New feature hotness 11/27

Andy

David_S85 wrote:

Well, I'm hip to that!



WOO HOO!!!


JT, whatever they're paying you, you deserve even more for turning this issue around so fast. I hope you get some overtime for this one.

I'll check it out on Mrs. D_S85's IE6 tomorrow, but for now, we're even up and running happy in IE5.5!!!

Did you know you were fixing it for IE5.5? That dreaded horrible buggy version? Well, it works again. White on black and in the reverse too.

Fantastic!

For me, and for the other (dozen or so) people on the planet that this font color thing affected - a hearty THANK YOU!


And as I was telling Andy, the new dual-core box is sitting right behind me almost ready to come to life. I may even have Firefox on it sometime next month.

And that'll bring the world wide IE5.5 user base down to eleven. :uhoh

Most excellent news

Harveylevine

Andy wrote:

Most excellent news

JT and Andy: I echo David_S85's thanks for all the time and effort you've spent fixing a problem that only effected a small number of users. That's great.

I'm at work so I won't be able to verify that that the "White on White" or "Black on Black" problem has been fixed until I get home this evening. But, I'm pretty confident that if David's problem is fixed than mine is too.

Thanks again for spending the time and effort to solve this problem. I tell everyone who will listen how great Smugmug and DGIN are!



Harvey

Andy

Harveylevine wrote:

JT and Andy: I echo David_S85's thanks for all the time and effort you've spent fixing a problem that only effected a small number of users. That's great.

I'm at work so I won't be able to verify that that the "White on White" or "Black on Black" problem has been fixed until I get home this evening. But, I'm pretty confident that if David's problem is fixed than mine is too.

Thanks again for spending the time and effort to solve this problem. I tell everyone who will listen how great Smugmug and DGIN are!



Harvey

Harvey and David - Very Cool! Thanks for letting us know - I'll make sure that JT sees this.

All the best,

Harveylevine

Andy and JT: As expected, the fix by JT that solved David_S85's problem also solved mine. Thanks again for a fantastic and rapid resolution. You guys are great!

Harvey

Andy

Harveylevine wrote:

Andy and JT: As expected, the fix by JT that solved David_S85's problem also solved mine. Thanks again for a fantastic and rapid resolution. You guys are great!

Harvey

Onethumb and JT are the guys that did it glad you are all sorted out!

peestandingup

For me, Filmstrip is really jerky using Mozilla Camino, pretty much unusable. There is a big response delay when I tell my browser to do something while im looking at a page thats running filmstrip.

Barb

I love the new filmstrip viewing style; however, on my Mac - G5 iMac, 2GHz Processor, 1 GB memory - it maxes out my CPU usage to 100% every time. This is using Firefox, Safari, Camino. Doesn't matter. The fan kicks on and never stops until I switch to a different style. Is it just me??

flyingdutchie

DigitalDaze wrote:

I love the new filmstrip viewing style; however, on my Mac - G5 iMac, 2GHz Processor, 1 GB memory - it maxes out my CPU usage to 100% every time. This is using Firefox, Safari, Camino. Doesn't matter. The fan kicks on and never stops until I switch to a different style. Is it just me??

Nope, same here.

I have a 2.4GHz pentiumIV and 2GB of memory, although memory is not the most important part here. Filmstrip on IE6 reports about a cpu usage of 70% (quite high!). On FireFox 1.5 it reports around 30 - 35% usage.

I had the same issue on my 'photo crawl' on my page (www.streetsofboston.com). I found out that this was the issue:

• Moving one image (either an <IMG> or an element with a background-image), two or more images even more so, is a rather slow and CPU intensive operation. FireFox (on PC) has found some optimizations to minimize the impact. IE6 has more problems with it, and exhibits a high CPU utilization.
• This JavaScript statement causes the filmstrip to move:
  moveBoxes = setInterval("move()",10);
  The 10 means that move() is called every 10 milliseconds. The function move() does the real work: Move every image a couple of pixels to the left or right.
• The value 10 makes for a smooth scroll, but CPU usage is very high. Around 70% on my machine.
• Lower this value to 20, the CPU usage is about cut in half (tried in on my own machine). The increase of pixels per 'move()' must be increased, otherwise the filmstrip moves more slowly.
• Increasing this value to even higher, the scrolling becomes more jerky. But the CPU usage becomes more manageable.
• On my own 'photo crawl', my javascript uses a value that goes up to around 100. The smooth scrolling (only one image) is somewhat jerky, but the CPU usage stays under 5%. Slower machines must be able to handle that as well.

David_S85

a strange note on filmstrip cpu usage here
With people reporting slowness and pinning cpu cycles to the max, I'd like to report what I see with my older PC.

Oddly, it works fine with WIN95, PII, 400mhz, and with IE5.5. Sure, the old style CPU is 100% max'd out and bleeding (a state it is always in), but filmstrip doesn't lose any functionality or speed with the ancient machine. Only thing I can't see is the forward or back images at each end - but I think that's a problem specific to IE.

peestandingup

Yeah, my Mac is pretty much useless while looking at a filmstrip page. I opened up Activity Monitor & it shows Camino is using 80%-95% of my CPU power. Normal usage should be around 1%-2%.

Andy

peestandingup wrote:

Yeah, my Mac is pretty much useless while looking at a filmstrip page. I opened up Activity Monitor & it shows Camino is using 80%-95% of my CPU power. Normal usage should be around 1%-2%.

Hi Peestandingup, I'm terribly sorry this is causing you troubles. We aren't hearing from other users to speak of, that this is a problem so I'd like to know more.

Could it be a Camino or other Mac prefs thing? I'm running on two Macs, G5 and also G4 powerbook, never see much of a blip in CPU (4 or 5 %). Latest versions of everthing.

peestandingup

Andy wrote:

Hi Peestandingup, I'm terribly sorry this is causing you troubles. We aren't hearing from other users to speak of, that this is a problem so I'd like to know more.

Could it be a Camino or other Mac prefs thing? I'm running on two Macs, G5 and also G4 powerbook, never see much of a blip in CPU (4 or 5 %). Latest versions of everthing.

Its the same with Safari too, although the CPU usage is a little lower than it is with Camino, its still about 75%.

Are you using 10.4.3?? I read of a CPU usage problem with that update with the fans running more than they are supposed to. Thats what im using, although I have not experienced that with a web site before, it has happened since I updated with other apps.

Andy

peestandingup wrote:

Its the same with Safari too, although the CPU usage is a little lower than it is with Camino, its still about 75%.

Are you using 10.4.3?? I read of a CPU usage problem with that update with the fans running more than they are supposed to. Thats what im using, although I have not experienced that with a web site before, it has happened since I updated with other apps.

Yeah, 10.4.3 on both machines.

DavidTO

Andy wrote:

Hi Peestandingup, I'm terribly sorry this is causing you troubles. We aren't hearing from other users to speak of, that this is a problem so I'd like to know more.

Could it be a Camino or other Mac prefs thing? I'm running on two Macs, G5 and also G4 powerbook, never see much of a blip in CPU (4 or 5 %). Latest versions of everthing.

My G4 Titanium, 1ghz, 1gb ram, fully updated Tiger...filmstrip sucks up 65-70% of the CPU in Safari.

Mike Lane

DavidTO wrote:

My G4 Titanium, 1ghz, 1gb ram, fully updated Tiger...filmstrip sucks up 65-70% of the CPU in Safari.

Too bad your Mac can't handle a little old script

DavidTO

Mike Lane wrote:

Too bad your Mac can't handle a little old script

:boid

Baldy

Firefox has a post-1.07 bug in Javascript that was sucking up the CPU on my Windows machine during testing. I didn't have problems with 1.07 or prior, or IE.

David_S85

Baldy wrote:

Firefox has a post-1.07 bug in Javascript that was sucking up the CPU on my Windows machine during testing. I didn't have problems with 1.07 or prior, or IE.

So, how does it (slideshow) run in FF 1.5?

Andy

David_S85 wrote:

So, how does it (slideshow) run in FF 1.5?

Screaming along here, FF 1.5 (Mac and Windows)

Barb

Andy wrote:

Screaming along here, FF 1.5 (Mac and Windows)

Running up-to-date Tiger install, 2 GHz, 1G memory, using Firefox 1.5, my processor is pegged at 100%. Drops to 96% occasionally, but mostly maxed out. For me, I can't use filmstrip.

Andy

DigitalDaze wrote:

Running up-to-date Tiger install, 2 GHz, 1G memory, using Firefox 1.5, my processor is pegged at 100%. Drops to 96% occasionally, but mostly maxed out. For me, I can't use filmstrip.

OK thanks Barb (and the others reporting this) - I'll make sure the engineers see this.

All the best,

Barb

Andy wrote:

OK thanks Barb (and the others reporting this) - I'll make sure the engineers see this.

All the best,

Thx Andy

peestandingup

Yup, definite problem with filmstrip with ALL browsers for us Mac users.

{JT}

As is probably known by now, I code on a Mac, and while Safari does use anywhere from 65-80% cpu for me, it does not slow down anything else I am running at the same time (and usually when I am browsing the site I have tons of other things open at the same time). FF 1.5 does have a javascript issue though - we know it uses a lot of cpu, but ours is not the only site. FF 1.5 is highly UNoptimized on the Mac, if you revert back to 1.07, you should see that it uses substantially less CPU time.

Please also remember, Filmstrip is one of seven styles to pick from, and that Mac users are still (sadly) in the minority Filmstrip flies on WinXP.

peestandingup wrote:

Yup, definite problem with filmstrip with ALL browsers for us Mac users.