On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 04:26:54PM +0200, Uwe Pross wrote: > Hi there, > > On 30 Apr 2003 at 14:29:16 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > > At work (fastest possible connection, I work for an > > > > internet provider), 75% of the time (2 to 2.5 seconds) > > > > is used to load and display the icons in the pager. > > > > Is there a big penalty for loading 20 small files? > > > > > > What do you mean by penalty in this context? > > > > Performance penalty. Slowing down the load time. > > Maybe I am a bit slow today but I don't see any coherence > between a couple of small image files and a performance > penalty (if there is such a thing).
One big file = small overhead = little performance penatly Many small files = big overhead = ??? performance penalty > > I can hardly believe that rendering 20 tiny images takes > > more than 1.5 seconds. Okay, mozilla is slow, but not > > *this* slow(?) > > Have you checked the render times by using a local version > of the web page? You may save the web page with mozilla and > load it again afterwards. I'd have to learn how to set up apache first. :-( > > The page is initially displayed with the "window" using all the > > available page width. When the pager frame is loaded, the window > > shrinks to make room for the pager. I don't see it with mozilla > > 1.2.1 here (fast connection), but with 1.0 on my ISDN line. > > I think this can be hardly avoided with gecko. Netscape4.x > starts render the table if it got all image and text > information this avoids the layout change you described but > displays nothing until all contents have been loaded. > Gecko starts rendering even it has not all information. Yeah. I would think choosing a clever order of the components lessens that problem. Maybe an invisible placeholder for the pager first? Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
