# Any FA members using dial-up connections?



## uncia2000 (Oct 15, 2006)

Regular connection speed ~40k or under?

If so, we'd like to know how well you manage to "survive" the FA experience.
Thoughts, hints, tips?

Judging by some recent user comments, things are "difficult" at best...

=
(Oh, and if anyone knows how it might be possible to get _any_ browser software to block image requests for http://www.furaffinity.net/avatars/ without blocking the whole of http://www.furaffinity.net/ , please let me know! Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough at any of those I've checked).


----------



## Hanazawa (Oct 15, 2006)

Firefox's adblock lets you put in wildcards. I could in theory block 
	
	



```
*furaffinity.net/avatars*
```
 and still be able to see everything else.

ETA: a field test on my end has shown that this method does in fact work.


----------



## uncia2000 (Oct 15, 2006)

Good lateral thinking, Hanazawa. Thanks. 

I didn't have the AdBlock add-on installed, but that works pretty well. 
The only issue is "overkill" in that, rather than leaving the userId showing as a clickable link (as is the case with images only blocked), there's absolutely nothing left at all! A slight pain for "watched users", etc., but bearable "if required", I'm sure.

Certainly "recommendable" to any FA Firefox users on dial-up, for the time being.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 15, 2006)

I have 115kbps on a PEBL.

So, well it just doesn't manage, most of the time I'm working on other things.


----------



## whitedingo (Oct 15, 2006)

I use dialup at the momment it is 31.2kbps it gets as low as 20kbps some nights.
Its all about patience the time when its realy slow I work on my other comp while I wait for the page to load.
I do have high speed satilite but its limited by download quota so I only use it for big downloads of models and programs


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 15, 2006)

I'm on EarthLink dial-up, and I haven't gotten better than 45.6k in years.  I manage just fine (for non-Flash web browsing), avatars and all.

Of course, I've got my cache size and purge time set fairly high, so I don't have to re-pull avatars very often.

I've got the setting in my CP set to go straight to the full views for images; partly because it's one less click and one less download, and partly because I just don't like shrunken-down stuff when I can have the real deal just as easy.

Of course, I'm always multitasking when I'm online, so (for example), while FA is loading, I can be reading a thread on one of my other message boards, then when FA's done, I can start the next thread loading while I switch back to FA.


----------



## Sukebepanda (Oct 16, 2006)

Until a few months I was on dialup. While browsing FA I had to do nothing else to manage getting around. Uploading wasn't too bad, but I had to 'Remove' many of the sumissions from those I watched, simply because it could be so bandwidth overloading at times n.n;

Now that I'm on DSL it's not that big of a problem anymore, but I still see some *pretty* large files sizes around, and think of how much crap the dial-up users are having to go thru


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 16, 2006)

Meh, it's pretty good. The only thing I miss is the File Size kerjigger FA used to have. I'd like to know if the flash I'm trying to load is really worth watching (Read: 2mb+ No lookie), saves me wondering if " IsFA is going slow or is it a really large movie"


----------



## lolcox (Oct 17, 2006)

I get dialup speeds on an A640.
It's not as bad as you'd think. Then again, Opera has something that recompresses incoming images, unless you disable that option, which helps on the speeds.

If you'd actually develop a cleaner template for usage by low bandwidth or small screen users, that would be sweet.
Trouble me for details.


----------



## XNexusDragonX (Oct 18, 2006)

Its not so bad, though I do tend to find it somewhat annoying when I'm trying to view a full view image and for some reason it wants to transfer all the avatars from people commenting, before the full image.

Considering some files are pretty large I'm more concerned on actually viewing the image first, before reading other people's comments. I usually get about 46kbps.

Just takes patience I suppose, though then again, i've had dial-up for the last 5 or so years so I'm not really all that bothered. Its just a shame that alot of sites assume 100% of people are on high-speed connections. Even worse when people are constantly giving me links to Youtube and DA, its just not possible! ;P


----------



## DarkMeW (Oct 18, 2006)

I'll tell you in December when I move and have to go back to dial up


----------



## RailRide (Oct 21, 2006)

Up to about a year ago I was on dialup, and for that reason (as well as witnessing the controversey over accomodating dialup users), I'm still bandwidth-conscious, and hope to never change.

I still maintain the dialup account with EarthLink even though I have DSL through my local Baby Bell, and my woefully outdated homepage will still keep dialup in mind when I finally motivate myself to try FTP again (it malfunctions with my router).

---PCJ


----------



## RokKaiser (Oct 22, 2006)

on average-- 24Kbps.

How do i manage?  Patience.  I dont even try to view animation.  I wait until im on a comp with a faster connection(ie, my college or a friends house) to listen to music.  Oh yeah, and i tend not to look at "popular" pictures too much b/c the extra comments that have to load really slow things down.  Journals are the same way too.

But yeah, Patience is the key.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 22, 2006)

RokKaiser said:
			
		

> on average-- 24Kbps.



{winces}  I feel your pain.


----------



## manderina (Oct 22, 2006)

I am currently on dial-up. It's not bad at all unless you want to download large files or view image-heavy websites (which I miss doing after being spoiled with hi-speed in college). 

FA loads okay most of the time. But at times I wish I could sample some of the music uploaded...but who wants to waste one to two hours downloading a song that you may not end up enjoying? x_x


----------



## uncia2000 (Oct 22, 2006)

RokKaiser said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and i tend not to look at "popular" pictures too much b/c the extra comments that have to load really slow things down.  Journals are the same way too.



*tags the whitekitty back* _(gotcha eventually!)_

Have you tried the adblock on avvies workaround, above, to help out with that? 
Should help with both of those, since the remaining text doesn't really cause anything like so much grief if somewhat extended in content.


----------



## Bokracroc (Oct 22, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> RokKaiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eww...nasty. I never get lower than 38kbps.


----------



## RokKaiser (Oct 22, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> RokKaiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have not tried yet~ but it is definately something to look into.  But then again... avvies are fun to look at <3


----------



## uncia2000 (Oct 23, 2006)

RokKaiser said:
			
		

> I have not tried yet~ but it is definately something to look into.  But then again... avvies are fun to look at <3



*chuckles*. Poor conflicted tiggy. 
_*feeds ya some cute avvies*_

Judging by the number of respondents (for which, thanks) it doesn't seem as though we have a huge number of people around on dial-up, at present. Will be interesting to see whether that increases, given the recent changes to avatar sizes/numbers.


----------



## Hanazawa (Oct 23, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Judging by the number of respondents (for which, thanks) it doesn't seem as though we have a huge number of people around on dial-up, at present.



NB the forum users do not necessarily accurately or even proportionately represent the overall userbase of FA. The newest user number as of this writing on the forums is 3501, and I thought the number of user accounts on the mainsite is at least 10 times that, if not more?


----------



## uncia2000 (Oct 23, 2006)

*nods*. Yup, I was trying to allow for that difference, the relative activity of different users on each, the price of grain and the windspeed in Columbus, OH. 
Certainly not a scientific sample, but good to obtain some thoughts on the topic from dial-up users.

Still doesn't _appear_ to be a "huge" number at present, either from this, suggestions or trouble tickets, but would be more than happy to see that increase - and ease of use for community members on low-bandwidth improve.


----------



## shadow1w2 (Nov 3, 2006)

Might be late in posting for this, but thought Id say something.
Im on dialup myself and well, I deal with it.
Firefox helps alot too :3

I get about 31Kbps over here and well, been going that speed for years.
I just deal with it and use image remove features in firefox extensions to weed out what I dont wanna bother with.
That and having alot of patience.

I really wanna get some high speed connection though, but sooo darn expensive. Darn comcast.

Anyway, to help us 56kers smaller thumbnails could be made, or certain image tags could be shown in their place.

So far with the interface its bene a nice smooth load.
Nothing crazy annoying like deviantart can be. No stupid pointless button graphics for things that dont need it.
I like that very much.
If the new version of the site includes buttons and pretty border graphics, just dont forget the origonal classic mode without all the fancy useless junk.
Nothing for high speed goers, but 56kers get an extra half a meg to contend with.

Right now though the site is very enjoyable and doesnt take too long to view a full image even with all the crazy avatar images.

Key for low bandwidth optimization is to keep it all as simple as possible with more text and basic colors with a small load of images. Though with viewing the actual image its best to go straight to it. Wich FA already provides the options for.

So ya, perfectly happy with the current look, but might wanna see a text only thumbnail mode for browsing quickly.

Oh and for user pages, it takes awhile to load the favorites and submissionnos in the last ten lists. If those could be cut to thumbnails as an option or even turned off or bettter yet have a button to show the preview. That would speed things up a bit.
Though I admit I like waiting for them to load while reading a users front page or journal entry xD


----------



## Torakhan (Nov 3, 2006)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to mention that on top of all of that, I (as a 26.6k dial-up user) am not inclined to join every forum because when simply browsing through the typical forum page takes 7 or so minutes for images/icons/text to load, what's the point in even signing up?
I'm not even sure exactly when I signed up for the forums here... but it worked this morning when I RANDOMLY stumbled onto this thread (someone posted in their LJ the link to the Cub poll, and I thought I might snoop a little since I'm up a little earlier than usual this morning.)

So, yeah, the forums are probably followed by those on faster connections more than those with ultra-slow ones.  So I'm surprised that you even have this many replies.


----------



## Torakhan (Nov 3, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Regular connection speed ~40k or under?
> 
> If so, we'd like to know how well you manage to "survive" the FA experience.
> Thoughts, hints, tips?
> ...




Currently I use Netscape as my dial-up provider (not my choice.  I leech off my mother while I'm still here at home...) >.>

Anyways, I in fact use the excellerator (yes, yes, I know you guys hate it for bandwith problems, but when I'm pulling such slow connections, it's nice to see graphics once in a while) while I browse.  When I see an image I like, I Right Click > Show Original Image.  I rely a LOT on the "thumbnail" image of a picture... even if it's lower-resolution because of the "excellerator".

But, yeah, otherwise... patience is the key.
I just think back to the Commadore 64... when you would load the first disk, go watch cartoons, eat some lunch and then put in the second disk.  Then you'd go to your soccer game, come back and play the game for 30 minutes before heading to bed, or something.   

One trick is that I always have Trillian, a MUCK, or the TV running, so that I'm always occupied and don't notice the 6 or so minute load-times. 

I tried FireFox just recently again (after trying it about 2 or so years ago and was very un-impressed with its performance) but found it loaded hella-slower than IE, so I haven't bothered with it again.


----------



## dreddlox (Nov 4, 2006)

I used FA for about 6 months on 48k, It wasn't too bad, basically I just did this:
Open 5-6 galleries and let all thumbs load
Open ~50 pictures in separate tabs, go off and do something, come back and appreciate
Rinse
Repeat
I actually managed to blow the 2GB limit(i.e. point where firefox crashes due to memory leaks) twice in 18 hours once. Thus, browsing didn't have bad throughput.


----------



## DrakenByte (Nov 4, 2006)

I usually run under 30k on dial up, and FA is really only extremely slow to me during the upload process. But I still usually go through galleries okay, but I tend to do that more when I drag my lappy somewhere there is wireless internet. I guess it's because I do art during the time when the page loads. ^__^ That and I've usually got like, 2-3 sites going at a time, in two seperate browsers (Safari and Firefox)


----------



## keeshah (Nov 5, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Regular connection speed ~40k or under?
> 
> If so, we'd like to know how well you manage to "survive" the FA experience.
> Thoughts, hints, tips?
> ...


----------



## keeshah (Nov 5, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> *nods*. Yup, I was trying to allow for that difference, the relative activity of different users on each, the price of grain and the windspeed in Columbus, OH.
> Certainly not a scientific sample, but good to obtain some thoughts on the topic from dial-up users.
> 
> Funny you should say Columbus Ohio.
> ...


----------



## DataBank (Nov 5, 2006)

~50.2kbps (reported) dialup here, and I manage fairly well. Main page for viewing FA is ...

http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/messages/

Like with DA, I don't bother with the home page anymore. Also, if I hit an image I like, and it has a bajillion comments with huge animated avatars... I have a stop button for a reason. I use it with extreme prejudice...

One suggestion might be to allow a user to opt out of viewing avatars larger than _X_ KB, if they choose. Elsewise, I'll... go get something to eat while surfing.


----------



## MidnightFury (Nov 8, 2006)

For the meantime, I rely on a dial up connection. I get anywhere between 30k to 45k. I guess maybe I'm just used to it, because I don't feel like it's really that bad. The site seems to run slow, but I just wait. It isn't really THAT much of a wait.


----------



## BijouxDeFoxxe (Nov 8, 2006)

well, i have a 56K modem, and I still get the Evil White Window of Doom.


----------



## Vekke (Nov 8, 2006)

I'm on ~56k dialup. Compared to high-speed users, it actually takes _time_ to load, but it's not terrible. I've gotten used to it.


----------



## SilvaNoir (Nov 10, 2006)

For me, it depends.  I'm on dial-up AOL (not by choice).  In the morning, its great.  At night... oh boy.  And during the drama-thon, which seems to be cooling off now, opening FA would actually *CRASH* AOL.  

At night, it will only load so many pages before I get the blank white pages, sometimes with error messeges, sometimes just blank.  When it does load, it takes several minutes.  Uploading is a huge pain too.  It can several tries.  

Problem is, I work in the morning, so it rare that I get to check in at that time. I have nights/weekends off, and that's when FA is busy.

I don't bother viewing/listening to music or animation, but image size of a submission isn't a problem. The number of icons on a shout page can be.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 10, 2006)

The way FA is sometimes, it's like EVERYBODY is using dialup connections!

. . .

Yeah, we've gotta get that fixed. =)


----------



## Aquin (Nov 10, 2006)

Im on cable, but i feel like im getting 56k speeds. Comcast friggin sucks. That isnt just with FA, either. I hope to switch to verison's new Fiber Optic service soon: http://www.verison.com/fios


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 10, 2006)

Mmm...FIOS...

About the same speeds as RoadRunner, for $15-20 less; twice the speed of RR for the same price; or 5x the speed of RR for double the price.  Now if only it was available where I live...


----------

