Current time: 11-24-2020, 06:36 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IE8 == Worse Performance?
06-26-2010, 11:45 PM (This post was last modified: 06-26-2010 11:50 PM by jarrod1937.)
Post: #4
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance?
(06-26-2010 12:55 PM)pmeenan Wrote:  Want some fun? Try firefox 3.6 which bumped connections up to 16 - YIKES!
Wow, didn't know that, thats a tad excessive in my opinion.

(06-26-2010 12:55 PM)pmeenan Wrote:  IE7 mode for IE8 is for the rendering engine, not the network connections (to the best of my knowledge).
I could have sworn it also changed the amount of concurrent connections. I'll run another test later to be sure.

(06-26-2010 12:55 PM)pmeenan Wrote:  One thing you might try doing (if possible) is moving that inline script that comes right after the css. Not sure if the browser would start downloading images earlier if it didn't hit that script but it's worth testing.
Which script exactly? The only thing i see is the lt ie7 conditonal statement, can those cause image downloading to be blocked? Keep in mind the link in the test goes straight to our old, currently live, site. On the old site there is some inline javascript right after the css, but it has been removed in our new site (the one in that test).

(06-26-2010 12:55 PM)pmeenan Wrote:  Aside from that the only other suggestion I have (if you feel like getting crazy) would be to deliver the images directly in the css (or in an external resource file). mhtml for IE and Data URI's for the browsers that support them. It gets more complicated because you're having to do per-browser logic but you'll see some crazy-fast speedups as all of the images will be downloaded in one request (and without resorting to sprites - regular images).
Yeah, i've read up on css data embeding, but considering it only works on IE8 (for the IE browser family), it is not worth the extra development effort to create an maintain such a system. I'm sticking with css sprites for now.

(06-26-2010 02:36 PM)green-watch.org Wrote:  Hey Patrick,

Could you elaborate on how to create a resource file like the one you mentioned?

I am very interested in reducing the number of requests for images and I am sure other people would be too.

Thanks in advance for any information on this.

Sincerely,
Travis Walters

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed...ne-images/

Or you can google:
"css data embedding"
"css data URI"
...etc
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 06-26-2010, 05:00 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-26-2010, 12:55 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 06-26-2010 11:45 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-27-2010, 02:15 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 06-27-2010, 05:17 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-27-2010, 06:19 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-27-2010, 10:32 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-27-2010, 11:14 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - leonid - 06-29-2010, 06:54 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - Aptimize - 07-02-2010, 03:42 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 07-02-2010, 09:35 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - leonid - 06-29-2010, 10:11 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 06-29-2010, 10:38 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - leonid - 06-29-2010, 10:44 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 06-30-2010, 12:44 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 07-02-2010, 05:17 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 07-02-2010, 05:35 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 07-02-2010, 06:15 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 07-02-2010, 09:52 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 07-03-2010, 12:05 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 07-06-2010, 10:31 PM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - jarrod1937 - 07-15-2010, 12:55 AM
RE: IE8 == Worse Performance? - pmeenan - 07-15-2010, 04:56 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)