Front Page - 2003 slow to load page

Author

2003 slow to load page

Pete Beall

2005-01-29, 4:18 am

I finally upgraded from FP 2002 to 2003. I was getting used to the interface
on a simple small page, and then switched to my digital photo page. I store
my digital photos on a local-only page, several pages per month, and each
page containing thumbnails linked to the full sized picture. Using 2002 the
page would populate in the blink of an eye; switching to 2003, the page
would take TEN MINUTES to populate. Removing 2003 and going back to 2002, no
problem.

I couldn't Google an answer to the problem. Obviously I'll stick with 2002
until this problem is solved.

--
www.petebeall.net

Rob Giordano \(Crash Gordon®\)

2005-01-29, 12:17 pm

I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should =
optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same =
image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.

Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in =
FP, why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? =
---- AFTER you've optimized them of course :-)

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message =
news:10vm4chgsel3mb8@corp.supernews.com...
> I finally upgraded from FP 2002 to 2003. I was getting used to the =
interface=20
> on a simple small page, and then switched to my digital photo page. I =
store=20
> my digital photos on a local-only page, several pages per month, and =
each=20
> page containing thumbnails linked to the full sized picture. Using =
2002 the=20
> page would populate in the blink of an eye; switching to 2003, the =
page=20
> would take TEN MINUTES to populate. Removing 2003 and going back to =
2002, no=20
> problem.
>=20
> I couldn't Google an answer to the problem. Obviously I'll stick with =
2002=20
> until this problem is solved.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> www.petebeall.net=20
>=20
>

Pete Beall

2005-01-29, 7:16 pm

Lets get serious, “optimized down to 30K with no visible difference”? My
photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the response
just ducks the question.

The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won’t load is only thumbnails of 3K or
so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that will
make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?

"Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon®)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> wrote
in message news:OM6U7JgBFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should
optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same
image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.

Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in FP,
why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ---- AFTER
you've optimized them of course :-)

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:10vm4chgsel3mb8@corp.supernews.com...
> I finally upgraded from FP 2002 to 2003. I was getting used to the
> interface
> on a simple small page, and then switched to my digital photo page. I
> store
> my digital photos on a local-only page, several pages per month, and each
> page containing thumbnails linked to the full sized picture. Using 2002
> the
> page would populate in the blink of an eye; switching to 2003, the page
> would take TEN MINUTES to populate. Removing 2003 and going back to 2002,
> no
> problem.
>
> I couldn't Google an answer to the problem. Obviously I'll stick with 2002
> until this problem is solved.
>
>
> --
> www.petebeall.net
>
>

Rob Giordano \(Crash Gordon®\)

2005-01-29, 7:16 pm

Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way =
way down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no =
reason to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. =
Period.

And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized =
images within FP?

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message =
news:10vnicanp46ks42@corp.supernews.com...
> Lets get serious, =93optimized down to 30K with no visible =
difference=94? My=20
> photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the =
response=20
> just ducks the question.
>=20
> The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won=92t load is only thumbnails =
of 3K or=20
> so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that =
will=20
> make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?
>=20
> "Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon=AE)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> =
wrote=20
> in message news:OM6U7JgBFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should=20
> optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that =
same=20
> image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible =
difference.
>=20
> Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden =
in FP,=20
> why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ---- =
AFTER=20
> you've optimized them of course :-)
>=20
>=20
> "Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message=20
> news:10vm4chgsel3mb8@corp.supernews.com...
I=20[color=darkred]
each[color=darkred]
2002=20[color=darkred]
page[color=darkred]
2002,=20[color=darkred]
with 2002[color=darkred]
>=20
>

Pete Beall

2005-01-29, 7:17 pm

These pictures are not on the web. These pictures are my digital pictures
that I keep on my machine, and I keep high quality files that would be
suitable for printing. I just happen to like the web page format for saving
my pictures rather than a flat file format. The “Who, What, When, Where” of
each photograph is also stored in an Access dB and clicking on the dB
description creates a hyperlink that finds the actual photograph on the web
page. In addition, I have an Access dB going back to 1983 by day and 1945 by
month that is cross referenced to over 500 rolls of film with another 1,000+
to be added. I do know something about image quality.

I still don’t know why FP2002 opens a page with thirty 3K thumbnails for
editing instantly, and FP2003 fails.

"Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon®)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> wrote
in message news:e7eki5jBFHA.1396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way way
down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no reason
to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. Period.

And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized images
within FP?

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:10vnicanp46ks42@corp.supernews.com...
> Lets get serious, “optimized down to 30K with no visible difference”? My
> photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the response
> just ducks the question.
>
> The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won’t load is only thumbnails of 3K
> or
> so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that
> will
> make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?
>
> "Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon®)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> wrote
> in message news:OM6U7JgBFHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should
> optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same
> image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.
>
> Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in
> FP,
> why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ----
> AFTER
> you've optimized them of course :-)
>
>
> "Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:10vm4chgsel3mb8@corp.supernews.com...
>
>

Rob Giordano \(Crash Gordon®\)

2005-01-29, 7:17 pm

Oh, I see...you're keeping them in a separate local Web, not the one =
you're using to Publish your online web.

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message =
news:10vo6n9h66hha16@corp.supernews.com...
> These pictures are not on the web. These pictures are my digital =
pictures=20
> that I keep on my machine, and I keep high quality files that would be =

> suitable for printing. I just happen to like the web page format for =
saving=20
> my pictures rather than a flat file format. The =93Who, What, When, =
Where=94 of=20
> each photograph is also stored in an Access dB and clicking on the dB=20
> description creates a hyperlink that finds the actual photograph on =
the web=20
> page. In addition, I have an Access dB going back to 1983 by day and =
1945 by=20
> month that is cross referenced to over 500 rolls of film with another =
1,000+=20
> to be added. I do know something about image quality.
>=20
> I still don=92t know why FP2002 opens a page with thirty 3K thumbnails =
for=20
> editing instantly, and FP2003 fails.
>=20
> "Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon=AE)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> =
wrote=20
> in message news:e7eki5jBFHA.1396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way =
way=20
> down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no =
reason=20
> to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. Period.
>=20
>=20
> And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized =
images=20
> within FP?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message=20
> news:10vnicanp46ks42@corp.supernews.com...
difference=94? My[color=darkred]
response[color=darkred]
thumbnails of 3K=20[color=darkred]
that=20[color=darkred]
<NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> wrote[color=darkred]
should[color=darkred]
same[color=darkred]
difference.[color=darkred]
burden in=20[color=darkred]
---- =20[color=darkred]
page. I[color=darkred]
and=20[color=darkred]
2002[color=darkred]
page[color=darkred]
to=20[color=darkred]
with=20[color=darkred]
>=20
>

Rob Giordano \(Crash Gordon®\)

2005-01-29, 11:18 pm

pete,

i'm still lookin at it.

take a look at the index page and a lot extraneous code at the bottom of =
the page.

bbl

"Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message =
news:10vo6n9h66hha16@corp.supernews.com...
> These pictures are not on the web. These pictures are my digital =
pictures=20
> that I keep on my machine, and I keep high quality files that would be =

> suitable for printing. I just happen to like the web page format for =
saving=20
> my pictures rather than a flat file format. The =93Who, What, When, =
Where=94 of=20
> each photograph is also stored in an Access dB and clicking on the dB=20
> description creates a hyperlink that finds the actual photograph on =
the web=20
> page. In addition, I have an Access dB going back to 1983 by day and =
1945 by=20
> month that is cross referenced to over 500 rolls of film with another =
1,000+=20
> to be added. I do know something about image quality.
>=20
> I still don=92t know why FP2002 opens a page with thirty 3K thumbnails =
for=20
> editing instantly, and FP2003 fails.
>=20
> "Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon=AE)" <NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> =
wrote=20
> in message news:e7eki5jBFHA.1396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way =
way=20
> down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no =
reason=20
> to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. Period.
>=20
>=20
> And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized =
images=20
> within FP?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Pete Beall" <petebeall@cableone.net> wrote in message=20
> news:10vnicanp46ks42@corp.supernews.com...
difference=94? My[color=darkred]
response[color=darkred]
thumbnails of 3K=20[color=darkred]
that=20[color=darkred]
<NOVIAGRAwebmaster@siriussystems.com> wrote[color=darkred]
should[color=darkred]
same[color=darkred]
difference.[color=darkred]
burden in=20[color=darkred]
---- =20[color=darkred]
page. I[color=darkred]
and=20[color=darkred]
2002[color=darkred]
page[color=darkred]
to=20[color=darkred]
with=20[color=darkred]
>=20
>