Web site created with Publisher loads slow in IE and fast in Firefox

"DavidF" wrote in
:

No. They should be unchecked.

Thanks,

I did try checking both the VML and PNG options. That was a big mistake.
After that, when I loaded the web site in Firefox all of the images and
formatting were gone. Luckily, all I had to do was remove those options
and re-publish.

However, as you said, compressing the images made all the difference.
After doing that compression, the photos load much, much faster when viewed
in IE.

I've got to wonder however why Firefox would load them so much faster
without the compression? Well, I woin't lose any sleep over it.

Thanks for the help.

Cheers,

Dan K.

I'm glad its working for you.

Let me try again... When you Publish to the Web, and produce the HTML output
from Pub 2003, the coding engine makes copies of every image that you have
inserted. If you publish to a folder on your computer, and open the
index_files folder, you will see your original image under a new name, and
usually at least one lower resolution and resized copy of that image. You
will see that your original image is the same size as when you inserted it,
perhaps 1+ meg in size, but the low resolution copy, sometimes a GIF, is
much smaller in file size. The code that is produced by Publisher tells IE
to load that original image either in JPG format or sometimes PNG, and for
FF to load the smaller, lower resolution GIF image...which is faster. When
you use the compression tool, the original image is reduced in size, and
thus loads more quickly.

At this point it is my understanding that Pub 2007 will automatically
"compress" inserted images.

DavidF

"SysAdmin" wrote in message
...
"DavidF" wrote in
:

No. They should be unchecked.

Thanks,

I did try checking both the VML and PNG options. That was a big mistake.
After that, when I loaded the web site in Firefox all of the images and
formatting were gone. Luckily, all I had to do was remove those options
and re-publish.

However, as you said, compressing the images made all the difference.
After doing that compression, the photos load much, much faster when
viewed
in IE.

I've got to wonder however why Firefox would load them so much faster
without the compression? Well, I woin't lose any sleep over it.

Thanks for the help.

Cheers,

Dan K.

Ed,

The post below is one reason why I haven't been keen to try it yet. Have
you experienced anything similar?

-------------------------------

I'd be intrigued to hear peoples experiences of IE7 (Final Version).

In my own case, following installation on the Dev machine here in the
office it did the usual update on restart at which point the machine
became completely unusable, only reverting to a usable machine again
after starting in safe-mode without networking and removing IE7.

When installed on the home machine (Vaio Laptop) all was fine for a
handfull of days, but then following a scheduled Mcafee Internet
Security Suite update the same symptoms were evident. The machine was
completely unusable, and again was fine following a safe-mode removal of
IE7.

In both cases, the problem has been evident following a system reboot
triggered by a software update.

Not sure at the moment if it's "an IE thing" or caused by interaction
with 3rd party software such as McAfee, but either way it rendered the
machine temporarily useless.

---------------------------------------

Mike

Ed Bennett wrote:
Mike Koewler wrote:

all I can suggest is IE is a POS!. A Speed Report shows it loads in an
average of 21.68 seconds on a 56K connection, 6.64 on a 128K ISDN one.
with Opera and the Mozilla Project releasing newer (and IMO better)
browsers, I expect IE's share to continue to drop.


Mike,

Have you installed IE7 yet?

Mike Koewler wrote:
The post below is one reason why I haven't been keen to try it yet. Have
you experienced anything similar?

I can't afford to risk any major software change on my production
machine at the moment, so I haven't installed the RTM version yet. I had
no issues like that during the beta.

--
Ed Bennett - MVP Microsoft Publisher
http://ed.mvps.org

Ed,

That's me. I get a little vacation at the end/beginning of the year and
that's when I usually upgrade anything. Typically, what I do is add a
new HD and install the OS on it, along with software. If there is a
major problem, I can boot to my D: or E: drive without loss of anything
(so far!).

Mike

Ed Bennett wrote:
Mike Koewler wrote:

The post below is one reason why I haven't been keen to try it yet.
Have you experienced anything similar?


I can't afford to risk any major software change on my production
machine at the moment, so I haven't installed the RTM version yet. I had
no issues like that during the beta.

"DavidF" wrote in
:

I'm glad its working for you.

Let me try again... When you Publish to the Web, and produce the HTML
output from Pub 2003, the coding engine makes copies of every image
that you have inserted. If you publish to a folder on your computer,
and open the index_files folder, you will see your original image
under a new name, and usually at least one lower resolution and
resized copy of that image. You will see that your original image is
the same size as when you inserted it, perhaps 1+ meg in size, but the
low resolution copy, sometimes a GIF, is much smaller in file size.
The code that is produced by Publisher tells IE to load that original
image either in JPG format or sometimes PNG, and for FF to load the
smaller, lower resolution GIF image...which is faster. When you use
the compression tool, the original image is reduced in size, and thus
loads more quickly.

At this point it is my understanding that Pub 2007 will automatically
"compress" inserted images.

DavidF

David,

I see what you are saying.

I guess my big mistake is to use full-sized photos when doing my layout in
Publisher and allowing Publisher to re-size them on-screen to fit the
format that I want.

In future, I will make my layout and calculate the size of the photos
before I insert them and resize them to the exact format beforehand.

Thanks,

DanK.