New web pages...

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On or around Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:08:45 +0100, "David French"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> now that's something I didn't know. I'm not actually too displeased with
>> the 64Kb ISDN dialup, I'm just ****ed off that it costs considerably more
>> than broadband, albeit in fact, for 512Kb contended at 50:1, the actual
>> guaranteed max service I get from this'n (128Kb) is in fact better.
>
>With Zen I've never had contention problems. If you clock a download and
>work out the throughput, it's reliably 512Kbps, providing of course the
>thing at the other end is up to it.

I suspect that when everyone has broadband, this will end up being the
limiting factor; server speed and server connection speed will govern how
fast things happen. After all, that's where there are likely to be
bottlenecks.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
 
On Friday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Austin Shackles" wrote:

> On or around Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:08:45 +0100, "David French"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> now that's something I didn't know. I'm not actually too displeased with
> >> the 64Kb ISDN dialup, I'm just ****ed off that it costs considerably more
> >> than broadband, albeit in fact, for 512Kb contended at 50:1, the actual
> >> guaranteed max service I get from this'n (128Kb) is in fact better.
> >
> >With Zen I've never had contention problems. If you clock a download and
> >work out the throughput, it's reliably 512Kbps, providing of course the
> >thing at the other end is up to it.
>
> I suspect that when everyone has broadband, this will end up being the
> limiting factor; server speed and server connection speed will govern how
> fast things happen. After all, that's where there are likely to be
> bottlenecks.

I hope websites don't start relying on the high speed.

I think the big advantage is that the connection is always live, without
tying up a phone line that could be used for a voice call. Unless you
do want live video, I don't think contention will be a problem for most
of us. Start a file download, and leave it to run.

(We drive Land Rovers -- we're not the sort of people who hurry)

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
 
On or around Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:50:53 +0100 (BST),
[email protected] ("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

>I hope websites don't start relying on the high speed.

bet they will, buggrem.
>
>I think the big advantage is that the connection is always live, without
>tying up a phone line that could be used for a voice call. Unless you
>do want live video, I don't think contention will be a problem for most
>of us. Start a file download, and leave it to run.

mind the BT Home Highway (TM) here has 4 connections, 2 analog, 2 digital, 3
numbers and the ability to have any to connections concurrently active. 's
actually a nice setup, I just wish it weren't so bloody expensive - just had
the phone bill :-(


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam! afar Drag the slow barge, or
drive the rapid car; Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear the
flying chariot through the field of air.- Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
 


--
"David_LLAMA 4x4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just published my 1st attempt at a website ( cheated by using a wizard! )
>
> Still not finished, as loads more pics and info need to be done but at
least
> you can start to look at it
> www.llama4x4.co.uk
>

David

Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very useful
website in the making. You might want to look at the screen resolution
because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.

David - Milton Keynes
www.caravantravels.co.uk
Details of our Caravan Travels in the UK and Europe with help and advice and
site reports


 
On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:48:44 +0100, "David klyne"
<david@[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very useful
>website in the making. You might want to look at the screen resolution
>because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.

and he might want to leave it as is so that people still using 800x600
monitors can see it without having to scroll all over the place.

nice looking site, keep it simple, is my motto. If I get it together to
earn some money, those brake upgrades look nice.



one of my pet hates at the moment is people getting new digital cameras and
posting a snapshot of something on the web, in 2000x1500 pixel size and
about a megabyte big. No need for it, and I bet 80% of the intended
audience have to re-size it in order to be able to see it all.

my guideline for ordinary webpics is that they should fit in an 800x600
window and be compressed down to about 100KB, so they load nice and quickly
even on a slow link.

I'm not saying there's no reason to ever post large pictures at full
quality, just that at least 95% of the time it's a waste of time.

just my €0.02 worth...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write -_
I'm with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the bit
alright, but where's the bloody horse? - Roy Campbell (1902-1957)
 
In news:[email protected],
David klyne <david@[email protected]> expelled:
> Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very
> useful website in the making. You might want to look at the screen
> resolution because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.
>
> David - Milton Keynes

Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone
browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size.
Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work
properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).


--
EMB
change two to number to reply


 

"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> David klyne <david@[email protected]> expelled:
> > Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very
> > useful website in the making. You might want to look at the screen
> > resolution because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.
> >
> > David - Milton Keynes
>
> Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone
> browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size.
> Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work
> properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).


It is important for any site to work (i.e. no horizontal scroll bars etc) at
800x600 but it is no longer true to say that 800x600 is by far the most
popular.

1024x768 and 800x600 are pretty close now, with the higher resolution
possibly nudging in front. This is largely due to the number of flat
screens being delivered with new PC's - prior to these most PCs shipped set
to 800x600 and most people never bothered change resolution - even with a
198'' monitor.

Stats are available all over the place, and they never agree, but take it
from me 800x600 is not the dominent force it used to be (but is still very
important)


 
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:45:48 +0000 (UTC), "PR" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected],
>> David klyne <david@[email protected]> expelled:
>> > Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very
>> > useful website in the making. You might want to look at the screen
>> > resolution because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.
>> >
>> > David - Milton Keynes
>>
>> Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone
>> browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size.
>> Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work
>> properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).
>
>
>It is important for any site to work (i.e. no horizontal scroll bars etc) at
>800x600 but it is no longer true to say that 800x600 is by far the most
>popular.
>
>1024x768 and 800x600 are pretty close now, with the higher resolution
>possibly nudging in front. This is largely due to the number of flat
>screens being delivered with new PC's - prior to these most PCs shipped set
>to 800x600 and most people never bothered change resolution - even with a
>198'' monitor.
>

I use 1280x960. But my website is OK on 1024x768, and probably OK on
800x600 although not specifically set up for it.

If I had the pennies, I'd have a 19" monitor and run it at 1600x1200,
probably. But then I always drive the buggers as hard as I can without
getting into flickering territory, as I hate flicker in a monitor. 75Hz
refresh minimum...


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)
 
Or use tables set at 100% width and then it wouldn't matter what resolution
people were using ;-)

Ady


 
EMB wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> David klyne <david@[email protected]> expelled:
>
>>Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very
>>useful website in the making. You might want to look at the screen
>>resolution because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.
>>
>>David - Milton Keynes
>
>
> Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone
> browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size.
> Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work
> properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).
>
>

Although I agree with the idea of designing for compatibility with
800x600, based on the stats for my site (see below) I would disagree
with your comment that 800x600 "is by far the most common resolution
used". It is equally irritating to those of us who run high resolution
(I run 1920x1440) and try to view a website which doesn't scale and has
been designed purely for 640x480.

Apr 04
1024x768 58.9 %
1152x864 14.7 %
800x600 8.4 %
1280x1024 5.2 %
2048x1536 4.2 %
Others 8.4 %

May 04
1024x768 45.2 %
800x600 24.8 %
1600x1200 11.4 %
1280x1024 9.5 %
1152x864 3.1 %
Others 5.7 %

June 04
1024x768 55.4 %
800x600 16.2 %
1152x864 13.5 %
1280x1024 6.7 %
1600x1200 5.4 %
Others 2.7 %


--
Phil Gardiner
Please don't forget to check the alt.fan.landrover FAQ before posting
your question - http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:54:43 +0100, Phil Gardiner
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>EMB wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> David klyne <david@[email protected]> expelled:
>>
>>>Just had a look at your web site. It looks as if you have a very
>>>useful website in the making. You might want to look at the screen
>>>resolution because the text/picture only partially fill the screen.
>>>
>>>David - Milton Keynes
>>
>>
>> Remember that not everyone runs the same screen resolution as you. Someone
>> browsing at 640x480 (and some still do) has a full screen at that size.
>> Despite running my screen at 1280x1024 I still like to see sites that work
>> properly at 800x600 (as that is by far the most common resolution used).
>>
>>
>
>Although I agree with the idea of designing for compatibility with
>800x600, based on the stats for my site (see below) I would disagree
>with your comment that 800x600 "is by far the most common resolution
>used". It is equally irritating to those of us who run high resolution
>(I run 1920x1440) and try to view a website which doesn't scale and has
>been designed purely for 640x480.

[snip]

stats show 1024x768 as the most common by far, I'd think it reasonable these
days to make websites which are designed at that size. Scaling is another
matter, mind. 's much more difficult to make a website which adjusts
correctly when people zoom the text, for example.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:54:43 +0100, Phil Gardiner
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> [snip]
>
> stats show 1024x768 as the most common by far, I'd think it reasonable
these
> days to make websites which are designed at that size. Scaling is another
> matter, mind. 's much more difficult to make a website which adjusts
> correctly when people zoom the text, for example.
>
Although I use 1024x768 screens all the time, I much prefer to see web pages
at 800x600, as I dont want to run the web browser at full screen. I like to
have the other windows lurking in the background.

Just my preference...

cheers

simon



 

"ady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zz%[email protected]...
> Or use tables set at 100% width and then it wouldn't matter what
resolution
> people were using ;-)
>
> Ady


Rubbish!!

1) Why do you have to use a table just to achieve full width ??
2) Tables are never going to alter the size of images which are always a
fixed size and are in practice the main issue that needs considering with
different resolutions. A large picture that is fully viewable at 1024x764
(or higher) may well not be viewable without scrolling (horizontal and
vertical) at 800x600 - how the heck is putting it into a table - of any
kind - going to change that??









 

>
> Although I agree with the idea of designing for compatibility with
> 800x600, based on the stats for my site (see below) I would disagree
> with your comment that 800x600 "is by far the most common resolution
> used". It is equally irritating to those of us who run high resolution
> (I run 1920x1440) and try to view a website which doesn't scale and has
> been designed purely for 640x480.
>
> Apr 04
> 1024x768 58.9 %
> 1152x864 14.7 %
> 800x600 8.4 %
> 1280x1024 5.2 %
> 2048x1536 4.2 %
> Others 8.4 %
>

As I have said in an earlier post - 800x600 is no lonnger the dominating
force (i.e. I agree with you) - but these stats you quote are utter rubbish
in so far as they dont relate to average users.

800x600 is still pretty close to 1024x768 in "typical use" and I have NEVER
seen anyone use 2048x1536 which according to those stats is 50% as common as
800x600 which I see at different clients every day of the week.

Stats can prove anything - but these stats have not come from a fair cross
sample of typical users. - only 1 in 12 using 800x600 is a joke.



The reason that 800x600 was so dominent is simply that most PC's with CRT
screens left the factory set to 800x600 and most people never changed them
no matter what they were capable of. Now many PC's are shipping with flat
screens and these are more often than not set to 1024x768 and indeed may not
render lower resolutions well.



 

"Simon Coupland" <[email protected]_this> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:54:43 +0100, Phil Gardiner
> > <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > stats show 1024x768 as the most common by far, I'd think it reasonable
> these
> > days to make websites which are designed at that size. Scaling is
another
> > matter, mind. 's much more difficult to make a website which adjusts
> > correctly when people zoom the text, for example.
> >
> Although I use 1024x768 screens all the time, I much prefer to see web
pages
> at 800x600, as I dont want to run the web browser at full screen. I like
to
> have the other windows lurking in the background.
>
> Just my preference...
>
> cheers
>
> simon
>


Yes - it is perfectly true to say that most people viewing at 800x600 are
using full-screen windows, where as many viewing at higher resolutions are
not viewing with full screen windows.

Designing any site that is not easily useable (no horizontal scroll bars) at
800x600 (viewed in full size window) is folly - and I have been using
1024x768 or higher for 10 years!




 
In news:[email protected],
PR <[email protected]> expelled:

> As I have said in an earlier post - 800x600 is no lonnger the
> dominating force (i.e. I agree with you) - but these stats you quote
> are utter rubbish in so far as they dont relate to average users.
>
> 800x600 is still pretty close to 1024x768 in "typical use" and I have
> NEVER seen anyone use 2048x1536 which according to those stats is 50%
> as common as 800x600 which I see at different clients every day of
> the week.
>
> Stats can prove anything - but these stats have not come from a fair
> cross sample of typical users. - only 1 in 12 using 800x600 is a joke.
>

Ok - I've just run the logs for a couple of sites I have admin access to. 2
years ago it was a 50% 800x600,. 40% 1024x768 split, now it's reversed, but
40% of visitors 800x600 support is important for 40% of visitors. One of
these sites has 15K+ unique visits every month, the other <1K but the stats
are very similar.
A friend of mine's site aimed at IT professionals shows 85% at 1024x768 or
higher but his target audience are using computers for work every day so
this is probably expected. The other consideration is physical page size -
what I consider reasonable on a broadband connection can be unusable via
dial-up. Here in New Zealand true braodband is *very* limited with the vast
majority of users <56K dial up, and the next largest group on 128K ADSL.
The fastest affordable broadband is only 256K - a 2M ADSL connection will
cost you about 30 UKP per GB of data!! Those of us who are lucky/rich
enough to have a fast connection and good gear should remember the other net
users too when designing a site.

--
EMB
change two to number to reply


 

"EMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> PR <[email protected]> expelled:
>
> > As I have said in an earlier post - 800x600 is no lonnger the
> > dominating force (i.e. I agree with you) - but these stats you quote
> > are utter rubbish in so far as they dont relate to average users.
> >
> > 800x600 is still pretty close to 1024x768 in "typical use" and I have
> > NEVER seen anyone use 2048x1536 which according to those stats is 50%
> > as common as 800x600 which I see at different clients every day of
> > the week.
> >
> > Stats can prove anything - but these stats have not come from a fair
> > cross sample of typical users. - only 1 in 12 using 800x600 is a joke.
> >
>
> Ok - I've just run the logs for a couple of sites I have admin access to.
2
> years ago it was a 50% 800x600,. 40% 1024x768 split, now it's reversed,
but
> 40% of visitors 800x600 support is important for 40% of visitors. One of
> these sites has 15K+ unique visits every month, the other <1K but the
stats
> are very similar.
> A friend of mine's site aimed at IT professionals shows 85% at 1024x768 or
> higher but his target audience are using computers for work every day so
> this is probably expected. The other consideration is physical page
size -
> what I consider reasonable on a broadband connection can be unusable via
> dial-up. Here in New Zealand true braodband is *very* limited with the
vast
> majority of users <56K dial up, and the next largest group on 128K ADSL.
> The fastest affordable broadband is only 256K - a 2M ADSL connection will
> cost you about 30 UKP per GB of data!! Those of us who are lucky/rich
> enough to have a fast connection and good gear should remember the other
net
> users too when designing a site.
>
> --
> EMB
> change two to number to reply
>
>
In a slightly different note, mainly because I haven;t got a clue about
what most of you are on about!, remember that some of us can;t get broadband
even if we wanted it!!
We simply can't have it - and getting the 500 intterested names is also
going to be aproblem as we only have 300 phone numbers going through our
our BT eschange!!
Dial-up lives on - even if only in the middle of nowhere!!

David
LLAMA 4x4
www.llama4x4.co.uk



 
David_LLAMA 4x4 ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> remember that some of us can't get broadband even if we wanted it!!
> We simply can't have it

Yes, you can. Every single computer owner in the UK *can* get broadband,
even on an otherwise uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere.

Satellite broadband is an option, albeit not a cheap one - around
£100/month for a 512kb connection, plus a grand and a half for installation
- but it *DOES* exist.

Google is your friend on suppliers.

> Dial-up lives on - even if only in the middle of nowhere!!

And it will do for a long time yet.
 
On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "David_LLAMA 4x4" wrote:

> In a slightly different note, mainly because I haven;t got a clue about
> what most of you are on about!, remember that some of us can;t get broadband
> even if we wanted it!!
> We simply can't have it - and getting the 500 intterested names is also
> going to be aproblem as we only have 300 phone numbers going through our
> our BT eschange!!
> Dial-up lives on - even if only in the middle of nowhere!!

BT have dropped that system, though it may not be any advantage to you,
and are rolling out Broadband generally. The interest levels under the
old system will have some effect on the timing for specific exchanges,
and there are still going to be rural customers too far from an
exchange.



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
 
On or around Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:30:20 +0100, "David_LLAMA 4x4"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

> In a slightly different note, mainly because I haven;t got a clue about
>what most of you are on about!, remember that some of us can;t get broadband
>even if we wanted it!!
> We simply can't have it - and getting the 500 intterested names is also
>going to be aproblem as we only have 300 phone numbers going through our
>our BT eschange!!
> Dial-up lives on - even if only in the middle of nowhere!!


ditto here. although they want 150 names here, current score is about 30...

hmmm. wonder if they actually check... could register all the phone
numbers...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SootScout
I recorded over 200 trips on my 2017 Discovery Sport to find out if its DPF is fit for purpose
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Plasser
P
nevillen
Wrapping Not As Easy s It Looks
Replies
6
Views
1K
Ratae
R
Gothicsera
Discovery 2 TD5 Lack of Power
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
Gothicsera
Gothicsera
F
My 2006 Freelander TD4 Commerical
Replies
8
Views
536
Andy Warren
Andy Warren
D
D2 new front prop shaft and grease question
Replies
4
Views
1K
Disco Magic
D
Back
Top