If I double my DSL speed, will my browser windows load noticeably faster?

[Muse]

I called my ISP a few days ago about a technical problem I was having but before they'd connect me I had to listen to a woman offering me a boggling array of incentives to "upgrade." $50 back, $20 back, get long distance (I'm paying ~$1.30/mo. right now even if I don't use my long distance connection, which I signed up for just for the occasional fax out of my local zone, doing my long distance on my cell instead), and double my DSL speed for $5 extra/month. I said I'm unemployed right now and can't justify paying more money. But when I open Firefox I have a lot of windows/tabs to load and am wondering if that $5/month upgrade (I think I'm at ~2.6 mhz now) would be worth it. In practical terms, would my pages load significantly faster? Or is the bottleneck likely on the server side of things? If the answer is that I will notice a big improvement I'll call them back and ask if I can sign onto that deal.

 

[Baked]

No. Most noticeable difference is download speed on large files. But for $5 more, I'll take it.

And why do you have shit ton of windows and tabs when you open firefox?

 

[Tim]

Is this a serious question?

2.6mhz FTW

 

[yours truly]

ive not noticed any difference, went from 8mb to 25mb

 

[jtvang125]

You mean 2.6 mbps? If so, that's plenty of bandwidth.

 

[yelo333]

Latency is the biggest issue in how fast a web page loads, which is how fast round-trip is from your computer and back. If you like, try (from the command line: (start -> run -> "cmd")

`ping somewebsite`, like:

ping yahoo.com

If you're in the 200+ms zone even on major websites (google, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc), that may be the cause of your troubles. This could probably only be fixed it by switching ISPs.

Doubling bandwidth will cause a moderate decrease in load times, especially if you're doing multimedia. But certainly not halve the load time of a webpage. Is there a way you could give it a try for a month, then switch back to your old speed if you aren't satisfied?

Slow load times may also be related to a slow DNS server. Try a different one, perhaps opendns. ( http://www.opendns.com/ )

Do your pages load slowly in IE as well? Perhaps it's a firefox problem.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

no it is unlikely to affect the ping and latency

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: Muse
I called my ISP a few days ago about a technical problem I was having but before they'd connect me I had to listen to a woman offering me a boggling array of incentives to "upgrade." $50 back, $20 back, get long distance (I'm paying ~$1.30/mo. right now even if I don't use my long distance connection, which I signed up for just for the occasional fax out of my local zone, doing my long distance on my cell instead), and double my DSL speed for $5 extra/month. I said I'm unemployed right now and can't justify paying more money. But when I open Firefox I have a lot of windows/tabs to load and am wondering if that $5/month upgrade (I think I'm at ~2.6 mhz now) would be worth it. In practical terms, would my pages load significantly faster? Or is the bottleneck likely on the server side of things? If the answer is that I will notice a big improvement I'll call them back and ask if I can sign onto that deal.

WTF? $1.30 a month for dsl?

2.6mhz? Is that your CPU speed? Did you mean 2.6Mbps?

 

[Pollock]

What is going on in this thread?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Baked
No. Most noticeable difference is download speed on large files. But for $5 more, I'll take it.

I don't care about the speed of downloading large files. It happens in the background anyway and I only do it occasionally, not daily.

And why do you have shit ton of windows and tabs when you open firefox?

'cause I've got a problem, I admit it. Clutter. I'm trying to train myself to close tabs, windows. I'm getting better, honest.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jtvang125
You mean 2.6 mbps? If so, that's plenty of bandwidth.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I knew you'd know what I meant. I just couldn't remember the units.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

The next FireFox itself is supposed to be much faster.

The bottom line I think it, with your current set up, do you always get frustrated with how slow things are? Sure you can havea 300 HP car but does it get you anywhere any faster? nope.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: yelo333
Latency is the biggest issue in how fast a web page loads, which is how fast round-trip is from your computer and back. If you like, try (from the command line: (start -> run -> "cmd")

`ping somewebsite`, like:

ping yahoo.com

If you're in the 200+ms zone even on major websites (google, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc), that may be the cause of your troubles. This could probably only be fixed it by switching ISPs.

Doubling bandwidth will cause a moderate decrease in load times, especially if you're doing multimedia. But certainly not halve the load time of a webpage. Is there a way you could give it a try for a month, then switch back to your old speed if you aren't satisfied?

Slow load times may also be related to a slow DNS server. Try a different one, perhaps opendns. ( http://www.opendns.com/ )

Do your pages load slowly in IE as well? Perhaps it's a firefox problem.

Thanks... I'll have to look into these issues.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five

Originally posted by: Muse
I called my ISP a few days ago about a technical problem I was having but before they'd connect me I had to listen to a woman offering me a boggling array of incentives to "upgrade." $50 back, $20 back, get long distance (I'm paying ~$1.30/mo. right now even if I don't use my long distance connection, which I signed up for just for the occasional fax out of my local zone, doing my long distance on my cell instead), and double my DSL speed for $5 extra/month. I said I'm unemployed right now and can't justify paying more money. But when I open Firefox I have a lot of windows/tabs to load and am wondering if that $5/month upgrade (I think I'm at ~2.6 mhz now) would be worth it. In practical terms, would my pages load significantly faster? Or is the bottleneck likely on the server side of things? If the answer is that I will notice a big improvement I'll call them back and ask if I can sign onto that deal.

WTF? $1.30 a month for dsl?

2.6mhz? Is that your CPU speed? Did you mean 2.6Mbps?

I meant $1.30 for just being subscribed to my long distance, who are Powernet Global. I've suspected for a while that they were kind of scamming me because I rarely even use it. I thought it was free if I didn't use it, but I was evidently wrong.

Yes, 2.6 mbps, sorry.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
The next FireFox itself is supposed to be much faster.

The bottom line I think it, with your current set up, do you always get frustrated with how slow things are? Sure you can havea 300 HP car but does it get you anywhere any faster? nope.

My cars are 2.6L and 2.0L, 4 bangers. They are plenty fast for me. I usually skate and bike, so I figure I'm doing fine in my cars when I do drive them. When I open Firefox, I see tabs loading and loading and loading and it's a minute or two or three or more before things stop loading. I know, I have to close tabs. It's probably mostly because there are so many tabs to load that none of them are complete for a while. I often have several just time out and never do complete loading.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Baked
No. Most noticeable difference is download speed on large files. But for $5 more, I'll take it.

And why do you have shit ton of windows and tabs when you open firefox?

I currently have about 60 tabs open in my firefox window, and i'll close it and restore those same ones.
granted, I could easily close about 40 of them. And some days, I'll get fed up and will go through and close all the ones I don't use. Just haven't done that it awhile, and thus why I have such a buildup of websites.
can't wait till Firefox 3 goes full release. The memory issues with Firefox 2 annoy me, but I love the browser too much for it to be that big of a concern. And thus why Firefox 3 is going to be so awesome due to its memory performance.

+

 

[LTC8K6]

I have 1.5mb DSL at work and 5mb cable at home.

Pages certainly seem to load much faster with the cable.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: yelo333
Latency is the biggest issue in how fast a web page loads, which is how fast round-trip is from your computer and back. If you like, try (from the command line: (start -> run -> "cmd")

`ping somewebsite`, like:

ping yahoo.com

If you're in the 200+ms zone even on major websites (google, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc), that may be the cause of your troubles. This could probably only be fixed it by switching ISPs.

Doubling bandwidth will cause a moderate decrease in load times, especially if you're doing multimedia. But certainly not halve the load time of a webpage. Is there a way you could give it a try for a month, then switch back to your old speed if you aren't satisfied?

Slow load times may also be related to a slow DNS server. Try a different one, perhaps opendns. ( http://www.opendns.com/ )

Do your pages load slowly in IE as well? Perhaps it's a firefox problem.

Thanks... I'll have to look into these issues.

I just pinged yahoo.com and average was 9 ms. Guess that's not the problem. When is Firefox 3 going to come out? I really am not aware of a big difference between Firefox and IE right now, since they both support tabs. AFAIK, though, you can't use IE 7 in Win2000, but I'm using XP Pro on my main computers now.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Baked
No. Most noticeable difference is download speed on large files. But for $5 more, I'll take it.

And why do you have shit ton of windows and tabs when you open firefox?

I currently have about 60 tabs open in my firefox window, and i'll close it and restore those same ones.
granted, I could easily close about 40 of them. And some days, I'll get fed up and will go through and close all the ones I don't use. Just haven't done that it awhile, and thus why I have such a buildup of websites.
can't wait till Firefox 3 goes full release. The memory issues with Firefox 2 annoy me, but I love the browser too much for it to be that big of a concern. And thus why Firefox 3 is going to be so awesome due to its memory performance.

+

Alright! I'm not alone.

 

[Muadib]

Firefox 3 RC 1 is noticeably faster than version 2, and even though it's technically still a beta version, it's been rock solid for me. Try it out, and see what you think. It won't install over your current version, so you really have nothing to lose. RC2 is due out June 6, if you prefer to wait.

 

[Delta6Echo]

Originally posted by: Muse
I called my ISP a few days ago about a technical problem I was having but before they'd connect me I had to listen to a woman offering me a boggling array of incentives to "upgrade." $50 back, $20 back, get long distance (I'm paying ~$1.30/mo. right now even if I don't use my long distance connection, which I signed up for just for the occasional fax out of my local zone, doing my long distance on my cell instead), and double my DSL speed for $5 extra/month. I said I'm unemployed right now and can't justify paying more money. But when I open Firefox I have a lot of windows/tabs to load and am wondering if that $5/month upgrade (I think I'm at ~2.6 mhz now) would be worth it. In practical terms, would my pages load significantly faster? Or is the bottleneck likely on the server side of things? If the answer is that I will notice a big improvement I'll call them back and ask if I can sign onto that deal.

LOL

 

[Willoughbyva]

Remember just because you have a ton of bandwith at your connection, doesn't mean that it will increase your downloads all that much. You also have to consider the lines running along your rout to whatever server you are connecting to. I don't know, but it is my suspicion that most servers have throttlers that cut the bandwith that one person can connect/download from.

Just my opinion.

Perry

 

[MH2007]

To double your speed at such a small price increase I would assume you're at 768k/? and would be moving to 1.5M/?

768k downstream gets saturated with a single YouTube video. Assuming a lot of your tabs are graphics heavy your downstream could easily be the bottleneck in your browsing (at least when you're first opening your browser and reloading all your tabs).

 

[ViviTheMage]

I is confused at terminology mix ups!

 

[Xavier434]

No, the browser opening and the web page being downloaded and then loaded so that it appear inside the browser are completely separate.