Which loads faster?
July 10, 2010 9:47 AM   Subscribe

 
Strange, I'd have thought Pampers to be much better suited to large loads than is Facebook.
posted by kenko at 10:04 AM on July 10, 2010 [16 favorites]


This post is too long. Can you just give me the gist of it?
posted by box at 10:04 AM on July 10, 2010


eponysterical.
posted by ambrosia at 10:10 AM on July 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Who cares? I'm never in a competitive loading situation ("you will die...unless the site you pick loads first!"), and the sites I visit I do so because I like the content or service they offer, rather than the speed at which they load in comparison with other sites.
posted by djgh at 10:16 AM on July 10, 2010


Cute. And they give you an analysis if you want to improve your time!
posted by SLC Mom at 10:22 AM on July 10, 2010


Facebook was faster vs. Pampers, even though Facebook had to load my news feed. That's a pretty impressive testament to their database backend, I think.
posted by Clandestine Outlawry at 10:23 AM on July 10, 2010


Bing beats Google every time. Who'da thunk it?

/still not going to use Bing
posted by afx237vi at 10:24 AM on July 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Funny, I had Google beating Bing every time but one...and that time they tied.
posted by phunniemee at 10:32 AM on July 10, 2010


Yeah, I just did about 100 runs (it only took a couple of minutes) of Google vs. Bing, and Bing won four times, with Google averaging 55% faster.
posted by maqsarian at 10:36 AM on July 10, 2010


On Mac Chrome google wins; on FF Bing wins. Pampers is crushed no matter what.
posted by Mister_A at 10:42 AM on July 10, 2010


My experience says Pampers can sometimes load faster than desired, causing buffer overruns. A pretty impressive testament to the backend involved there too.
posted by namasaya at 10:43 AM on July 10, 2010 [24 favorites]


Okay, enough with the shitty puns.
posted by Houyhnhnm at 10:48 AM on July 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


FB was faster but I prefer the shit from Pampers.
posted by jeffmac at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2010


Yeah, I just did about 100 runs

Wow.
posted by amro at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2010


Wow. There went an hour of my time researching gzip and Apache rules...
posted by limeonaire at 10:52 AM on July 10, 2010


Incidentally, http://whichloadsfaster.com loads 2.2 to 3.7 times faster than http://www.metafilter.com/93609/Which-loads-faster
posted by namasaya at 10:54 AM on July 10, 2010 [5 favorites]


Yeah, I just did about 100 runs

Wow.


Heh, I just noticed there's a Repeat option at the top of the page. You can set it to however many you want and just let it run. Of course, I only saw this after clicking the Go button 100 times, like a dope.
posted by maqsarian at 10:56 AM on July 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


You become so pat as my style increases / What's that in your pants ahh human feces / Throw your shitty drawers in the hamper / Next time come strapped with a fuckin' pamper

... or use Bing. Apologies to ODB.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:03 AM on July 10, 2010


After 100 runs, I have bing at 10% faster, although that's with both sites annoyingly redirecting to their Canadian counterparts.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:04 AM on July 10, 2010




I did 100 runs on Google vs Bing and got a tie.

In other news, that's the first 100 times Bing has ever been loaded on this Mac.
posted by nevercalm at 11:23 AM on July 10, 2010


I was trying to think of a way to use frames or redirecting to get it into an infinitely recursive loop, but I stopped because it's a cool service and there's no reason to tax them unduly.
posted by codacorolla at 11:43 AM on July 10, 2010


I think it would only tax your browser.
posted by swift at 11:53 AM on July 10, 2010


Well, unsurprisingly it doesn't like it. Warning: may crash your browser, and is at the very least very annoying...

http://whichloadsfaster.com/?l=coolsick.net/frame.html&r=coolsick.net/frame2.html
posted by codacorolla at 12:11 PM on July 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


> Bing beats Google every time. Who'da thunk it?

For me the first load was a tie, and when repeating a number of time Google was about 3-4 times faster. This was only for the landing pages. When I changed to searches for "test" (http://www.google.com/search?q=test and http://www.bing.com/search?q=test) the difference shrunk with Google beating Bing by some 20% at and average of 372 ms vs 458 ms. Conclusion: No difference worth paying attention to.

And there seems to be a big difference between first load and repeats. For instance Pampers vs. Facebook. First time: 1811 vs 1867, repeating 10 times: 321 vs 598.


Also, is Mefi getting hammered by this site, or is it just hardly loading at all (for me) for completely different reasons?
posted by bjrn at 12:42 PM on July 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yup.

MF is loading stoooopidly slow now.

(16x slower to be exact)

that link should be removed
posted by DavidandConquer at 12:49 PM on July 10, 2010


Haha metachat is so dead when I typed the URL in directly Safari reverted back to the whichloadsfaster cache of it.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:02 PM on July 10, 2010


And there seems to be a big difference between first load and repeats.

Yeah, your browser is caching Javascript, CSS, and images so there's a lot less to load the second time.

Something like Facebook over Pampers doesn't surprise me, companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have engineers whose job it is to make these things fast. I doubt Pampers spends nearly as much time on it. At Google it's almost a fetish (This is what I mostly work on for YouTube).
posted by wildcrdj at 2:14 PM on July 10, 2010


(The Bing page loaded slower than the Google page. You had to read the fine print to see this.)
posted by vhsiv at 2:31 PM on July 10, 2010


kenko: "Strange, I'd have thought Pampers to be much better suited to large loads than is Facebook."

You haven't experienced some of my FB friend then, have you? Quite a few loads there.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:15 PM on July 10, 2010


actually [pretty useful. i wonder how accurate or ''scientific' it is
posted by Bado at 3:37 PM on July 10, 2010


Bing "loaded" a bit faster than Google, but in my browser Google was consistently actually rendering first. And Bing still had to load their background image.

I assume it's counting loaded as when the document ready event fires, but of course a lot of webpages do things only once that's run. So it's not a perfect test (surprise!). But still fun. Also, apple.com beats microsoft.com, but debian.org beats apple.com.
posted by skynxnex at 5:31 PM on July 10, 2010


I find that Bong may be slower than Bing, but the search is MUCH deeper.

When they make My Book into a movie, I want Sean Connery to say: "In my humble experience (what there is of it), the Best Things in life take time. Speed is a test of impatience. Take, for example, this bottle of Chivas Regal. You could drink it very quickly and become a gibbering idiot. Or, you could savor it. The choice is yours."

And then, with My Ship finally in, I will climb aboard and, like Lao Tsu, bid farewell to the wisdom business.
posted by Twang at 6:02 PM on July 10, 2010


Oh good! I was just thinking to myself, self, I was thinking, we need to boil down websites to a single number. Not just any single number, but a single number irrelevant to the value that the website actually has for the user. Like what has happened with prices for almost everything else, only tailored to the "information superhighway".

Kudos on your discovery of that number.
posted by DU at 6:07 PM on July 10, 2010


Oh my god! I was just thinking the same thing!
posted by swift at 10:44 PM on July 10, 2010


« Older A Whole World of Mine Crafts   |   I Will Survive Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments