61–70 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yahoo did a study a while back and found that ~50% of their visitors had a cold cache http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/01/04/performance-research-part...
In early 2007. Isn't this likely to have changed in five years?
Apparently Stack Overflow sees similar numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run chrome in incognito mode pretty much 100% of the time, and this totally explains why loading tweets is so freaking slow lately.
Chrome caches in Incognito mode. It just doesn't let the cache leak out of the session. So this might explain the first tweet you load being slow, but if you load a second it should be just as fast as in normal mode.
I just chalked up the painfully slow load times to "well, it's twitter..."
(And sorry, twitter, it sounds like this has changed, but my experience with twitter involved a TON of fail whales, which is partially why I never got hooked on it, I'm sure)
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". Twitter obviously caches 99% of this stuff. I absolutely agree that 2.2MB on one page seems absolutely insane, but that doesn't match up with the experience every time you load the page. And I imagine it's pre-caching code that runs on other pages as well, so you most likely only ever take that download hit once. Yes, they should bring that amount down. No, it…
I never follow Twitter links because of exactly this (well and the fact that they trap you with forwards). It is a terribly negative experience. Even if I had all of those files cached the parsing and execution of all of that JavaScript is far from instantaneous.
Same deal with TechCrunch -- stopped visiting because it is such a script-laden monstrosity that it seriously diminishes the experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it is funny - AJAX-related technologies were promoted exactly to make sites more lightweight and more responsive..
You could argue that Twitter is more responsive than it would be using server-generated HTML pages. But the initial app download is much bigger than it would be with that method.
One tweet is 2 MB? More like 670 KB for first load and 18 KB cached. http://imgur.com/QFIjU
Does anyone know how to get those graphs to show up in the current version of WebKit? They seem to have disappeared or are hidden.
This is a good question. The resource panel from the old Safari 4 webinspector looked that way: http://www.webkit.org/blog/197/web-inspector-redesign/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not when they are clicking on a link in email or other page. EDIT: misread your comment. Thought you were talking about mobile apps. Also, I would not call their mobile site 'very lean'. Just got a single twit page on iPhone: 817Kb.
Really? Because when I go to a Twitter link on my phone it redirects me to the mobile site, irrespective of the original domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll move to pushState and all will be well. Hash-bang URLs were just a necessary stopgap solutions until more browsers supported pushState.
I would like to think so, but they haven't yet. They don't even load any page content, so that you don't get URLs like http://twitter.com/stuff/1234/things#!/different/stuff