Why is the page time so far off?

[Vey]

I just verified that a 400KB page takes almost exactly half the time to
load than FP 2003 and FP 2000 says it will on a 56kbp/s modem.

FP 2003 says 2 minutes, FP 2000 says 114 seconds, an on-line calculator
says 59 seconds and when I put a stopwatch on the page it was 57 seconds.

This page has twelve ~33KB files on it and deleting one reduces the time
by 9 seconds, says FP. Without images, FP says 3 seconds.

The last time I put a stopwatch on FP the version was 98 I think, maybe
95, and it worked fine for 33kbp/s modems. It didn't occur to me that
they broke a perfectly functioning feature by improving it.

Anyone want to verify this?

 

[Funkadyleik Spynwhanker]

I just verified that a 400KB page takes almost exactly half the time to
load than FP 2003 and FP 2000 says it will on a 56kbp/s modem.

FP 2003 says 2 minutes, FP 2000 says 114 seconds, an on-line calculator
says 59 seconds and when I put a stopwatch on the page it was 57 seconds.

This page has twelve ~33KB files on it and deleting one reduces the time
by 9 seconds, says FP. Without images, FP says 3 seconds.

The last time I put a stopwatch on FP the version was 98 I think, maybe
95, and it worked fine for 33kbp/s modems. It didn't occur to me that they
broke a perfectly functioning feature by improving it.

Anyone want to verify this?

Those are estimates only, always have been. 56kb/s modem is just a speed
capability class, it doesnt really tell you what actual results and how fast
you actually get data.

Depending on what you are doing with your site, it's either "good enough" or
"too slow". Try asking your users if they think it is too slow.