February 2009 - site moved to new server

[Tony Summerfield]

I don't have a problem with any Adventure or Family dustwrappers, Philip!

Alert as always, Keith seems to have beaten me to it!

[Philip Mannering]

I don't think it's a browser problem - I used both IE7 and Firefox and both couldn't load the two dustwrappers there are in the Adventure series (well, Firefox loaded slower but more of the original dustwrapper), until I refresh. I'm not talking about illustrations, Keith - I always have them hidden as I find they take much time to load. I'm talking about dustwrappers there are present - the picture is loaded half and then it stops loading, in both the browsers. If I refresh, they do load, but not without refreshing.

I am very much confused! I just don't know the thing about these funny computers.

[Ming]

I had a similar problem yesterday with the EBS banner when loading the homepage. Refreshed countless times and it didn't work out. So I did a little messing about with the buttons and it worked fine.

If you're using Firefox Philip, right click on the dustjacket and click "View Image". It should take you to another page, with just the picture of the jacket there. See if that image is fully loaded. If not refresh, it should display the whole thing then (might have to try a few times). When it is fully loaded click the back button on your browser, bringing you back to the review page. The image should then be wholly displayed, if not refresh again.

If all that doesn't work, clear your temporary internet files and keep refreshing! And even then if it doesn't work - I have no clue.

[Philip Mannering]

Thank you, Ming! I'll go and check that out now!

[Philip Mannering]

Well, I just tried that out, and had to reload the page a few times, but in the end it worked fine.

Still - it doesn't solve the problem, why aren't the dustwrappers loading at first? Why do we have to refresh? I think I may be the only one who has that problem, so I'll have to wait, maybe it will go after some time.

[Ming]

I think it's just a temporary browser bug - after I did all that once the problem didn't occur any more. Try again later and see if the problem "comes back".

[Keith Robinson]

I knew you were talking about dustwrappers, Philip, but I was thinking that IF the illustrations were trying to load as well, this would increase the load throughout the page and might caused the dustwrappers to stop halfway (images don't always load in the order you expect).

But it seems as though you have a different kind of problem. You experience the same issue in both browsers? So the images partially load in both browsers, and if you refresh, they load fully -- in both browsers? If that's the case, then (short of both browsers having the exact same issue) I'd suggest that the problem is either:

1) a poor internet connection (where the images are timing out halfway through loading, and refreshing allows the other halves to load). Do you have a problem with any other website with lots of images? Or;

2) perhaps a firewall issue. Do you use a firewall? Norton, etc? Try disabling it temporarily and see if that makes a difference. Firewalls typically slow down the loading while it checks for viruses.

Does the problem occur for ALL book pages, even ones you've never visited before? If you go to a book you've never been to before and it loads all images fine, then this would indicate a cache / temporary internet file problem. Normally I would say clear the cache of your browser, but if it's affecting both browsers the same way then it might be that your local internet provider has a cache issue, or perhaps your modem / router. You can try rebooting one or both, after leaving them off for a minute or two. I doubt it's this though. My money is on the firewall. Those things cause nothing but problems in my opinion.

[Moonraker]

I am of the opinion that firewalls and anti-virus programs mainly benefit companies such as Norton in increasing their profits - of course it does these companies no harm in propogating the myth that we are all being bombarded hourly by multitudes of viruses.

[Ming]

I tend to agree with that - but which program would you suggest as protection against viruses?

[Keith Robinson]

I agree with Nigel, and to answer Ming, I'd suggest that the best program to use to protect yourself against spam is your BRAIN.

Just be careful. I use only the Windows XP built-in firewall, and I keep my computer updated with all the updates and fixes, but otherwise I have no virus protection at all. Firefox is safer than Internet Explorer, and Thunderbird is safer than Outlook Express. But most viruses get on your computer when you open an attachment of some kind. I did something silly a while back; I was trying to find a crack for a program (ahem) and these cracks usually come from slightly dodgy sources. Well, I downloaded one, opened it, and wham! -- my computer was filled with trojans and viruses. It took me a long time to get rid of them all, but the very first thing that happened was that the trojan executed a program that sent out thousands of spam emails using MY internet connection. The result was that Comcast (my internet service provider) blocked my outgoing email on port 25. I had to phone them to get it unblocked, but they wouldn't -- once you've made the mistake of abusing the free and simple port 25, in future you have to use the authenticated port (using your username and password). This is happening a LOT lately, so if you suddenly find you can't send mail, it might be that your ISP has blocked port 25.

Other than that stupid mistake I made, I generally don't get viruses of any kind. Maybe one every two years? I do get spyware, but that's not so bad and can be gotten rid of easily. Frankly, using Norton provides worse performance than many viruses! You wouldn't believe the stupid issues website clients have experienced with their anti-virus program...

I'm cynical enough to think that many trojans are created by the same people who create programs to get rid of them. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Norton met occasionally with Mr Trojan and slipped him a few bundles of $100 bills under the table, to keep those nasty trojans coming.

[Philip Mannering]

Gosh, all internet stuff which I don't understand. Good thing we just learned this year what is Norton AntiVirus, etc. Well, I don't think Norton is there in our computer, most likely a safe software such as AVG (goodness knows what that is!) Antivirus. But I just don't know if it's enabled or disabled right now.

As I said before, the problem is of only a select few pages - the pages which I visit the most, such as the main series. I just went to a Noddy page (which I rarely visit) just to check the same problem was there. There are quite a few dustwrappers in the first book and all loaded perfectly, except the main one. Again out of interest, I went to a Secret Seven page (it is another which I rarely visit) and there was only one dustwrapper, and it loaded perfectly. Hmm, now I have a wild theory - the pages are loading when there are only one dustwrapper to load, and if they are two or three, they only load half. Very wild - but quite true.

[Keith Robinson]

Yes, sounds like a slow internet connection to me. Are you on dial-up?

Just out of interest, go to http://www.speedtest.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and check your speed (click on a pyramid near your area). When it's finished it will show you a nice "results" image like the one below. You can grab the code for your own results image where it says "Share your results" -- just choose the forum link and paste the text here with your message.

[Ming]

I am in awe of your internet speed, Keith.

I only got 538 kb/s for download and 271 kb/s for upload - and it's way faster than anyone else's around here.

But then apparently my pinging distance was 950 miles.

[Tony Summerfield]

I have just tried mine, but I am not sure if I have the link right!



Yes, it seems that I do, but I don't really know what it means!!

[Keith Robinson]

I know that some countries "pull back on the reins" when it comes to internet speeds, so they can ramp up prices for those who demand faster speeds. I think my dad in England had a choice of paying for x speed, y speed or z speed, with varying rates. Where I live in the USA, Comcast charge just one "home rate" and it's for a superfast speed. I believe there's a business rate too, but I don't need it. The upload speed has improved in the last year -- this was previously 700 or so, so I'm very happy with it now, especially since I do a LOT of uploading. And previously I was getting 6000+ downloads, so in the last year the 9000+ has been a pretty nice unexpected bonus (although this has all happened in the background as part of Comcast's service).

Dial-up is a mere 56 kbs, so Ming, at least you're ten time faster than dial-up users!! But I believe Tony's speed is pretty average for most people, especially in the UK. And to be honest, I don't think there's much discernible difference in speed when you're browsing normally. The main difference is when you download a large file, say a movie or audio file. When I unplug my cable and switch to wireless, my speed drops dramatically due to speed restrictions in the wireless card, and that's when I notice a big difference when buffering a TV show or something. But for normal browsing it's fine at half or even a third of the 9000 speed.

Back to the point of all this... If Philip is on a "slow" speed like Ming, or worse, then he may well get half-loaded images on graphic heavy pages. If images don't load in a certain amount of time, then the browser times out. That's why it sometimes needs refreshing -- to download the other half of those pictures!