (a reverse proxy and how I got the numbers above) and see what the effect is. Yes I do see your point of a few K here and a few K here eventually add up and 6K may make a difference to a site under a very high load but for 99% of the time it wont even be noticed. > 2. At home, I get about 80K/sec download speed. You sure? I get 10 Mb/s in Australia and in the US 10Mb/s in generally regarded as slow, the global average is higher than 10Mb/s. Here's some figures to go on. http://www.netindex.com > 3. I would like to do a poll to see if we need to support IE6 and/or IE7 I don't think a poll would help. We need real stats not opinion - which may be hard to come by. Thanks, Justin
