Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on August 6, 2001 By Frogboy In WinCustomize News
Late last week we did a band width analysis to see where the bandwidth goes. Around 20% of it was spent on THUMBNAILS alone.

We made a change in which anonymous users would see the tiny thumbnails (we store 2 sizes of thumbnails - tiny and large) by default instead of the large ones. Sure enough, bandwidth use went down. We also made the change that the default would be the tiny thumbnails as well.

Now, let's say you want to have the larger thumbnails again, you need to have an account (accounts are free and take only 15 seconds to create) and then set your site optimization for DISPLAY rather than SPEED.

Today, we re-optimized the JPEG previews for display (rather than print). The result is that the thumbnails which used to be 30K on average are now falling to less than 10K even though they look the same. On a typical page with 10 previews, this will save nearly a minute of download time for modem users! Not all the thumbnails have been migrated yet but in the next day or so the process should be completed. Hope the site seems faster.
Comments
on Aug 06, 2001
That's good stuff. A neat solution that is less costy than an new OC3 line )
on Aug 06, 2001
hurray!
on Aug 06, 2001
Neat.
on Aug 07, 2001
great work
on Aug 07, 2001
i agree with everything except for the jpeg optimization - all my wallpapers look awful now!
on Aug 07, 2001
I agree.... my walls are looking pretty sad as well...
on Aug 07, 2001
I have to admit the jpg compression level used create noticeable artifacts. I did some test myself and if we could up the jpg compression to about 30-35% (in PS) which represents approx. 7 to 8K in file size, then most of the artifacts would be gone. On the other hand, do we really need to have high quality thumbs since we still have access to the zoom feature which gives full quality picture... that's something we could debate for some times
on Aug 07, 2001
true, but a bad thumbnail can cause a skin to be shunned!
on Aug 07, 2001
You could consider using .gifs as thumbnails. At low resolutions as this a .gif can look just as good as a .jpg and be smaller.
on Aug 08, 2001
I agree with craeonics.