2011-07-28, 11:23 PM
2011-07-28, 11:35 PM
What do you mean? Sorry, I'm lost
"Of course not" what?
Do you mean "of course I'm not getting a positive response"
That's because people are use to looking at design-layout, great graphics and content...(of which I havent even started to look at yet) maybe I shouldn't have posted this thread in this section (or possibly even at all). If you looked at it with performance tools it would be more impressive, honest
"Of course not" what?
Do you mean "of course I'm not getting a positive response"
That's because people are use to looking at design-layout, great graphics and content...(of which I havent even started to look at yet) maybe I shouldn't have posted this thread in this section (or possibly even at all). If you looked at it with performance tools it would be more impressive, honest
2011-07-28, 11:45 PM
Okay, I actually just set up a test forum.
I ran the speed test just like yours, 0.6 seconds.
So, what's to be impressed about? Fast speed is expected at an empty forum.
If you can get this speed with a 1 million post database and several hundred users online at the same time, I'll bow down to you.
I ran the speed test just like yours, 0.6 seconds.
So, what's to be impressed about? Fast speed is expected at an empty forum.
If you can get this speed with a 1 million post database and several hundred users online at the same time, I'll bow down to you.
2011-07-28, 11:49 PM
I doubt I'll even get 100 users (any time soon)
600ms is pretty good, but that's a server test (if it's a good server, even the most bloated/poorly performance designed forums can be quite fast)
Use performance tools (google page speed/yslow), if you dont have plug-ins / performance tools, use a web based tools, something like pingdom tools
Where's the test site? Point pingdom tools to it and post the link here
600ms is pretty good, but that's a server test (if it's a good server, even the most bloated/poorly performance designed forums can be quite fast)
Use performance tools (google page speed/yslow), if you dont have plug-ins / performance tools, use a web based tools, something like pingdom tools
Where's the test site? Point pingdom tools to it and post the link here
2011-07-28, 11:55 PM
Website information
Total loading time:
0.7 seconds
Total objects:
9 (69.9 KB)
External objects:
0
HTML (X)HTML:
1 (19.2KB)
RSS RSS/XML:
0
CSS CSS:
1 (13.1KB)
Scripts Scripts:
1 (4KB)
Images Images:
6 (33.6KB)
Plugins Plugins:
0
Other Other:
0
Redirected Redirected:
0
Mine:
Total loading time:
0.6 seconds
Total objects:
20 (215.8 KB)
External objects:
0
HTML (X)HTML:
1 (7.9KB)
RSS RSS/XML:
0
CSS CSS:
1 (9.3KB)
Scripts Scripts:
3 (179.5KB)
Images Images:
15 (19.1KB)
Plugins Plugins:
0
Other Other:
0
Redirected Redirected:
0
It is from Pingdom.
2011-07-28, 11:59 PM
Without the link to the site, I can't run yslow / google page speed
It sounds like a fast server (but that's not the same as "designed for performance")
If it has many http requests (20 objects in this case, myBB isnt bad), then its not great
My vBulletin forum which hasnt been optimised has 21 Total objects (103.9 KB) ... the fewer the request, the better
Pingdom needs to be run several times to get a good approximate average, but the time is only telling you about the server (the number of request, and size tells you about the design)
I've got my requests down to :
Total objects: 9 (69.9 KB)
The page speed scores are more revealing and tell you more about site design
It sounds like a fast server (but that's not the same as "designed for performance")
If it has many http requests (20 objects in this case, myBB isnt bad), then its not great
My vBulletin forum which hasnt been optimised has 21 Total objects (103.9 KB) ... the fewer the request, the better
Pingdom needs to be run several times to get a good approximate average, but the time is only telling you about the server (the number of request, and size tells you about the design)
I've got my requests down to :
Total objects: 9 (69.9 KB)
The page speed scores are more revealing and tell you more about site design
2011-07-29, 12:04 AM
Removing objects isn't hard, that wasn't my point to begin with.
"Design for performance" on an empty forum is meaningless.
Because in the end, it's an empty forum with absolutely no content.
I was proving a point that I can match your speed, or even slightly better, just with a fresh install.
Because it makes absolutely no difference at this stage.
Design to performance is key for us larger forums, and the way you phrase your post sounds like you're knocking us all when in fact your forum can't compare because it's in the beginning stage.
"Design for performance" on an empty forum is meaningless.
Because in the end, it's an empty forum with absolutely no content.
I was proving a point that I can match your speed, or even slightly better, just with a fresh install.
Because it makes absolutely no difference at this stage.
Design to performance is key for us larger forums, and the way you phrase your post sounds like you're knocking us all when in fact your forum can't compare because it's in the beginning stage.
2011-07-29, 12:08 AM
Removing objects (and still having a functional forum) isn't that easy
There is only 1 css file and 1 js file per page, all images are sprited and optimised, all scripts are minified...
The scripts are at the very bottom (so load after the rest of the 'content' is loaded... once there is content) this way the user 'feels' a better performance
Its almost at its peek with a score of 99/100 (I just need to pay for a CDN for its peek)
I think I've repeated over and over, it is the designed for performace I was talking about.
There is only 1 css file and 1 js file per page, all images are sprited and optimised, all scripts are minified...
The scripts are at the very bottom (so load after the rest of the 'content' is loaded... once there is content) this way the user 'feels' a better performance
Its almost at its peek with a score of 99/100 (I just need to pay for a CDN for its peek)
I think I've repeated over and over, it is the designed for performace I was talking about.
2011-07-29, 12:09 AM
Uh huh, still not impressed.
2011-07-29, 12:12 AM
Okay.. well at least you reasoned with me
you win some and lose some ( I think I lost them all in this thread <sighs>)
you win some and lose some ( I think I lost them all in this thread <sighs>)