why web pictures slow?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Though it wasn't a priority when I bought it I wonder if there's
something I can do about this apparent weakness of my new laptop.
Admittedly it's about the cheapest new one money can buy (£450), but
it does most things very well including recording my acoustic guitar,
playing DVD films. It's a Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo, 1500mhz.
Is it just that I've become used to seeing broadband speeds in
internet cafes and libraries, or is there something about the computer,
possibly upgradable, that makes for pictures, specifically photos on
websites transferring to the computer slowly. In the ten days I've
owned it I have only used about one fifth or less of the hd memory for
software and copied CDs, and even demanding tasks like recording the
guitar seem to use a tiny fraction fo the RAM, so I don't think it's
short-changed there. Because it handles the DVDs - and games, not that
I play them really - I was surprised that these photos were downloading
slowly.
Most of its slots are USB, if that helps, regarding any possible
add-on.
I don't really regard this as a problem as such, because I don't
really use the internet, but if there's a fuss-free way round it that'd
be a good bonus. If I had broadband would it merely be that my general
connection would be faster but that the photos would still be pretty
slow?
Any tips are welcome.

 

[z]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

gerryhandke@hotmail.com wrote in news:1112973025.734611.39070
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

If I had broadband would it merely be that my general
> connection would be faster but that the photos would still be pretty
> slow?
> Any tips are welcome.

Your connection speed will affect how fast you get images or any other type
of file/data on your computer. The faster the connection the faster the
images will show up. Generally, your computer will not vary speeds based on
what type of data you are getting -- images or text or whatever will be
mostly the same. There are cases where that might not be exactly true
(suppose you've got a virus scanner that scans for jpeg viruses, or if
you're on a modem using compression some images may not flow *quite* as
fast as text, but you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference)

The upshot is that no magic pill exists to make images download faster than
anything else. Keep in mind that image files are generally much larger
than text -- so they'll take more time regardless of the connection speed.

-z

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 8 Apr 2005 08:10:25 -0700, gerryhandke@hotmail.com wrote:

>Though it wasn't a priority when I bought it I wonder if there's
>something I can do about this apparent weakness of my new laptop.
>Admittedly it's about the cheapest new one money can buy (£450), but
>it does most things very well including recording my acoustic guitar,
>playing DVD films. It's a Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo, 1500mhz.
> Is it just that I've become used to seeing broadband speeds in
>internet cafes and libraries, or is there something about the computer,
>possibly upgradable, that makes for pictures, specifically photos on
>websites transferring to the computer slowly. In the ten days I've
>owned it I have only used about one fifth or less of the hd memory for
>software and copied CDs, and even demanding tasks like recording the
>guitar seem to use a tiny fraction fo the RAM, so I don't think it's
>short-changed there. Because it handles the DVDs - and games, not that
>I play them really - I was surprised that these photos were downloading
>slowly.
> Most of its slots are USB, if that helps, regarding any possible
>add-on.
> I don't really regard this as a problem as such, because I don't
>really use the internet, but if there's a fuss-free way round it that'd
>be a good bonus. If I had broadband would it merely be that my general
>connection would be faster but that the photos would still be pretty
>slow?
> Any tips are welcome.

You never did mention what connectivity you are actually using with the new
laptop.

Are you using an analog modem and wondering why it can't match up with wired
or even wireless LAN performance?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I have a 56k dial-up connection at the moment. There is a mention of
LAN in the manual but I don't know anything about this. Would
Broadband make up all the difference?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 9 Apr 2005 06:34:38 -0700, gerryhandke@hotmail.com wrote:

>I have a 56k dial-up connection at the moment.

figured as much

>There is a mention of LAN in the manual but I don't know anything about this.
>Would Broadband make up all the difference?

It can't hurt ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

gerryhandke@hotmail.com wrote:
> I have a 56k dial-up connection at the moment. There is a mention of
> LAN in the manual but I don't know anything about this. Would
> Broadband make up all the difference?
>

If "broadband" is available in your area it should make a
dramatic difference. Once you have tried it, it will be painful
to go back to dialup.

And in some areas - mine for example - broadband is no more
expensive than dial-up. Competition between the cable company
and the telco has been good for consumers around here.