Just ran a test in Chrome and man....this page has alot of s and they are kind of slow. Some run for over 1.5 seconds according to the test and I was just wondering if there is any plans to optimize the page or simplify it so it runs faster? I have a 2.8Ghz Celeron Mobile laptop, 768 MB of RAM total, Windows XP home edition, and run Google Chrome Development version. 5 seconds for a page load is just insane, and I truthfully get bored waiting.

Just wondering....also, one idea from me is to do less shading on the widget-inner image since only the top left side if slightly shaded and take it down to a 1x248 image to improve rendering time, and also improve loading time/rendering time.

Little stuff like that makes a difference, I am just pointing something like that out. It's fine if you guys here don't want to, it's easy to se your doing a great job here, it's just that I'd rather have a simpler page without 5 second loads if it means a faster page. 

I use Google Chrome because of speed, and if your like me, always on the move, 5 second page loads or more just kill the experience and just aren't reasonable in this year of 2010. I am a web developer and optimization junkie so anything that takes too long not only annoys me, but also shows that something isn't right. I am getting bored now and it seems that 5 second loads are kinda fast. I've been getting 10 second plus loads now 0_o

With the best web browser and V8 ja
va processing, 5 seconds or more for parsing and execution is just unacceptable. I'd hate to be anyone running Firefox, or, -gulp-....internet exploder. It must be horrid.

Okay I just did some tests in Chrome, and according to it's resource tracking, the site does run pretty smoothly in loading up to something called "get.media" which seems like a scrpt to run ads...(Pretty funny since I run Chrome with the Adblock extension) and yeah....And it also says it took 2.03 seconds to transfer what seems to be the page, which is....Idk. Seems kind high but whatever, that seems reasonable though. It looks like the ad-enable part of the site screws it over adding 3.15 seconds to the load time, and especially animated ones and such. Maybe changing that would help a decent amount? With a 5 second load time if you improve that to lets say.... half a second, that'd be 3.5 seconds per page load, a good improvement over 5 or more.

" I don't appreciate complaining over 5 seconds when I've sat waiting for pages to load in excess of 5 minutes."

He's not complaining Ren, he's just suggesting ideas to help Res run faster. :/ Your computer should also never take 5 minutes to load anything. Just because your computer is running below standard doesn't mean you should shoot down his suggestion because you feel like he's impatient. He has a legitimate point.

The lag time I always attributed to a small server space, but that costs money to fix. But who knows, I'm not exactly well versed in these things.

Also, just re-did the test on this page in chrome and it took 12 seconds to render so yeah....not much to say about that.  44 seconds if you include the time-out of files that don't exist but the page was trying to load anyway (Timed out, 404'd)

 And also, if you use a 56K modem from over a decade or more ago it'd take that long, but they haven't made computers that slow in recent history. That can't be helped because modem != PC. :P

Oh well hopefully someone else understands.  I guess I just get used to clicking the Homepage button at the top and being on chrome within a fifth of a second. Maybe this site wasn't made for speed but still... 

Edit:

 And every time I load the page, another couple line .JS file takes 3 seconds to run....I am getting so confused how this site is running. :P 

There are times when the site does lag for around 5+ minutes, but it doesn't happen nearly as often now as it once did.

Recently, the page load times have gotten much worse, BUT there is a reason for that. I can't go into specifics as to why, however, it is temporary.

Even with the page load times at what they were before this recent development, they were still not what I would call acceptable, but it was still a definite improvement over what we have currently.

Firefox isn't too bad here [I'm still using 3.5.9] but yeah, IE is a nightmare. I wouldn't suggest using IE anywhere on the web, though. :P

Okay well good thing it's temporary, and actually this page loaded in less then a second, I was suprised. Lets see how long this continues :D

Also, if you want you can mail me why I'd be interested to know! :) I like tech-talk.  ^_^ 

Res loads almost instantly for me too, and I also use IE.

The only time I get that type of ag is during seasonal egg hunts, and there's an obvious reason for that.

I use IE mostly too. I'll get a slow load every now and then, but it normally happens trying to load the reply box for typing posts. Dunno if anyone else has that problem or not.

Well I will test in IE after I install the either IE8 trash or supposedly good IE9 beta. I feel like I will be choosing my poison. XD :P

And from the results, some of it is because of the fact that it takes 1 action time to 404 before most of the page is rendered and the rest is loaded I think. It is trying to access "http://ouqw.info" for some reason, as to why, I am not the maker of the site and have no idea, but that probably is one of the reasons for slowness.

 I'll do more tests later but as soon as I upload this screen capture to my webs, I'll link to it. It was the fastest test I got, all s ran fine this load and the top bar is how long the total pageload is. Notice the first file up top to the left, no bar with it. It Timed Out for some reason....

 http://aaronrls01.webs.com/Etc/untitled.PNG 

Without Images: 

 http://aaronrls01.webs.com/Etc/untitled2.PNG

 ja
va Disabled:

http://aaronrls01.webs.com/Etc/untitled3.PNG

Results are so mixed I have no idea where to really pinpoint what would be making it so slow. Without image s ran super fast (45MS). Without ja
va, some other s took 2.14 Seconds.....I have no idea what to make of it. :P

Also I am an idiot, I need to run the 1st test again, it was on a different page. -facepalm- XD 

Lol and you guys are using IE? 0_o Scares me nobody cares about PC software. Atleast get firefox! Even better, Chrome. :P XD

That's exactly what happened to me Yaiz, lol. /highfives

Back when I used both, FF was the lesser of the two imho. So when I got my new desktop I just didn't bother to get the Mozilla browser again, although I will admit I haven't tried the latest version. Tbh, IE 8 suits me just fine; it doesn't give me trouble at all despite how much people complain about it. XD I also heard that Chrome isn't too good either, but y'know. :P

If you were a developer you'd understand how many light years ahead Chrome is from any other browser. :P So much faster, I've never had it crash in my year plus of using it, I'd advise giving it a try. It's a quick one-click install and IMO the default settings are horrible, but once you take 5 minutes and get it set up right, it's amazing. IE has nearly no ja
va compatability. I know I never test code in it, I never have any using IE visit my sites so yeah....All my friends use Chrome. :P :)

Oh well I guess if you like it you like it, but man.....I have never used it and not gotten a crash. I hated on Windows ME when we had it, IE would go down and take out every task from IE to notepad! :P So many bad memories....I just can't use it, but IE9 could be decent, but I will believe it when I see it. XD 

"http://ouqw.info" was causing some issues here recently with not being able to reply in Res forums with Chrome, while having Adblock enabled. 

I reported it a while back, and it seems to have stopped locking the reply area, but I was never able to load that site on its own. It also takes an unreasonably long amount of time for the page [ouqw] to give this error:

The webpage at http://ouqw.info/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. 

PS: IE9 is just as evil as the rest of them. xD

Ahhhh I do have adblock enabled. I guess Chrome tries to hard to load it. XD

Oh well, I will just accept 2 seconds of slowness to remove adds I guess.  That might be why the sight is more sluggish for me....hmmm....