New design is CPU intensive to render....

Page 1 of 21 2 Next

- High_Fructose said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 18:41
New design is CPU intensive to render....

The old site was usable even from my crappy 9 year old laptop. I could even listen to radio without it skipping.

The new version pegs the CPU even on my far more modern, athlon 64 x2-powered desktop. This is probaly due to the new flash player (why is it present on every page?) and what are in my opinion overly complicated design elements (eg the dynamic picture frames in the library.)

Viewing a website should NEVER be seriously taxing on a modern system, unless you've got dozens of them open at once. That's a symptom of poor web design. Changes ought to be made to the new site in order to simplify and streamline it

[quote][b][user]High_Fructose[/user][/b] said: The old site was usable even from my crappy 9 year old laptop. I could even listen to radio without it skipping. The new version pegs the CPU even on my far more modern, athlon 64 x2-powered desktop. This is probaly due to the new flash player (why is it present on every page?) and what are in my opinion overly complicated design elements (eg the dynamic picture frames in the library.) Viewing a website should NEVER be seriously taxing on a modern system, unless you've got dozens of them open at once. That's a symptom of poor web design. Changes ought to be made to the new site in order to simplify and streamline it[/quote]
Edited by High_Fructose on 22 Jul 2008, 22:07

Permalink Quote
- Babs_05 said...
- Subscriber
- 22 Jul 2008, 19:03
Last.fm has always been hungry. I know people who don't use the site because it slows everthing else down.

: (

NNME Dec NNME Archives My Gang Albums 10 Chiller Cabinet Arctic Circle

irepli - mobile internet search Central Point: where artists and listeners meet
Reco Of The Week Animal Collective - My Girls

❉ Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! ❉

[quote][b][user]Babs_05[/user][/b] said: Last.fm has always been hungry. I know people who don't use the site because it slows everthing else down. : ([/quote]

Permalink Quote
- arkan said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 19:55
Well unless you have to pay by the Mhz for a cluster-rack, I think you have to upgrade your laptop. What next? posting on Vodaphone's forum and complaining about the lack of your 3G reception on your 80's style brick phone.

[quote][b][user]arkan[/user][/b] said: Well unless you have to pay by the Mhz for a cluster-rack, I think you have to upgrade your laptop. What next? posting on Vodaphone's forum and complaining about the lack of your 3G reception on your 80's style brick phone.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- underpangs said...
- Staff
- 22 Jul 2008, 19:57
Hey there

There are some known performance issues (particularly in IE6) that we're working on, but in most browser and on relatively old machines we've not had too many problems.

If you could let us know which browser/operating system you're using then it will help us in trying to speed things up :)

- David

[quote][b][user]underpangs[/user][/b] said: There are some known performance issues (particularly in IE6) that we're working on, but in most browser and on relatively old machines we've not had too many problems. If you could let us know which browser/operating system you're using then it will help us in trying to speed things up :) - David [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- arkan said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 20:02
Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is.

And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.

[quote][b][user]arkan[/user][/b] said: Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is. And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- arkan said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 20:06
personally i dont need flashy graphics, i would rather have my cold hard statistics in CSV format. But as they are sexed up, i'm glad that it is done in elegant style.

[quote][b][user]arkan[/user][/b] said: personally i dont need flashy graphics, i would rather have my cold hard statistics in CSV format. But as they are sexed up, i'm glad that it is done in elegant style.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- johnli said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 20:11
arkan said:
Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is.

And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.

Errr, guys, the entire point of this and the support forum is that people with problems or feedback on the site can air them and the message can get back to people who can fix those problems.

There's really no need for childish, pointless replies.

As underpangs said, any modern standards-compliant browser should have no more problems rendering this site than it does any other; if there are problems, a detailed comment of your browser, opperating system and PC setup will help track down the cause of your problem.

[quote][b][user]johnli[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]arkan[/user][/b] said: Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is. And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.[/quote] Errr, guys, the entire point of this and the support forum is that people with problems or feedback on the site can air them and the message can get back to people who can fix those problems. There's really no need for childish, pointless replies. As [user]underpangs[/user] said, any modern standards-compliant browser should have no more problems rendering this site than it does any other; if there are problems, a detailed comment of your browser, opperating system and PC setup will help track down the cause of your problem.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Studogvetmed said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 20:19
Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.

I'd say there is no doubt that the page is pulling some cycles, especially since if I have either browser on just a forums page the cycles drop well below 10%.

So yup, looks like the staff could do with some statistics from anyone having apparent issues so they can look into it and optimize it.

Join us at The Karaoke Bar
Song Summoner Geek | Song Summoner Review

[quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is. I'd say there is no doubt that the page is pulling some cycles, especially since if I have either browser on just a forums page the cycles drop well below 10%. So yup, looks like the staff could do with some statistics from anyone having apparent issues so they can look into it and optimize it.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Kerensky97 said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 21:04
Studogvetmed said:
Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.Wow. I'm surprised people get it that high with a decent system.

I use firefox on Vista-64bit, intel 2.4Ghz quadcore with 4GB RAM and 1 core is 2-4% and the other 3 are barely registering when viewing the profile. And that's with WMP and MusicIP at idle in the background. There's obviously some optimization depending on the system OS and browser.

All comments reflect the views of the poster and not of last.fm or it's management.

MusicBrainz How-To - Small Fish, Big Pond

[quote][b][user]Kerensky97[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.[/quote]Wow. I'm surprised people get it that high with a decent system. I use firefox on Vista-64bit, intel 2.4Ghz quadcore with 4GB RAM and 1 core is 2-4% and the other 3 are barely registering when viewing the profile. And that's with WMP and MusicIP at idle in the background. There's obviously some optimization depending on the system OS and browser.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Studogvetmed said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 21:20
Kerensky97 said:
Studogvetmed said:
Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.Wow. I'm surprised people get it that high with a decent system.

I use firefox on Vista-64bit, intel 2.4Ghz quadcore with 4GB RAM and 1 core is 2-4% and the other 3 are barely registering when viewing the profile. And that's with WMP and MusicIP at idle in the background. There's obviously some optimization depending on the system OS and browser.

Since not all programs use multi cores in a good way, that may have something to do with it as well. Who knows how it is from OS to OS.

Though even though the cycles seem high, I don't feel like my performance is lacking in the face of it.

Join us at The Karaoke Bar
Song Summoner Geek | Song Summoner Review

[quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Kerensky97[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.[/quote]Wow. I'm surprised people get it that high with a decent system. I use firefox on Vista-64bit, intel 2.4Ghz quadcore with 4GB RAM and 1 core is 2-4% and the other 3 are barely registering when viewing the profile. And that's with WMP and MusicIP at idle in the background. There's obviously some optimization depending on the system OS and browser.[/quote] Since not all programs use multi cores in a good way, that may have something to do with it as well. Who knows how it is from OS to OS. Though even though the cycles seem high, I don't feel like my performance is lacking in the face of it.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- DFA1979 said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 21:37
I'm also pretty surprised how high that is on your system, studogvetmed - my system's very similar (hardware at least, I don't know which OS you're using though) and I don't see anything close to that.

Using 32-bit Vista with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz, & 2GB RAM - Firefox doesn't even stretch above 2% when viewing profile/forum pages, in the library it spikes up to 30-ish for less than a second on loading then goes back to 1/2%, loading other pages it doesn't get much above 10% and then instantly goes back down to 2% or less - in fact, task manager is currently demanding more from my CPU than Firefox is :-/

[quote][b][user]DFA1979[/user][/b] said: I'm also pretty surprised how high that is on your system, studogvetmed - my system's very similar (hardware at least, I don't know which OS you're using though) and I don't see anything close to that. Using 32-bit Vista with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz, & 2GB RAM - Firefox doesn't even stretch above 2% when viewing profile/forum pages, in the library it spikes up to 30-ish for less than a second on loading then goes back to 1/2%, loading other pages it doesn't get much above 10% and then instantly goes back down to 2% or less - in fact, task manager is currently demanding more from my CPU than Firefox is :-/[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- underpangs said...
- Staff
- 22 Jul 2008, 21:53
Hey guys,

No need to be mean :P

With the new site there are still some instances were a modern system will struggle. We've had a few instances where the flash player or some errant javascript has hogged the CPU.

Every report of this can help us find and eliminate the problems :)

[quote][b][user]underpangs[/user][/b] said: Hey guys, No need to be mean :P With the new site there are still some instances were a modern system will struggle. We've had a few instances where the flash player or some errant javascript has hogged the CPU. Every report of this can help us find and eliminate the problems :)[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Studogvetmed said...
- Moderator
- 22 Jul 2008, 22:00
DFA1979 said:
I'm also pretty surprised how high that is on your system, studogvetmed - my system's very similar (hardware at least, I don't know which OS you're using though) and I don't see anything close to that.

Using 32-bit Vista with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz, & 2GB RAM - Firefox doesn't even stretch above 2% when viewing profile/forum pages, in the library it spikes up to 30-ish for less than a second on loading then goes back to 1/2%, loading other pages it doesn't get much above 10% and then instantly goes back down to 2% or less - in fact, task manager is currently demanding more from my CPU than Firefox is :-/

Are you scrobbling why on the profile? Do you have greasemonkey chart changes? I wonder if it's the chart changes script.... Diabled the script and it still hovers around 15% while just sitting and viewing, spike occasionaly up to 25-30 once or twice during the initial load and immediately after than goes down to hover around 15% When not viewing the profile it's closer to 2-6%, so it's only why on the profile. Not while on the forums. Much less on all other pages, including the dashboard (home) *shrugs*

It's not causing me any performance woes, though.

Join us at The Karaoke Bar
Song Summoner Geek | Song Summoner Review

[quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]DFA1979[/user][/b] said: I'm also pretty surprised how high that is on your system, studogvetmed - my system's very similar (hardware at least, I don't know which OS you're using though) and I don't see anything close to that. Using 32-bit Vista with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz, & 2GB RAM - Firefox doesn't even stretch above 2% when viewing profile/forum pages, in the library it spikes up to 30-ish for less than a second on loading then goes back to 1/2%, loading other pages it doesn't get much above 10% and then instantly goes back down to 2% or less - in fact, task manager is currently demanding more from my CPU than Firefox is :-/[/quote] Are you scrobbling why on the profile? Do you have greasemonkey chart changes? I wonder if it's the chart changes script.... Diabled the script and it still hovers around 15% while just sitting and viewing, spike occasionaly up to 25-30 once or twice during the initial load and immediately after than goes down to hover around 15% When not viewing the profile it's closer to 2-6%, so it's only why on the profile. Not while on the forums. Much less on all other pages, including the dashboard (home) *shrugs* It's not causing me any performance woes, though.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- High_Fructose said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 22:02
arkan said:
Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is.

And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.

To be clear, I'm not complaining about the laptop. I'm just using it as an example to point out how drastic the difference in load is for me between the new and old versions. I've edited my original post to make that clear. I'm experiencing problems on the desktop

Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box.

Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)

[quote][b][user]High_Fructose[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]arkan[/user][/b] said: Browser? with his old CPU disinclined laptop, he won't know what that is. And the OS will probably be Windows3.1, and you should work on this assumption untill he bothers to reply.[/quote] To be clear, I'm not complaining about the laptop. I'm just using it as an example to point out how drastic the difference in load is for me between the new and old versions. I've edited my original post to make that clear. I'm experiencing problems on the desktop Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box. Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- underpangs said...
- Staff
- 22 Jul 2008, 23:10
High_Fructose said:
Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box.

Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)

Sounds like a laptop I used to have, tough little beast.

Thanks for letting us know your browser/OS specs, it helps an awful lot! At a guess I shouldn't think memory would be an issue, however there can be some problems with linux/flash.

I'm no flash expert but i'd put my money on it being the new flash player not getting on well with linux. Do you get the slow down on pages without the player?

We've already been looking at performance issues for the player and making fixes, and we'll keep trying to improve things over the coming weeks.

- David

[quote][b][user]underpangs[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]High_Fructose[/user][/b] said: Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box. Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)[/quote] Sounds like a laptop I used to have, tough little beast. Thanks for letting us know your browser/OS specs, it helps an awful lot! At a guess I shouldn't think memory would be an issue, however there can be some problems with linux/flash. I'm no flash expert but i'd put my money on it being the new flash player not getting on well with linux. Do you get the slow down on pages without the player? We've already been looking at performance issues for the player and making fixes, and we'll keep trying to improve things over the coming weeks. - David [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- rumcajz said...
- Subscriber
- 22 Jul 2008, 23:29
Re: Hey there

underpangs said:
There are some known performance issues (particularly in IE6) that we're working on, but in most browser and on relatively old machines we've not had too many problems.

If you could let us know which browser/operating system you're using then it will help us in trying to speed things up :)

- David

It is that Flash player of yours.

J.

[quote][b][user]rumcajz[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]underpangs[/user][/b] said: There are some known performance issues (particularly in IE6) that we're working on, but in most browser and on relatively old machines we've not had too many problems. If you could let us know which browser/operating system you're using then it will help us in trying to speed things up :) - David [/quote] It is that Flash player of yours. J.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- cremepuff said...
- User
- 22 Jul 2008, 23:58
this is kinda a dup...

reduce the cpu overload last.fm, give the user some configuration control of their page! check out this post:

http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/436835

[quote][b][user]cremepuff[/user][/b] said: reduce the cpu overload last.fm, give the user some configuration control of their page! check out this post: http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/436835[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Citizen1 said...
- Subscriber
- 23 Jul 2008, 00:13
Studogvetmed said:
Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is.

I'd say there is no doubt that the page is pulling some cycles, especially since if I have either browser on just a forums page the cycles drop well below 10%.

So yup, looks like the staff could do with some statistics from anyone having apparent issues so they can look into it and optimize it.
No idea why you have such bad performance on the site... or why anyone does for that matter.

My PC has been sitting here just over 3 days on this restart, and with all these apps open, and maximized, not minimized. WMP is playing video, iTunes is playing music and I've made sure they all use some ram at least. This is the performance I am getting:

Here are my system specs.

My websites:
Fredvaux.com
Lightfused.net

[quote][b][user]Citizen1[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: Firefox and Safari on an intel core 2 duo 2.16 GHz macbook with 4GB of ram has cpu usage move between 10-25% while sitting on the profile page, at least on my set up. No clue what it use to be. I haven't noticed any major slow downs on my set up personally. I don't know what "allowable" cycles for a webpage are, but that's what it is. I'd say there is no doubt that the page is pulling some cycles, especially since if I have either browser on just a forums page the cycles drop well below 10%. So yup, looks like the staff could do with some statistics from anyone having apparent issues so they can look into it and optimize it.[/quote] No idea why you have such bad performance on the site... or why anyone does for that matter. My PC has been sitting here just over 3 days on this restart, and with all these apps open, and maximized, not minimized. WMP is playing video, iTunes is playing music and I've made sure they all use some ram at least. This is the performance I am getting: [URL=http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lastfmperformanceyi9.jpg][IMG]http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5664/lastfmperformanceyi9.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lastfmperformance2ii8.jpg][IMG]http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2421/lastfmperformance2ii8.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [url=http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=344629][b]Here are my system specs.[/b][/url][/quote]

Permalink Quote
- High_Fructose said...
- User
- 23 Jul 2008, 00:35
underpangs said:
High_Fructose said:
Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+

Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box.

Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)

Sounds like a laptop I used to have, tough little beast.

Thanks for letting us know your browser/OS specs, it helps an awful lot! At a guess I shouldn't think memory would be an issue, however there can be some problems with linux/flash.

I'm no flash expert but i'd put my money on it being the new flash player not getting on well with linux. Do you get the slow down on pages without the player?

We've already been looking at performance issues for the player and making fixes, and we'll keep trying to improve things over the coming weeks.

- David

It seems to be primarily the player, but the dynamic picture frames in the library also cause a significant slowdown.

[quote][b][user]High_Fructose[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]underpangs[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]High_Fructose[/user][/b] said: Operating System is Debian Linux 4.0, Browser is Iceweasel 2.0.0.15 (basically, rebranded firefox). I have 768Mb memory (I know that's not a lot), and CPU is an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Could lack of memory be an issue? I don't see why it should be, but that's the biggest bottleneck on this box. Incidentally, the laptop is also running debian 4 (in a stripped down configuration) with iceweasel, and has a pentium II (not sure what clockspeed) and 128MB RAM. And no, I don't expect to get things working on that. :)[/quote] Sounds like a laptop I used to have, tough little beast. Thanks for letting us know your browser/OS specs, it helps an awful lot! At a guess I shouldn't think memory would be an issue, however there can be some problems with linux/flash. I'm no flash expert but i'd put my money on it being the new flash player not getting on well with linux. Do you get the slow down on pages without the player? We've already been looking at performance issues for the player and making fixes, and we'll keep trying to improve things over the coming weeks. - David [/quote] It seems to be primarily the player, but the dynamic picture frames in the library also cause a significant slowdown. [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- jeb42 said...
- User
- 23 Jul 2008, 00:47
I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP.

I noticed that the memory footprint of Firefox gradually gets bigger the longer I browse last.fm:

When things start to slow down, I just restart Firefox and it's back to normal, but this didn't happen before so maybe there's a clue here.

[quote][b][user]jeb42[/user][/b] said: I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Windows XP. I noticed that the memory footprint of Firefox gradually gets bigger the longer I browse last.fm: [URL=http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ssgh5.jpg][IMG]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/217/ssgh5.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ss2sm6.jpg][IMG]http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6268/ss2sm6.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] When things start to slow down, I just restart Firefox and it's back to normal, but this didn't happen before so maybe there's a clue here.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- TheMannen said...
- Moderator
- 23 Jul 2008, 15:11
In the case of Firefox (2 at least): "it's not a bug, it's a feature". It has nothing to do with Last.fm but comes from some sort of caching feature or whatever in the browser. I think it works differently in FF3.

Like Babs_05 said, "the site has always been hungry". I actually find it less "hungry" now, though I don't know if that's because of the new version or because I switched browser.

The most pointless war in history needs to be stopped. So join and stuff.

[quote][b][user]TheMannen[/user][/b] said: In the case of Firefox (2 at least): "it's not a bug, it's a feature". It has nothing to do with Last.fm but comes from some sort of caching feature or whatever in the browser. I think it works differently in FF3. Like Babs_05 said, "the site has always been hungry". I actually find it less "hungry" now, though I don't know if that's because of the new version or because I switched browser.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Studogvetmed said...
- Moderator
- 23 Jul 2008, 15:28
Citizen1 said:
No idea why you have such bad performance on the site... or why anyone does for that matter.

My PC has been sitting here just over 3 days on this restart, and with all these apps open, and maximized, not minimized. WMP is playing video, iTunes is playing music and I've made sure they all use some ram at least. This is the performance I am getting:

Here are my system specs.

For the record, I really don't consider what I'm gettign "Bad performance" It's not causing me any issues. I'm just letting people now the load. It's not like it's causing me bad browsing, etc. It just does take up some cycles, for what I do on my computer it's absolutely no issue at all it doesn't slow me down any. It's just what it is, and I have no idea why it's different from others with similar systems either, but it's not causing any true performance issues.

Join us at The Karaoke Bar
Song Summoner Geek | Song Summoner Review

[quote][b][user]Studogvetmed[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Citizen1[/user][/b] said: No idea why you have such bad performance on the site... or why anyone does for that matter. My PC has been sitting here just over 3 days on this restart, and with all these apps open, and maximized, not minimized. WMP is playing video, iTunes is playing music and I've made sure they all use some ram at least. This is the performance I am getting: [URL=http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lastfmperformanceyi9.jpg][IMG]http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5664/lastfmperformanceyi9.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lastfmperformance2ii8.jpg][IMG]http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2421/lastfmperformance2ii8.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [url=http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=344629][b]Here are my system specs.[/b][/url][/quote] For the record, I really don't consider what I'm gettign "Bad performance" It's not causing me any issues. I'm just letting people now the load. It's not like it's causing me bad browsing, etc. It just does take up some cycles, for what I do on my computer it's absolutely no issue at all it doesn't slow me down any. It's just what it is, and I have no idea why it's different from others with similar systems either, but it's not causing any true performance issues.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- said...
- User
- 24 Jul 2008, 08:17
When I try to explore the library my computer freezes and sometimes I have to restart it. I have no problems with profile, artist or group pages (exept the look which I hate but it's a different story ;) ).

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: When I try to explore the library my computer freezes and sometimes I have to restart it. I have no problems with profile, artist or group pages (exept the look which I hate but it's a different story ;) ). [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- lyzzrd said...
- User
- 24 Jul 2008, 09:05
I did a little checking myself, and went to my profile page with Task Manager open. CPU usage shot up to near 50%, with Firefox using 45%. My computer usually idles at about 2-5% CPU usage. I'm running Windows XP on a 3.2 Ghz Pentium IV with 2.5 GB of RAM, and Firefox 3.01. Granted, this doesn't matter-- it doesn't interfere with anything I'm doing, but I thought it was kind of interesting, and I could see how it could be a problem with slower machines.

Metal is best when it's Unknown

[quote][b][user]lyzzrd[/user][/b] said: I did a little checking myself, and went to my profile page with Task Manager open. CPU usage shot up to near 50%, with Firefox using 45%. My computer usually idles at about 2-5% CPU usage. I'm running Windows XP on a 3.2 Ghz Pentium IV with 2.5 GB of RAM, and Firefox 3.01. Granted, this doesn't matter-- it doesn't interfere with anything I'm doing, but I thought it was kind of interesting, and I could see how it could be a problem with slower machines.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Alatariels said...
- Subscriber
- 24 Jul 2008, 09:20
well, I of course use both flashblock and adblock and greasemonkey/stylish which might help a bit, but I don't otherwise have any TECHNICAL problems accessing the last.fm site even with the old Thinkpad 600X running Kubuntu7.10 and Ubuntu 8.04 on a Pentium III 450 Mhz 190 MB RAM machine! (to be fair, the swap partition is about 3 GB) ... Firefox 2.0.something on the Kubuntu partition and Firefox 3.0.something on the Ubuntu one ...

but I still do have many LAYOUT-related problems ...

which leads to me nearly exclusively playing music on THAT computer in the last.fm client software ... or the installed amarok ...

[quote][b][user]Alatariels[/user][/b] said: well, I of course use both flashblock and adblock and greasemonkey/stylish which might help a bit, but I don't otherwise have any TECHNICAL problems accessing the last.fm site even with the old Thinkpad 600X running Kubuntu7.10 and Ubuntu 8.04 on a Pentium III 450 Mhz 190 MB RAM machine! (to be fair, the swap partition is about 3 GB) ... Firefox 2.0.something on the Kubuntu partition and Firefox 3.0.something on the Ubuntu one ... but I still do have many LAYOUT-related problems ... which leads to me nearly exclusively playing music on THAT computer in the last.fm client software ... or the installed amarok ... [/quote]

Permalink Quote