Why Are Auto Sim Sites So Damn Slow To Load?

Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim sites. David G Fisher

David G Fisher wrote: > > Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > sites. Maybe because most of them are run by by enthusiasts who can't afford to pay for a high bandwidth server and needs to take what they can get ? I know it's that way with us, BHMotorsports graciously offered to host our site at about the same time the ads we were running weren't enough to pay for the server and line we used to rent, actually it never was as Jan used to pay the dividend out of his own pocket When someone does you that kind of favor, calling them up to complain about the site loading slowly at times, and yes we've noticed it, is not the first thing you do If you can rustle up some sponsorship for us Dave...:-) P.S., this is not intended as a complaint towards BHM who came to our resuce at just the right point Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

www.m4driving.sm seems to be fairly quick, but you are right most sim sites do seem very slow. Andi. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > sites. > > David G Fisher > >

In article <AnLP9.839$xE1.107503@stones>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, > > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > > sites. > > > > David G Fisher > >

Because they're loading a whole bunch of baggage with the crap that Microsoft has been foisting off on us for the last 5 years. ActiveX, ASP, XML, .Net, COM, Flash, and Java/Javscript steal bandwith. Add to that, the burden of displaying ungodly large graphics files without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow.

John Simmons wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Because they're loading a whole bunch of baggage with the crap that > Microsoft has been foisting off on us for the last 5 years. ActiveX, > ASP, XML, .Net, COM, Flash, and Java/Javscript steal bandwith. Add > to that, the burden of displaying ungodly large graphics files > without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other > bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow.

So what do you think of our new layout John ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> John Simmons wrote: > > > > Because they're loading a whole bunch of baggage with the crap that > > Microsoft has been foisting off on us for the last 5 years. ActiveX, > > ASP, XML, .Net, COM, Flash, and Java/Javscript steal bandwith. Add > > to that, the burden of displaying ungodly large graphics files > > without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other > > bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow. > > So what do you think of our new layout John ? :-)

I think it takes too long to load some pages, and it's overly difficult to navigate when you're looking for something specific. Throw in the performance issues, and the difficulty in navigation becomes more than a simple annoyance. I only visit the site once every month or so, and sometimes not even that often. After programming for 20 years, I crave simplicity and functionality over flashy graphics and gee-whiz effects. I'm probably not a good person to ask for comments on a website that uses any of Microsoft's or Sun's gadgets. :) Some things I will comment on (and I hope nobody takes this stuff the wrong way): 1) The banner at the top of the page stops shy of going all the way across my 1280x1024 display. 2) There are some continuity problems as far as look and feel goes as you navigate the site. It's almost as if different people designed different parts of the site. Indeed, some parts of the site that aren't actually run by ThePits, but maybe you have enough clout to recommend a design change that is more in line with what tthePits is using, or the sites should be relegated to a "Links" page. 3) It's not immediately obvious that there's a menu of links in the header banner. 4) Even after having displayed the Sim Dowloads page, it takes an uncomfortably long time to completely re-display the page, even when doing something as simple as clicking the back and Forward buttons in the browser toolbar. 5) I think the performance might be improved if you routed the server through a different backbone. Of course, performance issues are relative, and what ends up being good for me will most definitely suck for someone else. It might be a good idea to sacrifice some of the "ooh-ahh" in exchange for some "damn, that's fast". I like the blue theme, though. :)

David G Fisher wrote: > Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > sites. Yep. Not to mention the incredible amount of dead links (files, sites, you name it). I noticed both phenomena right away after I started to visit sim sites this year. It's pretty darn bad, relatively speaking. Regards, Ruud

Goy Larsen wrote: >>without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other >>bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow. > > > So what do you think of our new layout John ? :-) Well, dunno, but the very first links I clicked on didn't work (Bullrun files), there's no menu on the index page (java dependent?!? Yuck), the menu font is too small on a Mac (Mozilla 1.1, so that should be ok)... the load time wasn't too bad though ;) Regards, Ruud

Well I would like to hear some comments on eRacer Garage. Good or Bad :-) The site is certainly not complete but we are working hard to get things added and ensure links are both working and relevant. Please take a look and let us know what you think or if you have good info you would like to share please pass it along. As for the issue of speed on most sim sites I think most are correct in saying its an issue of cost. Most are run out of the pocket of the person developing them and thus are not able to compete with larger sites that have high speed stable connections as those cost $$$. I think everyone does their best to make the sites accessible but I too agree many are slow to load and updated. http://schooner.gotdns.com/eracer "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a day, > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > sites. > > David G Fisher > >

John Simmons wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 5) I think the performance might be improved if you routed the server > through a different backbone. Of course, performance issues are > relative, and what ends up being good for me will most definitely > suck for someone else. It might be a good idea to sacrifice some of > the "ooh-ahh" in exchange for some "damn, that's fast". > > I like the blue theme, though. :)

Well, at least we did *something* right :-) Btw, our index page is roughly 8,3 Kb in size, there's little meat to be trimmed to make it much faster I'm afraid, Jan actually believes in a minimalist approach himself, the slow load times are because the people hosting are having some issues and currently there's little we can do about it other than to let them know, if you go to www.thenorwaypits.com it will most likely load faster even though it shouldn't as it's hosted on a server with only a fraction of the bandwidth of the main site Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

FYI - The use of .NET and XML would have little impact on the loading time of a page. In fact .NET should make pages faster as most of the actual code is now compiled on the server and is generated server side. I agree that not all pages are optimized for sure but this cannot all be blamed on companies like MS. It's up to the developer to make proper use of the tools. Sometimes people's biases against companies like MS sometimes override reality. I use MS tools daily for development and like anything they have good and bad points, it's up to the developers to make the best use of them to meet the needs of the end users. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <AnLP9.839$xE1.107503@stones>, [email hidden] > says... > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in aday, > > > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the autosim

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > sites. > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > Because they're loading a whole bunch of baggage with the crap that > Microsoft has been foisting off on us for the last 5 years. ActiveX, > ASP, XML, .Net, COM, Flash, and Java/Javscript steal bandwith. Add > to that, the burden of displaying ungodly large graphics files > without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other > bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow. >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > John Simmons wrote: > > > > 5) I think the performance might be improved if you routed the server > > through a different backbone. Of course, performance issues are > > relative, and what ends up being good for me will most definitely > > suck for someone else. It might be a good idea to sacrifice some of > > the "ooh-ahh" in exchange for some "damn, that's fast". > > > > I like the blue theme, though. :) > > Well, at least we did *something* right :-)

:)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Btw, our index page is roughly 8,3 Kb in size, there's little meat to be > trimmed to make it much faster I'm afraid, Jan actually believes in a > minimalist approach himself, the slow load times are because the people > hosting are having some issues and currently there's little we can do > about it other than to let them know, if you go to www.thenorwaypits.com > it will most likely load faster even though it shouldn't as it's hosted > on a server with only a fraction of the bandwidth of the main site

Are you guys actually paying for the space, or is it being donated? If it's donated, there's not much you can do. I use WestHost, and pay $14/month for 200mb of web space, 10 pop accounts and 8gb/month bandwidth. No banner ads, no pop-ups...

John Simmons wrote: > > Are you guys actually paying for the space, or is it being donated? > If it's donated, there's not much you can do. The latter, Jake Butner and Pekka Heino gave us an offer it was hard to refuse :-) Overall it's been very good and even if it was a paid for service we would have had little to complain about, but lately it's been running really slow, DL speeds of less than 20kb/s for instance and people complaining about corrupted DL's, hopefully they'll get it sorted soon > I use WestHost, and pay $14/month for 200mb of web space, 10 pop > accounts and 8gb/month bandwidth. No banner ads, no pop-ups... Sounds like a good deal Currently I believe we have about 1.2 GB worth of files....:-), which is one of the reasons we decided to split it up rather than have two identical sites, there's a surprisingly huge demand for some of the older stuff, but the demand is not as intense of course and I can handle that traffic on "my" lowly .5 mbit line (it's donated too :-) Don't know how much bandwidth the main site use pr month, 8GB a month is a lot if you have a website without too much file DL's, but if it's a site where people mainly go to DL files I bet that would get used up pretty quickly....? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Don't know how much bandwidth the main site use pr month, 8GB a month is > a lot if you have a website without too much file DL's, but if it's a > site where people mainly go to DL files I bet that would get used up > pretty quickly....? All I have is DeMONS 1, 2, and now 3, and some NR2K2 car files available for download. I don't think I've ever even nearly approached the bandwidth cap. :)

In article <B_WP9.232028$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> FYI - The use of .NET and XML would have little impact on the loading time > of a page. In fact .NET should make pages faster as most of the actual code > is now compiled on the server and is generated server side. > I agree that not all pages are optimized for sure but this cannot all be > blamed on companies like MS. It's up to the developer to make proper use of > the tools. Sometimes people's biases against companies like MS sometimes > override reality. I use MS tools daily for development and like anything > they have good and bad points, it's up to the developers to make the best > use of them to meet the needs of the end users.

It *is* up to the programmers. But the problem is that most of the sites we're talking about are NOT created by professional programmers, under a budget (time AND money), or with proper forethought or fundamental design. They only see the "oohh-ahh" stuff, and fail to realize that their web server might be throttled, or just plain inadequate for what they want to do. Many times, they try to get away with using "free" web space, and often fall victim to bandwidth required to display pop-up ads, banners, and poorly implemented anti-intrusion code on those servers. These problems don't prevent them from implementing crappy java/javascript, questionable ActiveX controls, or requiring Flash, Quicktime, RealPlayer, or WindowsMediaPlayer. Most of the people that "code" web pages don't have even the hint of a freakin clue, and once the page is up, they don't periodically check to make sure the links they included still work. I have over 50mb of hand-coded graphics-intensive web pages on my web site and there is nothing but pure HTML in use, and they're damn fast. I fail to see the attraction to the java/javascript, ActiveXcrement, Flash, .NET, or XML, and 99% of the web sites out there don't need any of that crap either. If they didn't use it, their sites would be that much faster and easier to navigate. I am not a fan of Microsoft because they push this crap out and try real hard to convince people that it'll be a "good thing" (tm) if they adopt it. This shit is nothing more than an end-run around the various standards committees, and as a practice it only hurts US - the end users. I don't appreciate it, and it pisses me off to be FORCED to enable inefficient and unsecure web "features" (and I use that term VERY lightly) in my browser just to view a few personal web pages about the sims I drive.

In article <aZVP9.232022$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Well I would like to hear some comments on eRacer Garage. Good or Bad :-) > The site is certainly not complete but we are working hard to get things > added and ensure links are both working and relevant. > Please take a look and let us know what you think or if you have good info > you would like to share please pass it along. > > As for the issue of speed on most sim sites I think most are correct in > saying its an issue of cost. Most are run out of the pocket of the person > developing them and thus are not able to compete with larger sites that have > high speed stable connections as those cost $$$. I think everyone does > their best to make the sites accessible but I too agree many are slow to > load and updated. > > http://schooner.gotdns.com/eracer >

"This page cannot be displayed." It took 30 seconds to display, and it's kinda short on content. I didn't see anything aboyt any driving sims. :)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Because they're loading a whole bunch of baggage with the crap that > Microsoft has been foisting off on us for the last 5 years. ActiveX, > ASP, XML, .Net, COM, Flash, and Java/Javscript steal bandwith. Add > to that, the burden of displaying ungodly large graphics files > without specifying the image size in the HTML, banner ads, and other > bullshit, and THAT is why they're so slow. >

Hi, This topic is probably started because of the slowness of BHMS, so therefor I think I should say something on behalf of BHMS. As the PHP dude for BHMS, I can say the things mentioned above do not apply for us :-) We're using PHP and Mysql on an Apache server, so nothing MS related ;-). The normal parse time of the BHMS website should be less then 1 second and load time including images around 5 seconds depending on your connection speed. We currently have some server issues, which we are investigating and trying to solve. These issues unfortunately does also affect some of our hosted websites. All I can say is at the moment, that these problems will be solved ASAP. Cheers, Ivan Team BHMS www.bhmotorsports.com

Ivan wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > Hi, > > This topic is probably started because of the slowness of BHMS, so therefor > I think I should say something on behalf of BHMS. > > As the PHP dude for BHMS, I can say the things mentioned above do not apply > for us :-) > We're using PHP and Mysql on an Apache server, so nothing MS related ;-). > The normal parse time of the BHMS website should be less then 1 second and > load time including images around 5 seconds depending on your connection > speed. > > We currently have some server issues, which we are investigating and trying > to solve. > These issues unfortunately does also affect some of our hosted websites. > > All I can say is at the moment, that these problems will be solved ASAP.

The easy fix would be to shut down "Jure's Java Scripts" (tm), that ought to improve server response an infinite amount :-) Say hi to Pekka, Jure and Jake for me will you :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

The ISP was down all day for repairs. Should be up now. http://schooner.gotdns.com/eracer "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <aZVP9.232022$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > says... > > Well I would like to hear some comments on eRacer Garage. Good or Bad:-) > > The site is certainly not complete but we are working hard to get things > > added and ensure links are both working and relevant. > > Please take a look and let us know what you think or if you have goodinfo > > you would like to share please pass it along. > > > > As for the issue of speed on most sim sites I think most are correct in > > saying its an issue of cost. Most are run out of the pocket of theperson > > developing them and thus are not able to compete with larger sites thathave

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > high speed stable connections as those cost $$$. I think everyone does > > their best to make the sites accessible but I too agree many are slow to > > load and updated. > > > > http://schooner.gotdns.com/eracer > > > > "This page cannot be displayed." > > It took 30 seconds to display, and it's kinda short on content. I > didn't see anything aboyt any driving sims. :)

I can appreciate you feelings John but again I do not see what ..NET and XML have to do with this. Again it appears as if anti MS bias is impacting anything they produce. Both these technologies are much more than web controls, in fact they improve much of the web environment and provide better feature ability with improved performance. There are many advantages to a number of these technologies but this is not the place to go into those. "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <B_WP9.232028$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > FYI - The use of .NET and XML would have little impact on the loadingtime > > of a page. In fact .NET should make pages faster as most of the actualcode > > is now compiled on the server and is generated server side. > > I agree that not all pages are optimized for sure but this cannot all be > > blamed on companies like MS. It's up to the developer to make properuse of > > the tools. Sometimes people's biases against companies like MSsometimes > > override reality. I use MS tools daily for development and likeanything > > they have good and bad points, it's up to the developers to make thebest

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > use of them to meet the needs of the end users. > > It *is* up to the programmers. But the problem is that most of the > sites we're talking about are NOT created by professional > programmers, under a budget (time AND money), or with proper > forethought or fundamental design. They only see the "oohh-ahh" > stuff, and fail to realize that their web server might be throttled, > or just plain inadequate for what they want to do. Many times, they > try to get away with using "free" web space, and often fall victim to > bandwidth required to display pop-up ads, banners, and poorly > implemented anti-intrusion code on those servers. > > These problems don't prevent them from implementing crappy > java/javascript, questionable ActiveX controls, or requiring Flash, > Quicktime, RealPlayer, or WindowsMediaPlayer. Most of the people > that "code" web pages don't have even the hint of a freakin clue, and > once the page is up, they don't periodically check to make sure the > links they included still work. > > I have over 50mb of hand-coded graphics-intensive web pages on my web > site and there is nothing but pure HTML in use, and they're damn > fast. I fail to see the attraction to the java/javascript, > ActiveXcrement, Flash, .NET, or XML, and 99% of the web sites out > there don't need any of that crap either. If they didn't use it, > their sites would be that much faster and easier to navigate. > > I am not a fan of Microsoft because they push this crap out and try > real hard to convince people that it'll be a "good thing" (tm) if > they adopt it. This shit is nothing more than an end-run around the > various standards committees, and as a practice it only hurts US - > the end users. I don't appreciate it, and it pisses me off to be > FORCED to enable inefficient and unsecure web "features" (and I use > that term VERY lightly) in my browser just to view a few personal web > pages about the sims I drive. >

Very nice site with lot's of good info, and easy to navigate. Loaded in less than a second. :-) David G Fisher "www.corl.ca" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aZVP9.232022$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Well I would like to hear some comments on eRacer Garage. Good or Bad :-) > The site is certainly not complete but we are working hard to get things > added and ensure links are both working and relevant. > Please take a look and let us know what you think or if you have good info > you would like to share please pass it along. > > As for the issue of speed on most sim sites I think most are correct in > saying its an issue of cost. Most are run out of the pocket of the person > developing them and thus are not able to compete with larger sites that

have

Quoted text (10 lines)

> high speed stable connections as those cost $$$. I think everyone does > their best to make the sites accessible but I too agree many are slow to > load and updated. > > http://schooner.gotdns.com/eracer > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Almost every site I go to seems sloooow. I can hit on 200 sites in a

day,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > and the only slow ones (and I mean really sloooow) will be the auto sim > > sites. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >