To solve a previous problem posted here about 're-rendering' I've had to put 
a pre-load script of the same large background image on every page, even 
though it is cached.

When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an instruction to 
download _again_ or does it check the cache first and use that? My 
connection is too fast to tell the difference.

Cheers

-dE|_---

"dE|_"  wrote in message
news:B8fkk.106308$Eo3.27985@newsfe14.ams2...

> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an instruction to
> download _again_ or does it check the cache first and use that? My
> connection is too fast to tell the difference.

Change the picture on your server between the first and second views.
-- 
Tony W
My e-mail address has no hyphen
- but please don't use it, reply to the group.

dE|_ wrote in
<B8fkk.106308$Eo3.27985@newsfe14.ams2>

> To solve a previous problem posted here about 're-rendering' I've had
> to put a pre-load script of the same large background image on every
> page, even though it is cached.
>
> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an
> instruction to download _again_ or does it check the cache first and
> use that? My connection is too fast to tell the difference.

It may be that, if there is no perceptible difference for you, that there
may well be no perceptible difference for others unless you have an
unusually fast connection.

-- 
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"PeterMcC" wrote ...
>
>> To solve a previous problem posted here about 're-rendering' I've had
>> to put a pre-load script of the same large background image on every
>> page, even though it is cached.
>>
>> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an
>> instruction to download _again_ or does it check the cache first and
>> use that? My connection is too fast to tell the difference.
>
> It may be that, if there is no perceptible difference for you, that there
> may well be no perceptible difference for others unless you have an
> unusually fast connection.
>

Well it's not super-massive; 117k and every page has a different amount of 
content so they'll not be comparable.

Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10"). But 
there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though is there?

-dE|_---

dE|_ wrote in
<BVikk.101859$Lc6.97525@newsfe18.ams2>

> "PeterMcC" wrote ...
>>
>>> To solve a previous problem posted here about 're-rendering' I've
>>> had to put a pre-load script of the same large background image on
>>> every page, even though it is cached.
>>>
>>> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an
>>> instruction to download _again_ or does it check the cache first and
>>> use that? My connection is too fast to tell the difference.
>>
>> It may be that, if there is no perceptible difference for you, that
>> there may well be no perceptible difference for others unless you
>> have an unusually fast connection.
>>
>
> Well it's not super-massive; 117k and every page has a different
> amount of content so they'll not be comparable.
>
> Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10"). But
> there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though is
> there?

I've probably got this wrong, in which case just ignore me, but aren't you
seeing a rendering that's too fast to tell the difference between cached and
non-cached?

The image files are, I'm assuming, coming from your site's server and, since
they are at a speed that's too fast to tell the difference, the server is
delivering them at a speed that isn't inhibiting the process.

My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - my basic premise is
that, if your not seeing a problem, others probably won't see one either.

-- 
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"dE|_" wrote...

> Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10"). But 
> there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though is there?

Make that _on_ virgin, from http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/speed-test.asp
and it fluctuates like hell. 3 quick tests in a row went from 2.2 to 8.6Mb!!

I was under the impression that FO BB was the stable one.

-dE|_---

"PeterMcC" wrote...
>
>>>> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an
>>>> instruction to download _again_ or does it check the cache first and
>>>> use that? My connection is too fast to tell the difference.
>>>
>>> It may be that, if there is no perceptible difference for you, that
>>> there may well be no perceptible difference for others unless you
>>> have an unusually fast connection.
>>>
>>
>> Well it's not super-massive; 117k and every page has a different
>> amount of content so they'll not be comparable.
>>
>> Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10"). But
>> there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though is
>> there?
>
> I've probably got this wrong, in which case just ignore me, but aren't you
> seeing a rendering that's too fast to tell the difference between cached 
> and
> non-cached?
>
> The image files are, I'm assuming, coming from your site's server and, 
> since
> they are at a speed that's too fast to tell the difference, the server is
> delivering them at a speed that isn't inhibiting the process.
>
> My apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - my basic premise is
> that, if your not seeing a problem, others probably won't see one either.

I have seen no evidence of a problem because It wouldn't be a problem for 
me, but not everybody out there is on a 10Mb cable internet connection. As 
you know, you still need to account for those who can't or won't get 
broadband.

This was as much a Q for future reference really; Would the script...

     if(document.images)
     {
     	image1 = new Image(1202,900);
    	image1.src = "images/bluemonitor.jpg";

    	image2 = new Image(220,135);
    	image2.src = "images/bluetitles/logochip.jpg";

    	image3 = new Image(168,301);
    	image3.src = "images/navpanel_chip.jpg";
    }

Force a second download or pull it out of the cache? I can just seen no 
eveidence of either.

-dE|_---

dE|_ wrote in
<Psjkk.101861$Lc6.67923@newsfe18.ams2>




>>> Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10").
>>> But there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though
>>> is there?


>
> I have seen no evidence of a problem because It wouldn't be a problem
> for me, but not everybody out there is on a 10Mb cable internet
> connection. As you know, you still need to account for those who
> can't or won't get broadband.

I'm going round in circles here and probably not helping. I thought, based
on the above, that the speeds that you were concerned about were the ones
from your site's server rather than the speed of the visitor's connection.

'pologies - seem to have wasted your time :(

-- 
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"dE|_"  writes:

<snip>
> This was as much a Q for future reference really; Would the script...
>
>      if(document.images)
>      {
>      	image1 = new Image(1202,900);
>     	image1.src = "images/bluemonitor.jpg";
>
>     	image2 = new Image(220,135);
>     	image2.src = "images/bluetitles/logochip.jpg";
>
>     	image3 = new Image(168,301);
>     	image3.src = "images/navpanel_chip.jpg";
>     }
>
> Force a second download or pull it out of the cache? I can just seen no 
> eveidence of either.

The simplest way to check is to look in your server's logs.  Since
this is not always easy, I tried with FF 3.0 and IE 6 and a local
Apache server.  I got only one access to the image.

-- 
Ben.

"PeterMcC" wrote in a message one day...
>
>
>
>>>> Just ran a speed test from Virgin; 6.31Mb (package is "up to 10").
>>>> But there's no guarantee I'd get that from my site's server though
>>>> is there?
>
>
>>
>> I have seen no evidence of a problem because It wouldn't be a problem
>> for me, but not everybody out there is on a 10Mb cable internet
>> connection. As you know, you still need to account for those who
>> can't or won't get broadband.
>
> I'm going round in circles here and probably not helping. I thought, based
> on the above, that the speeds that you were concerned about were the ones
> from your site's server rather than the speed of the visitor's connection.
>
> 'pologies - seem to have wasted your time :(

LOL, I appreciate your attempt, but it seems you have filled in gaps I 
didn't go into as they are not the issue today.

I was asking about javascript and browsers, let's call it a day.

-dE|_---

"Tony"  wrote in message 
news:_Whkk.35451$E41.26770@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "dE|_"  wrote in message
> news:B8fkk.106308$Eo3.27985@newsfe14.ams2...
>
>> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an instruction 
>> to
>> download _again_ or does it check the cache first and use that? My
>> connection is too fast to tell the difference.
>
> Change the picture on your server between the first and second views.

I'll do a test with a 1MB bitmap, I'd notice that.

-dE|_---

"Ben Bacarisse"  wrote in message 
news:87fxpq81mf.fsf@bsb.me.uk...
> "dE|_"  writes:
>
> <snip>
>> This was as much a Q for future reference really; Would the script...
>>
>>      if(document.images)
>>      {
>>      image1 = new Image(1202,900);
>>     image1.src = "images/bluemonitor.jpg";
>>
>>     image2 = new Image(220,135);
>>     image2.src = "images/bluetitles/logochip.jpg";
>>
>>     image3 = new Image(168,301);
>>     image3.src = "images/navpanel_chip.jpg";
>>     }
>>
>> Force a second download or pull it out of the cache? I can just seen no
>> eveidence of either.
>
> The simplest way to check is to look in your server's logs.  Since
> this is not always easy, I tried with FF 3.0 and IE 6 and a local
> Apache server.  I got only one access to the image.

Thanks for that Ben, saved me timing a 1MB image page. My server logs aren't 
great or kept well up to date.

-dE|_---

"dE|_"  wrote in message 
news:B8fkk.106308$Eo3.27985@newsfe14.ams2...
> To solve a previous problem posted here about 're-rendering' I've had to 
> put a pre-load script of the same large background image on every page, 
> even though it is cached.
>
> When the browser sees the pre-load, does it take that as an instruction to 
> download _again_ or does it check the cache first and use that? My 
> connection is too fast to tell the difference.
>
> Cheers
>
> -dE|_--- 
>
>

How about inspecting IP packets as you load or refresh the page?

AC