Please rate the site's download speed

Reply #53

AlecWest — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:57:01 GMT

FWIW, I've never had a problem with site speed. But I've had problems with browser compatability. This might not be totally a browser problem ... but also an OS problem. My desktop uses Windows 2000 Pro SP4 - with Mozilla 1.7, MSIE 6.0, and Firefox 3 installed. And on my desktop computer, only Firefox 3 works 100% of the time. The other browsers sometimes do weird things. My laptop uses Windows XP Pro SP3. And on my laptop, I use only Mozilla 1.7 and MSIE 7.? - and only MSIE works 100% of the ti... [ More ]

Reply #52

Todd — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:08:11 GMT

What happened to you with Firefox? I've had good experience with it myself, but I'd be interested in hearing more if you had a negative experience.

Reply #51

psykomo — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:30:10 GMT

warning

DONOT download FOXFIRE-3 upgrade unless YOU........RESEARCH!!

THANK'ssssssssss 2 ALL on LP including D MASTER-DISHWASHER

who kick's D internet's BUTTT's

SWEEP's ^^^^it CLEAN

LOL

PSYKOMO

Reply #50

psykomo — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:12:20 GMT

THANK's Todd 4-D LP:

Psyko up-grated 2 Foxfire-3 (PSYKOMO told him not 2...........BUT we all

know Psyko is the BUTT of my family

ANYWAY,.....I would get these FLASHES on screen to up-date to FX-3

It said.........later..........never..........cancel................the never got me ??

ANYWAY,....Psyko did-IT when I was NOT L@@KING

IT messed up some of my book-marks (ALL)

EVERYTIME I LOGG-ON an old site HAVE 2 re-establish my ID??????????

THING's DONOT POP-UP as FAST as... [ More ]

Reply #49

sysp34 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:51:34 GMT

Chief

did you applied new hardware like jaguar5000? or just an agile way to speed up LP site?

does the hardware actually boost LP performance if any LP member willing to giftaway such device?

gl

Reply #48

Todd — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:15:03 GMT

Thanks to everyone who rated the site's performance changes by registering a vote. (100 total votes so far.)

Because there is now a good sampling of votes, I am setting this thread back to normal so it doesn't appear at the top of every forum.

Anyone who has not yet registered a vote, please feel free

Reply #47

Todd — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:13:45 GMT

The two firewalls may be what is causing the problem. NEVER have two firewalls runing at the same time. Try killing the McAfee firewall and see what happens.

Reply #46

JonnyBgood07 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:05:10 GMT

Hey todd,

Thanks for your input.As windows xp has it's own firewall,I also have mcAfee security suite(which has it's own firewall).Is it possible to have 2 firewalls running simultaneously?I took your advice and did the browser compatibility test.It passed in all 12.What would be a reasonable setting for security?

What boggles me all the more is I've seen time and again to get your overall browsing up to speed is creating a new user account which I did with a fresh install of the newest f... [ More ]

Reply #45

djklaugh — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:48:45 GMT

It depends on which computer I'm using ... my desktop with Vista and Foxfire works great - really zippy. Using IE7 on the desktop is OK but seems abit slower.

Laptop with Vista and Foxfire or IE7 is about the same as the desktop

But my work computer which has some ancient version of Windows XP Professional and IE6 is very slow and when I try to participate in a poll I get this weird message saying something like your vote will be counted once you have registered but I'm already logge... [ More ]

Reply #44

WIN D — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:30:39 GMT

Going faster ..... and by the way....some where along the way the Editor cleared up. Smooth.... and refreshing

Ahhhh relief.

Reply #43

Piaceri — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:09:07 GMT

Can't really tell the difference. I didn't pay too much attention to what loaded how fast. I always blame my comcast connection for speed issues....except when my javascript stops working on internet explorer (Vista) and I have to reboot.

Reply #42

Needachange23 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:58:45 GMT

I have no compalints

Reply #41

Todd — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:16:24 GMT

Yes, it does sound like something is amiss.

During the login process, Lottery Post does a browser test to see if anything is wrong with your connection. It normally places a warning on the login page if it finds something.

Does it display such a warning on the login page? If so, I would recommend trying to fix whatever it found.

If not, can you go to the Browser Compatibility Test in the Resources menu and click the Send to Administrator button to send me a copy?

On the Firefox issue... [ More ]

Reply #40

Todd — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:00:28 GMT

Nice, descriptive feedback, thanks.

Reply #39

Todd — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:44:37 GMT

One of the things I added to this latest update was an IE8 compatibility tag, so LP should render correctly in IE8.

Personally, I tried the IE8 beta 1, and it was very buggy and slow so I immediately uninstalled it. When beta 2 is released any day now, I'll give it a try.

A note on web browsers:

If you really want to experience Lottery Post going as fast as it can possibly go, I recommend that you install Firefox 3. It will speed up not only Lottery Post, but just about every other web... [ More ]

Reply #38

Todd — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:31:32 GMT

Ah, but that is the key!

There is an absolute TON more caching going on, which is what helps speed things up enormously. I am asking you to rate your whole experience, so that would be a faster .

In the future, I really should do before/after screen cams, so I can demonstrate the differences. If you're not looking for something like this, it can be difficult to judge.

Reply #37

chippie — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:45:25 GMT

I think the pages are loading up a little faster and the error message is now gone.

Reply #36

scorpio — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:34:18 GMT

just got back from atlantic city for a week,saw it was faster.i tried firefox once,but my hp printer acted up with it,so went back to google.tried ie8 beta,that acted up.pages are fast loading now.

Reply #35

bigato1010 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:23:17 GMT

Hey pac not confused at all i you i hit the star by mistake and i could not correct it. I am sure some one has made such a mistake before . So don't be quick to justify an error. I used the word informative to let the reader know what i was talking about. I like this site is a reason am still here ! My Rating: 3 star normal.

Reply #34

sfilippo — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:38:28 GMT

I'm using an EMachine with XP Service Pack 2 and ATT Yahoo's Browser on DSL Broadband.

It's quicker than two weeks ago. Noticably quicker, in fact.

I tested the Member's pages which as I recall loaded fairly slowly from page to page.

Now, they load at around 2 seconds.

Every other page I checked was about 1 second or less.

From my standpoint, everything is much quicker. Maybe 60% faster

Reply #33

JonnyBgood07 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:40:12 GMT

I have this site as my homepage.It takes longer than it should(by verbal comparison to others)and logging in takes an eon.Don't know why.My dell is a year old with no bs and spyware on it.I can't tell if it's this site or firefox 3.I've done all the online tricks rumored to speed up firefox but it stays the same.I have cable internet.This thing should scream anywhere it goes.Any clues asto why the log in screen might be a wait and a half?..other than that manuevering around here is decent speedw... [ More ]

Reply #32

soothsayer — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:27:11 GMT

Todd, I do not see any difference when loading a new page, however cached pages do seem to load faster.

Reply #31

pacattack05 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:33:21 GMT

You seem confused.

You rate this post a 1 star rating, then say how informative this site is.

I can't tell if you really appreciate all of Todd's efforts.

Reply #30

bigato1010 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:59:48 GMT

The same nothing changed. Informative site. Good discovery.

Reply #29

psykomo — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:00:44 GMT

........................................

THANK'ss

Psykomo

Reply #28

CCHS13 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:55:49 GMT

Im happy with the speed, I just hope it stays that way. Thanks for your hard work

Reply #27

Stack47 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:53:16 GMT

I noticed the difference when I clicked on the link to this thread because it certainly seemed faster.

Reply #26

txpolo — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:52:14 GMT

It is faster.

Reply #25

KyMystikal — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:53:12 GMT

It is a lot faster then before. I did a results search on the 11 combination on midday in Ky for all available history and it came back in 0.5000 seconds

Reply #24

jackhammerjohn — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:51:24 GMT

Seems about the same for me. I have never really had any problems with LP

Reply #23

Rocket 455 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:45:29 GMT

Bringing up the past lottery results and prediction post seems faster now. Otherwise LP Pages have always loaded pretty fast.

Reply #22

Fraserm — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:05:10 GMT

Definitely faster for me.

Reply #21

sorensonfan41 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:14:15 GMT

I haven't noticed much difference, personally. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.16 on cable internet and Windows XP. I have used IE 7, but I haven't used that to access LP in the past 2 weeks, though.

Reply #20

mrmst — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:56:16 GMT

Speed seems the same for me - Vista with IE 7.0 at work using a T1 internet connection.

Reply #19

kkkathleen — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:35:46 GMT

For those of us who know how to turn on the computer and somehow stumble thru ( I know I can't be the only one out here) It seems faster to me. Thanks Todd

Reply #18

calabs — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:12:35 GMT

Most definitely faster than 2 weeks ago....! I'm also no longer getting that nasty error message every time I try to reply... :)

Thanks Todd

Reply #17

jackpotismine — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:53:07 GMT

Todd, it is faster especially when you are replying . It use to be a lot slower. Good job!!! You are defintely THE MAN!!!! Thanks

Reply #16

Lucky — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:38:06 GMT

Pages loading, and posting threads much faster - I see a big difference

Reply #15

dx123 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:09:27 GMT

Hi Todd

Using Firefox 3.0.1 with Windows XP PRO SP3-2G's mem and 512 video...very fast, but nothing notable during the past 2 weeks.

Loaded most of the LINKS at left and from the drop-down for a check and honestly saw no change to note. I am fine with the situation as presented. Hope this helps. I will be adding more mem and another tandem SLI videocard in the next few weeks. Now that may cause a surprise!!

yt

dx123

Reply #14

four4me — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:10:14 GMT

In other words, how does the page download time FEEL.

Faster

Does it FEEL like it is coming up quicker,

Yes

does it FEEL like it is finishing loading quicker.

Yes

Reply #13

Todd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:52:00 GMT

Just to be clear: please ignore the generated time you see, for the purposes of this topic. (The generated number being something like 0.09725 .)

I'm reasonably sure the server is rocking now, and generating pages tremendously quickly.

The main thing that I have implemented enhancements on is the download time, which is completely different than the generated time shown on the bottom of the screen.

In other words, how does the page download time FEEL. Does it FEEL like it is co... [ More ]

Reply #12

justxploring — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:34:38 GMT

Not really sure. Sorry.

Edit: A little faster using Firefox

Reply #11

emilyg — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:01:45 GMT

0.98833 seconds

Reply #10

Clairvoyance — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:43:19 GMT

Here is how long it took for me:

This page was generated in 0.0739 seconds I am using Windows Vista Home Premium with IE7

Pages are loading at double speed for me, than before

Reply #9

four4me — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:36:49 GMT

forget i said download i meant generate like it says at the bottom of this page or the lower right hand corner

This page was generated in 0.2350 seconds

Reply #8

Todd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:18:43 GMT

The number is how much time it took for the server to GENERATE the page, NOT the download time.

That number is used to determine if a long page load time is due to the server or your PC/internet connection.

If it is a very small number (like you posted -- nine hundreths of a second) then you know that none of the time it took to load was due to anything on the server.

Reply #7

ThatScaryChick — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:15:17 GMT

I think it runs a bit faster, but most sites load quickly for me, unless they are picture heavy or have a lot of animation on them.

If it helps, I use Mozilla Firefox, have Windows XP, use a broadband that varies from to 100.0-150.0 Mbps.

This page was generated in 0.0720 seconds for me.

Reply #6

four4me — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:13:48 GMT

Todd what you are seeing in my post was me trying to post my board settings where the long number are there is just supposed to be a box with my boards settings for each way a page is displayed.

this page loaded in 0.0900 sec.

Reply #5

four4me — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:08:31 GMT

Well I'm digging for a deeper answer preferably from Todd. He is always upping the performance of this site. And some days 2 weeks ago or so pages loaded at different speeds and rates than on other days. Like someone said if there was heavy traffic i don't know if hes referring to this sites traffic or INTERNET traffic.

At night after 2 O'Clock i never have difficulty navigating this site unless Todd is working on pages. During the day and early evenings some pages load slower than they do at... [ More ]

Reply #4

Todd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:06:51 GMT

Four4me: I'm not sure what those huge numbers are, but I'm guessing you're trying to paste HTML into your message.

Yes, you can slightly increase the size of your page downloads by increasing the number of posts on a page, but that is only a miniscule part of the download. It might be the difference of a couple hundreths of a second -- maybe a tenth at the most.

The biggest part of the download, the part that affects any delays, is all the stuff that gets downloaded after the HTML portion... [ More ]

Reply #3

KY Floyd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:56:25 GMT

Isn't the speed at which a page loads dependant on a posters board settings.

Sure it is, but the question is asking about performance relative to 2 weeks ago. If you haven't changed your settings and your page loads are happening slower or faster that they were, something else is causing it. I'm assuming Todd is trying to determine if his changes to the site have resulted in the speeds people are experiencing.

I can't say I've noticed a difference, but for the most part things have always... [ More ]

Reply #2

jarasan — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:48:06 GMT

Pretty darn fast on the the XP machine. Not so different on the 2000 machines, I know that IE6 isn't supported no mas, there are a couple of things that don't work anymore, the page pull down, the editor needs a refresh to see the box, can't edit once posted. But no biggie this XP machine works very well, the active topics page speed meter said .0694 sec. about the blink of an eye to load, I have an effective 2M to 3M download speed when traffic is light.

Thank you!

The emoticons loaded in... [ More ]

Reply #1

four4me — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:47:50 GMT

Isn't the speed at which a page loads dependant on a posters board settings. If they are all set to the maximum amounts wouldn't those pages take longer to load then say a poster who is using the minimum amounts.

Does the amount of artwork or graphics in the various posts and the length of individual posts etc. affect download speed.

Items Per Page

15161718192025304050 Topics per page

This setting controls the number of topics displayed on each page when viewing a forum.... [ More ]

Please rate the site's download speed

Todd — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:33:39 GMT

After finishing a series of big programming upgrades over the past two weeks, I am interested to find out what your personal experience is on your computer.

I am looking for you to judge your perception of how long it takes from the time you click a link to the time the page finishes loading. You can tell when a page load is complete when both the blue menu bar and the banner ad at the top have finished loading and you can navigate through the options in the blue menu bar.

Since I began to... [ More ]