6 Replies Latest reply on Jun 21, 2008 4:41 PM by pixlor

When you do view an image preview, and it shows the filesize, and a time @ 56kbps, is that the estimated time it takes to download at 56kbps?

In which case, why does it quote 8 seconds for a 50k image, or 30 seconds for a 200k image? Shouldn't a 50k image take about 1 second, and a 200k image take about 4 seconds?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================

"Iain71" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:g3greo\$ii6\$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> When you do view an image preview, and it shows the filesize, and a time @
> 56kbps, is that the estimated time it takes to download at 56kbps?
>
> In which case, why does it quote 8 seconds for a 50k image, or 30 seconds
> for
> a 200k image? Shouldn't a 50k image take about 1 second, and a 200k image
> take
>

quote:

Originally posted by: Iain71

When you do view an image preview, and it shows the filesize, and a time @ 56kbps, is that the estimated time it takes to download at 56kbps?

In which case, why does it quote 8 seconds for a 50k image, or 30 seconds for a 200k image? Shouldn't a 50k image take about 1 second, and a 200k image take about 4 seconds?

The bps measurement is bits per second, not bytes per second. File sizes are measured in bytes, which are eight bits. A 50k image is 50 kilobytes, or 400 kilobits. That's why it's 8 seconds for a 50k image at 56kbps, not 1 second.
Thanks - that does explain it - it has always nagged me, but rarely been that much of an issue. I should look back over a few sites I've done and see if I can improve some of the images, as that's a pretty serious misunderstanding.
You're welcome! My brain's cluttered with bits of information that I didn't intend to remember. Every once in a while, one of 'em is actually useful!

I think modems are in rated in bits per second, rather than bytes per second, partly for historical reasons and partly because that makes for a higher number which makes them seem faster.
Modems have been rated with 'baud' values ever since the dinosaurs. "Baud"
means bits per second. It was quite 'modern' when we dropped the use of the
baud nomenclature and adopted the 'edgy' bits per second....

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================

"pixlor" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:g3jg7o\$g6c\$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> You're welcome! My brain's cluttered with bits of information that I
> didn't
> intend to remember. Every once in a while, one of 'em is actually useful!
>
>
> I think modems are in rated in bits per second, rather than bytes per
> second,
> partly for historical reasons and partly because that makes for a higher
> number
> which makes them seem faster.
>