Graphics downloads to us deprived dial-uppers

[Orrin]

Through no fault of our own this family is restricted to a dial-up Internet connection. Don't laugh, but with this particular machine I figure I'm walkin' in tall cotton if it connects at 14.4 kbps. We're at the very end of 96,000 feet of telephone cable (so the repairman tells me when I complain that the modem just connected at 6.9 kbps) and every corroded connection between here and there makes things pretty grim.

This is a very graphics-intensive board. If someone leaves an interesting-sounding post I'll try reading it; but, if there are many photos posted, I'll get about the top 10-percent of each picture and then things "time out." No matter how I try to refresh, I never get to see the pictures.

I doubt I'm the only member of this forum who has this problem. If I am, please disregard this post; but, if there are more besides me with this situation, do you suppose we could all work together so that we could make things better for everybody, not just the broadbanders?

Here are some work-arounds:

1) I thought I'd try to set my preferences so that it would only show one post per page; however, if this software allows it, I've yet to find where I can make the adjustments.

2) Is there a way that we could make more use of thumbnails? Thumbnails would allow the entire page to download quickly. If a particular picture catches anyone's fancy they can click on the thumbnail for that larger gorgeous view. Take this page, for instance:

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71683

I think it would be in everybody's interest to make use of thumbnails. The entire forum would get by with less bandwidth. The ISP would be happy. The viewers would be happy. So, why not?

3) If none of the above is possible, how about limiting the posts to fewer photos per post?

I think more use of thumbnails makes good sense. I don't want to step on a whole bunch of toes by saying this, but I don't know how else to do it. Many contributors will submit a large photo of nothing more than a piece of stock in a lathe chuck. We've all seen that sort of thing, before. I do not find it interesting and I doubt I am alone; therefore, if we had thumbnails we could easily see such-and-such is another stock-sticking-out-of-the-chuck-shot and we could ignore it. As it is, now, it is a big waste of a lot of peoples' time to wait for those mundane shots to download.

As it is, now, from time-to-time I'll close up shop, pack up the laptop and head to town where I can log onto a broadband hotspot. For someone living quite some distance in the country, it wipes out a day.

I'm only asking for a little consideration on behalf of all of us who are still on dial-up. If any of you have suggestions to improve the situation I'll gladly try them.

Thank you.

Orrin

 

[Cedge]

Bummer dude.... doncha just hate it when that happens?

Steve

 

[Troutsqueezer]

My phone line is like yours. Currently I am using Wildblue satellite to get around the problem. Its download speeds are not even close to advertised but still it's better than dial up, albeit not exactly cheap.

If this were not available to me I'd look into 3G. If that turned out to be impossible then it's a wait for Wi-Max which is scheduled for deployment in most major US cities by the end of 2010. If you are within about 35 miles of a major metropolitan network, it's in your near future.

 

[Foozer]

Can feel your pain. Having nothing but dial-up access for years have seen the slower load times as pages become graphic happy. Looked at most alternative services but they all seem to have a usage cap of some sort that is easiely surpassed. Finally chose the all-you-can-eat Data-Pilot service (runs on T-Mobile service) which is 3G capable but as of yet is not in service in my part of the world. It does however normally run 4-5 times the speed of dial-up so at least reduces the pain somewhat.

Robert

 

[ksouers]

Very good points there, Orrin.
Yes, being a little more dial-up friendly is better all around for the 'net and will help keep us in the good graces of our hosting service. As many know we have been running afoul with them lately.

The forum software will display a maximum size of 800x600. Posting a larger picture will not display larger, it just chews up more bandwidth and causes extra processing to size it down.

Some tips that will help:

1) Use a photo service such as Photobucket, Picasa or flickr. Two servers working in tandem is faster than just one and spreads out the load.

2) Crop the photo so the interesting part gets most of the picture. The pile of swarf next to your vise is not as interesting as the part that's in it.

3) While the forum can handle up to 800x600, 640x480 works quite well for most pictures and is a much smaller file.

4) Some editing software has a "JPEG Quality" setting. Setting this to about 85% saves a lot on the size of the file but is hardly noticeable in the picture at all.

5) Resize the picture before uploading to your photo service.

6) Be smart about the pictures you post. "One picture is worth a thousand words." Yes, it really is. Especially when your picture is showing something difficult to describe.

7) Your picture can also be posted as a link to your photo host.

There are lots of options for editing software. I have used Micro$oft's Picture Manager that comes with XP. Another is Easy Thumbs. Of course, for us Linux people there is Gimp. All of these work quite well and you don't have to spend thousands of dollars for Photo Shop.

For you dial-up guys: Some browsers have a setting to block/delay the download of photos. Consider using it. The photo can still be viewed via the link, but it then becomes your choice what you want to see.

 

[doc1955]

Just a tip when posting pictures you can turn down your resolution to 72 with out noticeable quality change but will greatly decrease file size.

 

[Blogwitch]

I have been beating on about this for ages, but it runs off some peoples' backs as water does off a duck.

The web is getting more crowded every day, and an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude will start to slow everything down even further, and when it starts to affect those people who take no notice about things such as this, they will be the ones who will be screaming about it first, when they start to get slow downloads and unable to connect messages.

I have a very fast download speed, but some of the pics put up on here take even ages with mine, for someone with dial up, I suppose it could take over an hour for just one, and I have great pity for them, as most time it isn't a matter of cash to get a faster line, but where you live that forces you down that route.

I have shown this link before, and a few people have now started to use the program, you can usually tell, because they are now watermarking their piccies.

It is FREE , so why not use it? Learn how easy it is to set up and convert hundreds of pics, or just one at a time in a matter of seconds. It does lots more as well, I use it to first correct colour casts, then reduce in size and quality, rename, and finally put my watermark in, as once set up, you have no need to play about every time, just a couple of clicks and everything gets done. The pics are upload ready, and real tiny in size.

http://www.faststone.org/FSResizerDetail.htm

So please, think of the unfortunates as well, not just yourself.


Bogs

 

[kf2qd]

I don't know all your situation, but when we moved to South Texas, out on a rual road we didn't need a landline because we (my wife and I) had cell phones and I was able to get a wireless setup for what we were paying for a phone line and dialup service in Indiana. It runs at a 30K/sec download speed (yeah, I know...) which is about 6x dialup and I can use it with services such as Skype - as long as I stick to the conversation and don't try to surf at the same time... Don't know if anything like that is available in your area but it does make an affordable alternative if you don't really need the landline for anything else.

Pete

 

[Cedge]

John
I have a problem with anyone complaining about bandwidth shortages and then flying streaming video on VOIP connections, such as Skype. There is no shortage of bandwidth these days, as it increases on a daily basis. The pipes are getting bigger and the available speeds are predicted to more than double in the near future

I first came on the net when it was still dial up at 2400 baud ( can you say "Prodigy"). Prior to that it was locally owned bulletin boards at 300 baud and strict real time allotments. I did web site development when band width was scarce and one could get publicly flogged for posting more than one small photo, so I'm very aware of download times and bandwidth husbandry. I crunch photo files to the point of distortion, even today.

I've gotten the same complaint about my own steam related web site. 4.6 million visitors had no problems with it being photo heavy, but the dozen or so 14.4 dial up users who complained, all demanded my site be changed to meet their desires. 3 of them even complained to my ISP, trying to force the site to either be changed or taken down.

One can now subscribe to an "air card" service for mobile phones that will grant high speed access from the most remote locations, even while rolling along any highway or sitting in the deepest backwoods. I have sympathy for those on dial up, but I'm not going to base my posting habits on those, now long archaic, restrictions.

Steve

 

[Blogwitch]

Steve,

Please don't dig at me because I use the web for what I want to do, that is getting very personal, and very close to the drawn line.

I am doing no more than what billions of other people are doing when using their mobiles for such things, and I will say now, I don't even own such a thing any more, it was consigned to the bin when the initial 20 squid I put on it ran out after more than six years.

I am now considered one of the very special few who won't drop down dead unless one has a mobile phone glued, nailed or plugged into the side of ones head.

I can afford to buy any method of internet connection I want, but that does not mean I should use it unwisely, and penalise people who are not as fortunate as myself, in that they most probably can't afford to spend the money to get a better connection. As far as I am concerned, they have just as much right to see my pics as well as everyone else. If that means skinning my pics down to almost nothing, then so be it.

Also, I am not relating to websites such as yours, where your displayed pictures compared to a site such as this is only a drop in the ocean. But I do sympathise deeply with people who don't have the bandwidth with which to view yours, rather than treating them as sorts of social outcasts. Have and have not springs to mind, penalising the poor because they can't get up to your own standards.

Another thing, I am not trying to force anyone to do anything, maybe just gently nudging them towards being a little more considerate to other peoples needs. What is wrong with that?

I even gave a free and easy method to do it, and most probably it would make their own pictures even better.

If people want to go with their grossly overloaded web archives and most probably their own computers as well, then they are welcome to it. But in the long run, no matter what you say, things will start to slow down, no matter how big the pipes get, or will cost a lot more as more storage is brought on line, either on the web or sites like this, mainly because of all the unnecessary bulk in viewable files, and they will get larger and larger as megapixel sizes grow in cameras.

There is only so much the naked eye can discern, so why is it all needed for posting small pictures on websites. One upmanship most probably, or even pi**ing contests. My limit is 2MP at times, 1MP mostly. Large MP is OK for pictures of loved ones that need to be blown up to 4ft x 3ft, or to fill the widescreen telly, but not the lowly 8"x6" we require on here.

I use a large amount of pictures to get information across, but by using the methods I do, I can almost guarantee that twenty of my pic files don't equal one of the heavyweight files that some other people use, and mine are perfectly good enough for website viewing, well at least I think so, because no-one has ever complained about not being able to see them (except when I lost a few).
In the meagre 150MB of my free photobucket account, I reckon I should be able to fit approx 8 to 9,000 of my skinned down, but very useable pictures. My problem won't be the number of pictures I can store, but the bandwidth used by people opening my posts and viewing my pictures. That is the only reason I need to go for a paying account.

I am just one amongst the billions posting pictures onto the web, but I am under maybe the false hope about acorns and oak trees. A few are already doing it, now if those few can persuade a few more......... everyone will be able to see ALL of the pictures.

Also, if it was in my control, all websites would be limited to a max pic size in KB.

But because it isn't, we will all have to put up with obese sized pictures, except for an unfortunate certain few, who will never be able to view them at all.

John

 

[Thingibob]

Orrin,

I understand your pain, really I do. But I find thumbnails really annoying, so much so I rarely click them.

Personally this as most other sites don't have enough pictures, pictures really do help to convey the message of the poster and make for a more interesting read all-round.

 

[Kermit]

I too, come from the dark slow days of early digital; having my very first commodore 64 at the tender age of 20. I understand what a slow connection is like. I also understand having something 99% of the rest of the world does not.

Expecting those 99% to change is ridiculous.

Right now, I'm ahead of the curve. Windows 7 64 bit premium duo core etc etc etc. It means I can't view Youtube videos, or most any other video on the web because of 'lack of operating system support'/

Ahead of the curve or behind it, one cannot expect special provisions be made for such a small fraction of the population. It's either in the works and will be released soon, or all support for it has been dropped. take your pick.

If you are not part of 'the pack', then you are in a tough place, when concerned with consumer support issues.


Sorry for those who can't see something,or whose computer refuses to accept a new sites html version. And better luck with your ISP!

I'm calling mine up right now and DEMAND that the world wide web be turned off until they all get some support for those of us using 64 bit browsers.

It's only fair? right?

;D

 

[shred]

Back when modems were common, there were web-based browser proxy agents that would down-res pictures for dial-up surfers. Surely some of those services are still around? You'd get the pictures in blurry Monet-mode, but fast, and could click them if you wanted to wait and see the whole thing.

 

[kcmillin]

This is less of a comment and more of an observation, but this debate seems to have similarities to the health care debate in the US.

Some people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and others to the wrong thing for the right reasons, but both are right in a way. Right?

My sympathy goes to those with slow net access, If this were a buisness I would try to expand my clientel to as many people as possible.

Reminds me of the "Americans with disabilties Act", specificly the handicap parking spots. The government forces buisnesses to have accomodations for the disabled, but wouldn't it be bad buisness practice not to?

My point is, there is only one thing that everybody should know, The "Golden Rule" treat others the way you want them to treat you. But nobody can tell you what that is. It should come natural.

kel

 

[tmuir]

I like the photos, so much so if a thread doesn't catch my eye with an interesting photo I quite often don't even read it.
I would also agree thumbnails are a pain.
When you see it here it is most often because the photos have been uploaded to the forum gallery, which isn't perminant so if someone 6 months from now finds an interesting thread the photos may be all gone.

But on the other hand I agree there is no need for huge photos.
I take all my photos at 10 megapixels. I then crop them to get rid of the unimportant bit and then resize that to between 450 and 750 pixels wide as the picture requires.
I also tweak the jpeg quality slider in photos that don't need to be super sharp to lower the file size too.
Photos are the life and blood of forums like this and I think making them only thumbnails would be to the detriment to the forum, but it also doen't hurt us all to put a couple of extra seconds in to crop photos down in size before posting.

 

[rake60]

My first internet connection involved a modem with two foam cups to fit
a telephone hand set into. There were no pictures in those days and the
lines of text would stream in one line at a time.

There are some options available under the "Profile Settings"
Click on the "Profile" button and then select "Look and Layout Preferences"
In that window check the boxes.
"Don't show users' avatars."
and
"Don't show users' signatures."
Then click the "Change Profile" button.

You will no longer see avatars or signatures, but it will speed up your
viewing of the site.

Rick

 

[Cedge]

Oh dear.....Another drawn line?....(innocent grin). Mine was simply a nod to an obvious irony.

As for file crunching, I long ago learned to get quality images in the KB range, even when using animations. Cropping, reduction and some refocusing tricks are just part of SOP here...as it should be for anyone posting photos. If my 700 x 512 pixel images won't download, then it might be a caching problem in the browser being used. I.E. has a longstanding history of dragging to a halt when the cache gets full.

I'm among those who very seldom click on the thumbnails. The full sized photos in a post are often what make me stop and read the whole thread. Tony has a definite point about the time limits on attached thumbnails. Nothing is more annoying than a thread where they have gone off into the ether, leaving one trying to imaging what was once shown.

Sorry if it offends... but that is just how it is.

Steve

 

[Orrin]

If this were not available to me I'd look into 3G.

As I understand it, 3G is line of sight. Is that correct? Every heard of Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge in North America. Well, we're downstream from there but where we're at it is still a quarter of a mile deep. We lose cell phone service when we turn the corner and head down the canyon.

I'm not quite sure I understand the percentages, but what with all the recent news about the FCC's push for expanding broadband service there has been mention of the considerable fraction of the population still on dial-up.

Orrin

 

[Orrin]

I understand what a slow connection is like. I also understand having something 99% of the rest of the world does not.

Expecting those 99% to change is ridiculous.

Kermit, I hope you did not imply that I am expecting those 99% to change. If you were, go back and read my original post. I said that if I were the only one in my type of situation, ignore my post.

Orrin

 

[bearcar1]

Oh what a paradigm world we live in. There is, only so much bandwidth available to the world. With more and more individuals and groups of same all attempting to capture an ever larger portion of that finite amount, it becomes a never ending battle of faster throughput rates. It will, in the near future become a matter of how that information is processed and transmitted that will be the key, and the speed will become secondary. Today, I agree with only using the bare bones minimum of bandwidth as needed to post up information, be it photos or text. By that I mean, I do not find it necessary to post mega-sized photos in their highest definition when a much, much smaller photo that contains well focused and cropped images will suffice. Now in order to do that, one needs to keep in mind the fact that even though "this will be a great shot showing my work" etc., there is no real need for having that stray coffee mug that has been innocently captured in pixels for all of eternity to be included and shared with the rest of the world along with your latest endeavor. Close ups should include details and should occupy the majority of said shot either by carefully aiming the shot or by cropping the shot afterwards or both. Then, reducing the pixel size can also reduce the demands on the bandwidth available, there is no need to use the huge 800x1200 formats for most everyday usage, save those images for when you need to make billboard size enlargements, not when you want to display that newest valve linkage you just labored 12hrs over. Now I'm not saying we should all change in order to please a handful of users that do not have the higher speed connections available to them but to use common sense and just a bit of restraint to ease the burdens that are being placed upon the internet and websites by not doing so. As the compression/decompression technologies become more advanced, perhaps we will not have to struggle as much for a bigger piece of the networking pie and will finally be free of such bottlenecks but until that day arrives, I think that we should be just a bit more aware of what we all can be doing to not clog up what little space is available. It will be better for everyone, including the users that still use dial-up services.

BC1
Jim