Comments for ProjectX Technology

Comment on NZ Homepage Drag Race – Chrome vs IE8 – which is faster ? by john

john — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:58:08 +0000

I’ve done a quick check of IE8 vs IE9 vs Chrome from LA (where its installed on the webpagetest service)
And chrome still wins … just.
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110830_R7_1F486/
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110830_N2_1F480/
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110830_CB_1F481/

Comment on NZ Homepage Drag Race – Chrome vs IE8 – which is faster ? by john

john — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:49:29 +0000

I used what was available on the webpagetest.org node for Wellington which is IE* and Chrome. The Chrome version is 13 which is the latest version.
Loads.in service shows IE8 vs Chrome 8 vs Firefox 3.6 vs Safari 4 – here’s the load time from Auckland to telecom.co.nz . IE8 is slower than the rest.
http://www.projectx.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Screen-shot-2011-08-31-at-11.42.25-AM.png

Comment on NZ Homepage Drag Race – Chrome vs IE8 – which is faster ? by Nigel Parker

Nigel Parker — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:57:04 +0000

Why didn’t you use IE9 in your tests? I assume you used the latest released version of chrome.

Comment on Homepage hall of shame – July 2011 by john

john — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:08:07 +0000

As for your “day job”. You got hammered by poor perforamnce by your ad partners.Put pressure on your ad partners to improve their performance.

Comment on Homepage hall of shame – July 2011 by john

john — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:00:21 +0000

Majority of the tests were run on the weekend using webpagetest.org. All of the test results in the Google have a URL with the full test details of every test.

I understand there are number of factors that can affect slow performance. In nz.yahoo.com case, the tests were run on a sunday. I was surprised that the result , so re-ran them several times. And the same result at different times of the day. (http://www.webpagetest.org/testlog.php?days=30&filter=nz.yahoo.com) There were poorly optimised advertising running that day contributed to the slowness.(http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110710_ZG_110R5/1/details/)

Comment on Homepage hall of shame – July 2011 by davis dimalen

davis dimalen — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:44:04 +0000

I am interested on how you did your evaluation? I also use the same API as webpagetest.org and believe me the results varies with time. For example, you evaluated nz.yahoo.com as one of the slowest when most of the time, on a daily basis they get the fastest loading times.

I think it is unfair to judge these websites as slowest and not knowing what time of day they were evaluated. You see their are alot of factors that has to be consider when evaluating these websites and that includes the time of day they were evaluated. Considering on a particular period of time, some websites are overloaded on while at the sime period of time some website are not busy.

My question is did you measure these websites at the same time? Are they all tested on the same environment and of the same technical conditions?

Comment on Homepage hall of shame – July 2011 by john

john — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:31:13 +0000

The answer lies in the speed of the network and effects of network latency. In your case there seems to be a problem with the webserver serving some of the requests very slow for the 1.5Mb test. Even if this didn’t happen you would rank mid-50′s.

Every request has a latency time from the time which the browser requests it and the time that the webserver starts to the serve the first byte. For 1.5Mb connection on average a latency of 100-120ms. There are cases your server waited upto 360ms to deliver 0.6K image (which took 0ms to deliver.

From what I can see your site can be twice at least fast with some optimisations!

Comment on Homepage hall of shame – July 2011 by Rob Holmes

Rob Holmes — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:40 +0000

John – I’m interested in why a site would rank a lot better for the 20Mb test than for the 1.5Mb test. I think we rank about 27th for first load at 20Mb, but dramatically worse for the 1.5Mb test.
cheers,
Rob

Comment on Full results – Home page hall of shame Dec 2010 by john

john — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:47:06 +0000

Awesome I’ll amend the post with your changes!

Comment on Full results – Home page hall of shame Dec 2010 by Karl von Randow

Karl von Randow — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:31:37 +0000

Thanks for keeping this going, and thanks for bringing the Publicaddress homepage size to our attention! Some graphics were uploaded as PNGs when they should have been JPEG… we’ve changed them to be automatically converted to JPEG and trimmed a mere 1.6 MB off the homepage size in the process!