> Mark, I don't know if you realize this but that page,
> on my setup (144MHZ, Win2000, 100MB RAM) almost brings IE5.5
> to its everlovin' knees. You have a long, long page, with lots of
> images, and a big background image force/fixed thru liberal
Thanks for that info. I have a 133MHz, Win98, 128MB RAM test machine that it
renders fine on.
As for the length - its an archive of a month's worth of posts to my blog...
> When I viewed it I thought it was stuck on 'permanent load'
> or something very like it. Scrolling is glacial; I'll take
> Flash any day. Even Mozilla is a tad slow.
Scrolling has not been a problem for any browser on that machine (IE5, NS6,
Opera 6) so I assumed (and we all know what that means...) that it would be
fine on just about anything else.
> Is it possible for you to sniff retarded systems like mine and
> leave out the JS? Cause if it ain't, a whole lotta people
> are gonna think this is a broken page, And I know you don't
> want that. After all, that JS is in there specifically for
> the IE crowd, right? :]
does the page perform now? And, if you'd like to look at the current design
that machine, that would be cool.
I recognized that once I got my digital camera and started posting lots of
images, that it was going to be a problem for some folks, so I went with a
single, changing image at the top, with an archive of images on a different
page. Hopefully that will help not only with the download time, but also the
We put the "blah" in blog...