Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Average Web Page Approaches 1MB

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the includes-the-toaster-and-the-pool dept.

The Internet 319

MrSeb writes "According to new research from HTTP Archive, which regularly scans the internet's most popular destinations, the average size of a single web page is now 965 kilobytes, up more than 30% from last year's average of 702KB. This rapid growth is fairly normal for the internet — the average web page was 14KB in 1995, 93KB by 2003, and 300KB in 2008 — but by burrowing a little deeper into HTTP Archive's recent data, we can discern some interesting trends. Between 2010 and 2011, the average amount of Flash content downloaded stayed exactly the same — 90KB — but JavaScript experienced massive growth from 113KB to 172KB. The amount of HTML, CSS, and images on websites also showed a significant increase year over year. There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts." If you have a personal home page, how big is it?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hallelujah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463862)

It's Huge baby!

Re:Hallelujah (4, Funny)

rwise2112 (648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464254)

That's what she said!

Well, mine is... (1, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464712)

The "home" page at our home web server is 9.5kB, including some Javascript, but it will load about 80kB of Logos from various FOSS sites (Gimp, Scribus, Inkscape, SciLab, etc.). Most of the index pages in different areas are also rather less than 10kB in size, but some of them link to pages containing albums of photos and videos. The entire site contains 15.6 GB of files which can be served up, mostly in these albums.

Re:Hallelujah (-1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464348)

But is it over 9000!?!?

Re:Hallelujah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464428)

OVER 9000 ?!?!

How Big? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463874)

That's rather personal.

can't wait to see these on my phone! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463878)

It's a good thing phone carriers don't limit your data consumption....

oh wait..

Re:can't wait to see these on my phone! (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464220)

The browser on my phone crashes on pages that size, including most articles on slashdot, so the data it uses is somewhat self limiting.

Not surprised (4, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463888)

With the growth of Javascript libraries like JQuery for more UI features, more images, I can see it reaching that high.

Meanwhile, web developers don't care because more and more people are getting faster and faster broadband speeds. So as long as the page-load metric works OK on their rig or perhaps what the envision most of their viewers have... they think it's all OK.

Re:Not surprised (4, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463916)

Apparently it is because users are still hitting their websites.

Re:Not surprised (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463998)

Web developers don't care because the majority of their images/css/js is cacheable by each visitor (and most people have jQuery cached from the official site and many sites link to that directly). 1MB page but it's only 45k on the next visit.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464054)

That'd be an interesting refinement, attempting to get numbers for typical data loaded after caching. Would be hard to come up with a "typical" user profile to use at various times in history for comparison, though.

Re:Not surprised (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464640)

Would be something interesting if the browser vendors collected anonymous usage data though. Not even which sites you visited, but just stuff that would be useful to the developers, like page size, time to download, time to render, cache hit frequency. Obviously many people would want to turn this off, but if you got enough people using it, you could get some really interesting data. As long as you don't collect information about which sites are being visited, but rather the characteristics of the sites being loaded, I don't think people would have too much of a problem.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464328)

The personal blog is 319 kB at first load. A good bit of that are assets that are shared across the site or common js libraries from offsite.

I'd like to know what the second page's cost is.

Re:Not surprised (4, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464704)

Yup. Google helps us out here. [google.com] If we're using offsite resources like that, there's a fair likelihood that it's cached in the user's browser even if it's the first time they've visited the site.

Yeah, because (1)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464070)

... reimplementing jQuery (which is 31K, btw) badly in uncacheable custom ways without being able to draw on the years of expertise of the developers of jQuery would be a great alternative.

Re:Not surprised (0)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464288)

No its because developers are cutting and pasting large number of of inefficient javascript files (which they only use say 10% ) which both increases page weight and download time.

Web performance is a major issue which a lot of "web" developers never consider unfortunately.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464482)

Certainly, JS frameworks do contribute to the total size of a page, that framework is generally cached and isn't re-downloaded on subsequent pages on the same site. So, your 965KB page just dropped to 800KB after the first page load. Images that are carried through a site (logos, widget buttons, backgrounds) can also only be counted on the first page load.

I tend to focus on keeping things small, reusing anything I can. Some web developers do care...at least I do.

Missing data (5, Interesting)

instagib (879544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463896)

Average information content - does a page view give me more insight as a user now than it did 10 years ago?

Re:Missing data (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464056)

10 years ago online video was virtually nonexistent, and where it did exist it was never larger than 320x240. Pictures were equally low resolution and page formatting was minimal. Allowing user comments was rare, and user contribution based sites like YouTube and Wikipedia were nonexistent. Oh yea, and the "blink" tag was still popular. So yes, I would say the amount of information has increased significantly.

Video sucks. (4, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464224)

10 years ago online video was virtually nonexistent, and where it did exist it was never larger than 320x240.

And now it is ubiquitous, HD and largely devoted to pointless things that would be skimmed over and disregarded in a fraction of the load time if left to text and still images.

Re:Video sucks. (4, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464466)

TubeCat [imgur.com] disagrees with everything about what you just said.

Re:Missing data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464366)

Don't forget the ad data. Most pages will have several large Flash apps, and usually 1-2 of them have a lot of code, mainly because trying every single browser and add-on as a preinstall of botnet software takes a lot of space and CPU time.

Re:Missing data (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464502)

According to the article summary, there's more HTML/JS (100+KB) downloaded then there is on the average Flash (90KB) content. It doesn't specifically state that ads are not included, and probably require significantly more work to exclude...

So in essence, one could almost say that HTML5 is more inefficient than Flash when it comes to bandwidth.

Re:Missing data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464320)

Suggest a metric to judge that by.

Re:Missing data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464646)

It certainly gives you more logos, clip art and ads.

Attributable to the death of flash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463904)

Horse hockey! Don't waste our time posting stuff like this.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463930)

Around 30kb...

Ad Content (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463942)

And how much of it is ads?

Re:Ad Content (4, Funny)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464208)

My webpage is just about 1k. But you have you watch a 30 sec. interlaced Bluray quality ad before you can see it.

Please remember the dial-up users... (4, Informative)

MetricT (128876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463944)

and the 3G users, and the satellite users, and everyone else that has a low-bandwidth and/or high cost per byte connection.

My parents can't get DSL or cable. They're stuck with 22k dial-up, and use AdBlock Plus, NoFlash, and Propel accelerator with compression set to the point where you can barely recognize photos, and it still takes 2 minutes for a reasonably normal page (CNN, MSNBC) to load, much less anything with a ton of Javascript or Flash.

Can't websites automatically detect connection speed the first time a client visits, and store a cookie so that us slow people get a nice, simple website?

Oh, and Propel, please move to JPEG2000 and XZ compression. Some people need every byte they can get.

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464000)

Out of curiosity, where do your parents live?

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (1)

MetricT (128876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464042)

They live in Ashland City, TN. I have a 10 Gb pipe at work, and can barely use SSH at their house. The contrast is amazing.

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464144)

Where is "work"? I'd like to move.

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (1)

kinarduk (734762) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464018)

Have you tried Lynx? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (1)

MetricT (128876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464076)

I've used Lynx since the early 90's, but it's not a realistic solution for my parents. Since they have both Chrome and Firefox installed, I disabled loading photos in Firefox to give them something Lynx-like, but it renders a number of sites unreadable, primarily ones that validator.w3.org barf at.

Re:Please remember the dial-up users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464528)

I have. A few sights (like slashdot for example) look good, but your typical webpage as shown in lynx:

[spacer.png] [logo.png] [spacer.png] [bodybg.jpg] [bodybg2.jpg] [EMBED] [bodybg3.jpg] [itunes.jpg]
      [bodybg4.jpg] [bodybg5.jpg] [newrecord.png] [spacerbottom.png] [store.png] [mailinglist.png] [fb.png]
                                        [twitter.png] [amazon.png] [spacerbottom2.png] [spacerbottom3.png]

You'll also notice that pages like google have a dozen links you have to scroll through just to get to the part you use, which a mouse can bypass faster than the Tab key in a graphic browser.

Virgin Mobile (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464142)

If they have cell reception then how about http://www.virginmobileusa.com/mobile-broadband/ [virginmobileusa.com]

Re:Virgin Mobile (1)

MetricT (128876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464242)

They don't have any cell reception, barring standing in the right spot in the yard. They live at the bottom of a large valley that blocks cell signals.

One thing I have thought about is buying two antennas and building a passive reflector to beam some signal into their valley, but I'm waiting for Verizon (or anyone, for that matter) to roll out 4G before I spend money on it.

Size Doesn't Matter (4, Funny)

stating_the_obvious (1340413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463966)

It's not the size of the home page, it's the motion of the .GIF

Ads (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463968)

And.... when running AdBlock Plus, this figure goes down to 100kB. I run AdBlock mostly for the massive speed increase that comes with it.

People don't know how to do websites... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38463970)

My fully featured CMS that used jQuery, jQuery UI, and a lot of heavy library takes 140kb. Learn to optimize people!!

Re:People don't know how to do websites... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464180)

First we need to finish learning jQuery, jQuery UI, and a lot of heavy libraries.

Your point being...? (1)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464636)

jQuery + jQuery UI (minified) is a lot smaller than the custom shit you're probably thinking about implementing.

(Yes, in an ideal world all the stuff that makes jQuery/jQuery-UI/whatever an attractive proposition would be folded into a standard, but so far it ain't happenin')

If you have a homepage (3, Insightful)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38463992)

I have a homepage, and it's only 4.92Kb. Granted it is the "It Works!" page for CentOS which has all of the other text and icons and such but who needs more than that? Do people really have personalized home pages now that Facebook came about (other than some hobbyists or professionals who run a side business)?

I wonder what the average "Facebook" homepage size is... since that is what most people will be seeing regularly.

- Toast

Re:If you have a homepage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464096)

1.4 MB.. had to wait for the images to load but i got it

- Buttered Toast

Re:If you have a homepage (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464102)

I don't know about Facebook but I'm willing to bet that the average MySpace page is up to 5 megabytes. Then again I haven't been there since 07'.

Re:If you have a homepage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464238)

Some people's Facebook profile pages reached dizzying heights of around 1-2MB before the Application Widget Cull, IIRC.

Re:If you have a homepage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464110)

Just the fact that you consider your "It Works!" CentOS page to be your homepage, answers why you would ask that.

Web Hosting by Buy N Large (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464030)

I think eBay lead the curve on this one. I complained bitterly to them about how long it took their bloated pages to load when I was still on dialup. Nobody cares.

I suppose the telecoms do. This increases the liklihood of blowing through your monthly bandwidth cap without even watching videos.

Not so large (1)

sstern (56589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464040)

According to pingdom, my home page is 304K, after minification.

Compression? (3, Insightful)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464050)

If the bulk of the increase is from javascript wouldn't turning on compression on the web server solve the problem? They're text files, they compress down massively.

Re:Compression? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464156)

Only if this isn't already counting compression.

Re:Compression? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464324)

not as much as only including what you need in 1 or 2 files will

Larger Pages (5, Insightful)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464060)

And Less Content. .

I remeber the days when a site would include an 10 paragraph article on one page - Not 10 pages with a paragraph on each.

Re:Larger Pages (2, Interesting)

greenhollow (63021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464200)

On most sites that I go to that have a paragraph per page model, I just click the "Print" button/link on the site and they combine the pages for printing. Then I read it without needing to print it. Sometimes they require printing it. If they do, I am less likely to read the article at all.

Re:Larger Pages (1)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464302)

I hate websites (And particularly tutorial or news sites) that have that content delivery style. I want to be reading the WHOLE story, not clicking a link every paragraph to read more of it.

Re:Larger Pages (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464604)

And not that I always RTFA, it seems these are a favourite for Slashdot to link to.

Flawed methods ... (4, Interesting)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464130)

This only matters if people go to the first page, and never go to any additional ones.

For most websites these days, you'll take the initial hit from javascript and the 'branding' images when you first get to the site ... but the changing content per page is much lower.

If websites are using standard javascript libraries being served by Google's CDN [google.com] , then it's possible that someone visiting your page already has jquery, mootools or similar cached and doesn't need to load yet another copy.

I also didn't see if they had any comparison between transferred size vs. used size. (eg, javascript that's sent compressed) ... and as this is from an new archive ... does anyone know if Archive.org could analyze their holdings to see what the longer term trends are?

I remember when downloading even 1MB would take (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464132)

I remember when downloading even 1MB would take over 24 hours when using a 300 baud modem on a Commodore 64 back in 1982.

Re:I remember when downloading even 1MB would take (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464666)

Did you disable call waiting? I was interrupted during a session by an incoming call (1984).

Now I can feel smug (4, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464152)

My home page remains where it has been since 1993 at the Calgary Unix Users Group: http://www.cuug.ab.ca/branderr [cuug.ab.ca] ...clocks in at 9.2K, plus a 15K GIF and a 9.1K JPG (if you "turn on images" in your browser - remember when it was a realistic option not to?)

I have held the line, while Viewing With Alarm (VWA) the growth of web pages for the entire 18 years since. I wrote Bob Metcalfe when he had a column at InfoWorld 15 years back, and he was Viewing With Alarm the exponential growth in Internet traffic and predicting the "collapse of the Internet" (had to eat those words - literally) because of it. My letter pointed out that his column constituted 2K of text - that was all the generated content that was bringing in the readers, (unless you count the 10K gif of Bob Metcalfe, and I don't), and the page had an additional 100K of framing and advertising-related image GIFs. His reply was somewhat defensive.

This last year, I had occasion to travel on the Queen Mary 2, where all internet is via satellite at a minimum of 34 cents per minute with their bulk plan. How quickly I grew to resent the giant Flash blobs that would be automatically downloaded with every page of a newspaper so I wouldn't miss the animated ads for the latest in car buys. At QM2 speeds, I'd have to wait about two minutes before I even had an "X" mark to click on to dismiss the ad. I was rather quickly cured of almost any interest in the Internet content at ALL, I did my E-mail, checked the google news headlines (fewest high-byte ads), and logged off.

My point: 90% of mail is spam. So are 90% of web page bytes. We just don't call it spam. We call it "the whole outside frame around the news page that we try not to see, but keeps jumping around into our field of view".

Cache? (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464158)

How much is cached? Yeah, initial page load sucks terribly, but how much has to be loaded on subsequent page requests?

How many copies of jQuery and etc. do people have cached on their machines?

It almost feels like we need dependency managers for browsers! I mean, I know there is the Google hosted stuff and other projects urge you to use their hosted version and fallback on a local copy.

No, it's not HTML5. It's just junk. (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464178)

There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts.

No, it's not about HTML 5. A lot of it is about bloated content management systems and templates.

I was looking at a Wall Street Journal page recently, and I brought it into an HTML editor so I could eliminate all non-story content. The story required an HTML page with only 72 lines. The original page was over 4000 lines. It contained a vast amount of hidden content, including the entire registration system for buying a subscription. All that junk appears on every page.. Inline, not in an included file.

On top of that, there are content management systems which create a custom CSS page for each content page. So there's no useful caching in the browser.

Remember those people who said CSS was going to make web pages shorter? They were wrong. Look at Slashdot - bloated, slow pages that don't do much, yet consume CPU time when idle.

Re:No, it's not HTML5. It's just junk. (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464298)

But Slashdot is now web 2.0, Ajax-enabled and social. Pretty soon it'll be "hosted on the cloud" and provide SaaS so it can win at buzzword bingo!

Re:No, it's not HTML5. It's just junk. (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464338)

let's just use 1 acronym for all that, BWC. Bloated Web Crapware

Re:No, it's not HTML5. It's just junk. (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464402)

I would mod you up but i have commented all ready - its a major problem seems worse in old school publishers unfortunately. Lucky the one I work for has finally seen the light lets how that I see some changes next year.

Re:No, it's not HTML5. It's just junk. (2)

archen (447353) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464546)

I agree that the reason things are getting bigger is because of extra "crap" getting served. Comercial pages are the biggest chunk of it, but even stuff like wordpress can toss out a lot of junk with templates. With bigger screen resolutions and assumed high speed internet, I'm seeing many sites being much more sloppy with large graphics too. The slashdot question at the end makes it sound like personal pages are relavent to this statistic. What percentage of the population actually has a personal homepage these days? 0.2% ? Facebook and blogging covers 99% of what most people need.

I've had a page since 1997 and the average page size hasn't changed a whole lot. With the transition from table layouts to css the file sizes went down for a while, then my css got more complicated and it's about the same. A big page adds up to maybe as much as 15-20k. Anyone actually try writing 20k worth of text, grammer check it, proof read and edit it multiple times? That's a LOT of work for a file that is that small. I've got over 765 pages, with about 28Mb of stuff all together. I have no idea how much css is involved but my javascript adds up to something like 2k total (not including the google spy stuff).

Coded mine in notepad (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464194)

CSS is for prima donnas and Flash is for artistes. PHP is for chatterboxes and Perl is for psychics. Javascript is for the clinically insane, and Ruby is for hipsters. Drupal is for geeks and Ajax is for nerds.

I'll stick to plain-jane HTML, thanks.

Re:Coded mine in notepad (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464530)

CSS is for prima donnas and Flash is for artistes. PHP is for chatterboxes and Perl is for psychics. Javascript is for the clinically insane, and Ruby is for hipsters. Drupal is for geeks and Ajax is for nerds.

I'll stick to plain-jane HTML, thanks.

"...and plain-jane HTML is for bigger hipsters than Ruby users". Understood. Thanks.

Re:Coded mine in notepad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464624)

You should really just send plaintext email. Or since email is for the obnoxious cognoscenti, just TTY your content to people directly.

Re:Coded mine in notepad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464710)

I'm going to tty my dick into your butt.

Non sequitur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464196)

There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts.

90KB of Flash (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464216)

That's still too much flash for me

Sent from my iPhone

slashdot = overweight (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464218)

Ironically posted on a website that is itself a bloated pig.

Home page size (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464228)

My personal site's home page? Fairly large, 18k of which 11k is images. I mean, it's a home page not an image gallery or something like that where you expect a lot of large content.

I've seen some of those sites with large pages, and mostly I hate visiting them. The loading makes them feel like I'm wading through molasses, and the amount of stuff they're loading and the complexity of the scripts means more and more glitches and things that break when the network isn't perfect or they didn't expect the exact combination of things I've got at the moment. The pages come across as not being able to stay out of their own way, and more and more often they actually get in the way of my seeing what I came to the page for. There's merchants I've actually walked away from even though they had the product I wanted and had the best price on it simply because I couldn't get their pages to work well enough to get to the product page let alone order it. And I'm a techie who knows how to tweak the browser to make pages work when they don't want to, I shudder to think what it's like for someone who isn't a techie and is afraid to touch the security settings.

1.3mb or 1,000 lines of python (2)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464250)

my site's a pyjamas application. it is therefore 1,000 lines of python.... or, when compiled (and therefore including the pyjs runtime which does stuff like dict, list, exceptions etc. all emulated in javascript, as well as including the library of widgets that are used on the page) it's 1.3mb of really obtuse but functionally correct javascript.

My Personal Home Page? (2)

nick357 (108909) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464268)

It remains the size of one of those animated "under construction" gifs.

Automatic shutdown at 95C (2)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464274)

I've been able to run both CPU and GPU based CFD and 3D visualisation on my laptop without any problems, yet some flash games which are just doing 2D animation will roast a 2.7 GHz CPU to the point that the kernel decides to call it a day and shut down the whole system.

Unbelievably, these flash games aren't doing anything more complex than playing a retro 2D platform game. I'm guessing that this is due to the way in which all the separate texturemaps/pixelmaps are treated as generic webpage images rather than as a single DOOM style WAD file.

Re:Automatic shutdown at 95C (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464354)

Are you trying to help this page on its way to the 1 MB milestone?

Re:Automatic shutdown at 95C (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464416)

In 5 more years there will be another layer of abstraction and 5GHz CPU's will be dragged to a crawl by a Super Mario Brothers clone.

Am I the only one reminded of.... (4, Interesting)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464300)

http://www.the5k.org/ [the5k.org]

It seemed so long ago. Didn't /. have an entry as well?

145.3K (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464326)

It's not completely done yet, but I doubt it will go over 200K when it is done.

Going out on a limb here... (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464330)

But I would venture to guess that the average person also uses wysiwig editors and/or templates, which tend to be horribly bloated from the getgo. Most templates I've experimented with can be easily reduced up to 60% of their original size while delivering the exact same look, feel and functionality, and a significant amount of the HTML code that's spawned from the aforementioned methods is entirely unnecessary.

My homepage is 66.7k (1)

DarkSage (208892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464334)

Wonder if i can cut 1k somewhere to make it 66.6k just for fun.

Its a personal site, with just a picture of me, and lots of text. Runs Drupal 7 theme based on Stark.

1 MB - Noscript+adblock - 15 KB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464364)

It's only huge if you load all the huge stuff you don't need to be loading.

ASP __VIEWSTATE (1)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464378)

The abuse of __VIEWSTATE in certain pages makes the actual viewstate bigger that the site itself, per click, growing and growing. Which basically must count for something. I have always wondered how Microsoft hould have thought this out, or maybe the lack of education of its "developers".

Above average! (1)

MeTaLNETwEeK! (2537532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464384)

Mine's above average - nearly 11 inches!

Three examples... (1)

unts (754160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464388)

My personal web site's home page is 2KB. It's HTML5, no CSS, no JS. My research group site has a bit of all three plus a handful of images and comes in at 125KB. Big website I sysadmin weighs in at 1.1MB. A nice variety there. I think my personal site claims the crown as the fastest loading and quickest to render.

492KB/42KB (1)

gpmidi (891665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464392)

My main site is 492KB for the front page and all of it's content, including images. Any loads other than the first are around 42KB due to browser based caching.

Memory issues. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464442)

Bigger web pages and heavier use of scripts are partly to blame for memory leaks that web browsers suffer. Back in 2001 when IE6 was still new it could happily run with just 64MB RAM. Now netbooks struggle with 16 times that much RAM. In the future we will be complaining that Firefox 258 will be using 2PB of ram for just five tabs.

Too much Javascript for non-interactive content (3, Informative)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464458)

Some sites use Javascript to display what is semi-static data that should be assembled on the server side before transmitting to the user. For example, a news site where the stories are loaded by Javascript.

Some sites even have pages that are entirely blank if Javascript is turned off. It seems that some of these "web programmers" don't even know how to dynamically build a page with server-side scripting instead of Javascript.

Personal Page Size (1)

pcarter7 (1359643) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464480)

Well I just checked, and my homepage is still 123 bytes. Is this like the reverse of overcompensating?

Page Size (0)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464486)

Home page of my personal web space is well under 1k. "This space intentionally left blank."

"There is absolutely no doubt..." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464542)

"There is absolutely no doubt that these trends are attributable to the death throes of Flash and emergence of HTML5 and its open web cohorts."

To quote the internet: "lolwut?"

You think it might be (more realistically) that many more people are using javascript libraries like jquery (~90kb) which increase their overall pagesize bloat? Simply put, a flash menu is a flash menu, and it's about the same size whether you've got a lot of fancy stuff flying around or you're going with the most plain menu possible. If you're having to include a stack of javascript animation libraries and plugins to keep your site "open" (whatever that means) then things get bulky in a hurry.

To attribute a huge increase in raw javascript size as a good thing is blindingly stupid. If anything it's a bad thing because people aren't using the right tools for the job, and trying to force something that's half implemented and not fully defined into a place that is already occupied by the much leaner, faster and more mature flash. I call BS on any smug "open" enthusiast who crows about the downfall of flash until somebody shows me that they can build a feature for feature clone of something like farmville (chosen because it's so widely used) with less time, expense and developer expertise than flash and equivalent cross platform performance.

Use the tool that's right for the job. To assume when you wield a hammer that everything is a nail is retarded.

10,508 bytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464582)

and one 27864 byte image. Google also understands the importance of this.

5MBs (2)

keith_nt4 (612247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464588)

Damned FrontPage

Maybe that's a silly question to ask but... (1)

eminencja (1368047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464664)

... I have not upgraded my home page since 1999. Will its size have stayed the same?

The Size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464684)

of the code doesn't matter....it's how you use it!

pretty small... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464690)

2753 bytes

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?