dialup speed simulator?

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

dialup speed simulator?

broadbander needs REALITY check

rcjordan

8:07 pm on Dec 17, 2001 (gmt 0)

I'm dealing with a web designer that is on a cable modem. The new site that they're asking me to review is dog-slow on dialup. Is there a site that offers a simulator to show these broadband developers and site owners just how slow their site really is?

Mike_Mackin

8:30 pm on Dec 17, 2001 (gmt 0)

http://websitegarage.netscape.com

has a load time function which will return results like this:
Connect RateConnect Time
14.4K36.53 seconds
28.8K20.08 seconds
33.6K17.21 seconds
56K13.46 seconds
ISDN 128K4.75 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps1.18 seconds

rcjordan

8:36 pm on Dec 17, 2001 (gmt 0)

I was hoping to simulate the actual "sit and wait" time, then give them the statistics. But the stats report is very good on these. Thanks. Good tool sites.

ggrot

9:37 pm on Dec 17, 2001 (gmt 0)

Well, you could just load up a copy of apache on some PC connected to a dial-up and let them connect to the website that way. It would be pretty tough to write a script to simulate that since you would not only have to restrict the stream speed per file, but you would have to negotiate it over multiple files.

legster

7:49 pm on Dec 19, 2001 (gmt 0)

Thanks guys! That hitbox page is pretty awesome.

Winooski

6:45 pm on Dec 20, 2001 (gmt 0)

I just tested HitBox Doctor's load time utility at [url]http://www.hitbox.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?tools/doc[/url]. I like it, but it's not entirely accurate: it doesn't seem to pick up or account for background images in the BODY tag, and I would predict that it likewise misses them in TABLE tags.

However, if you're apprised of that quirk ahead of time and just use it for relative figures, it's very useful.

Nudge

5:51 am on Dec 21, 2001 (gmt 0)

If he's a designer he is more than likely to use Dreamweaver, which 1 gives you the filesize of a page including all images, scripts and plugins and the download time on whatever you set the preference to... 28, 56k etc

Winooski

5:56 pm on Dec 21, 2001 (gmt 0)

Good point, [i]Nudge[/i]. FrontPage also has an internal download estimator built-in.

However, there are at least 3 good reasons to make use of an independent download estimator:

(1) You may be developing for a platform which has a lot of its own HTML built in, e.g., Yahoo! Store. In such a scenario, you won't know about the download time until you visit the published page (or point the download estimator to it).

(2) The most efficiently designed page is still at the mercy of the server which parcels it out. Using an external download estimator is a great way to determine whether your Web host is giving you good enough file throughput.

(3) "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting." For any kind of development effort (from architecture to, uh, making pudding), you won't have complete confidence in the effectiveness of your design until you experience the final product or --better yet-- have an objective third party experience it and report back to you. An external download estimator is that kind of objective third party.

...You know, it occurs to me that it might be useful to have a few Web-based PING tools too. These won't help with testing download time for an entire page, but they will help test the relative speed of your Web server compared to others. I try to test with three servers to (hopefully) determine an average server response time.

TestMySpeed.com's Alert Site Net Test Tool
http://www.testmyspeed.com/tmsalertsite.htm

CNET's SiteSpeed Meter
http://webservices.cnet.com/Ping/

Network-Tools.com's Ping and more
http://www.network-tools.com/