DSLRUsers.com

Maybe I'm being excessively grumpy, but I've noticed a recent trend to include Dial-Up warnings in the subject of posts to the Image Reviews & Critiques section...

Is this strictly necessary??? Are there m(any) people that still use dial-up???
I would have thought that anyone with a choice would have upgraded to broadband by now... Am I wrong???

Please vote in the accompanying Poll...

And posters... if you are really, really worried about dial-up users, please post your images as thumbnails with links to a larger version...

I haven't been using dialup for about 5 years

i have dial-up. i haven't really bother in looking into boardband, how cheap it it nowdays?

leek wrote:Maybe I'm being excessively grumpy,

Maybe

Tha last figures I saw (as at September 2004) were that 60% of internet households in Australia were still dial-up. However, the rate of broadband take-up is increasing.

I think that it is rather good manners to advise fellow members that opening a post on a dial-up connection might be slow (and expensive). It's rather like saying "Watch your step" to someone approaching a difficult doorway, for example.

would you believe I was pondering the exact some thing this morning ??

I guess it all comes down to how much you use the Internet & how much spare $$$'s you have. The more $'s you spend on Broadband, the less there is left to help with Lens Lust

I'd imagine that more and more of us are slowly migrating to broadband, but there will (at least for the next 5 years), always be someone using dial-up.

Perhaps if we started posts that have multiple images (say 3+) with D.U.W. dial-up users can make the choice to read it or not.

cricketfan wrote:

leek wrote:Maybe I'm being excessively grumpy,

Maybe

Tha last figures I saw (as at September 2004) were that 60% of internet households in Australia were still dial-up. However, the rate of broadband take-up is increasing.

Probably...

But I reckon that our membership would not reflect the average internet user ... Surely anyone that regularly looks at or posts photographs on the web would be more likely to have Broadband than the average punter... ??? Or maybe not...

redline wrote:i have dial-up. i haven't really bother in looking into boardband, how cheap it it nowdays?

It varies, but if you look at it seriously, it probably doesn't cost you a whole lot more than dial-up... Assuming that you take call-costs into account and also don't change your download habits too much...

The trouble with broadband is that:
a. it is always on (leading to increased usage)
b. it is so fast (leading to increased usage)

You can't really say that dialup is more expensive than broadband. There are some pretty cheap dialup services out there. Yes you will get capped to the speed of dialup if you exceed the usage quota a month but you can't really say that broadband is more expensive anymore.

Dialup when I was using it was an inconvenience as I could only really use it late at night when the phone was unlikely to be used for it's normal purpose.

Alright.

Think of it this way.

You assume that Broadband means your speeds are high, but you can have 256kbit download speeds and even still, a page with 10 or 11 80k images will take its time.

I still think dial-up warnings are necessary, especially if the user is unsure how large his or her files are that they've put online.

Let's just say that someone has elected not to do a save for web and has put up a 200kb jpeg, let's analyse how long this will approximately take shall we?

At 56k's maximums of 5.6-6k, that's around 30 seconds.
At 128k's maximums of 12.6-13, that's 15 seconds.
At 256k's maximums of 25.6-27, that's 7 seconds.

After this, we're getting back into areas which I would deem absolutely fine.

We got a complaint a few weeks ago from a user who was complaining about the size of another user's image because it took them too long.

Now, we can't take responsibility for that, but by giving someone a warning, that's a nice gesture.

There's this whole notion that "Broadband" is fast.
Rightio, let's tackle that.

What speeds do people use?
Dad's using the 1.5/256 connection and I'm using the server's 512/512 connection, but 512 isn't all that fast is it when it's next best speed is 3 times it's own amount?

What if you have a shaped plan and you normally have 1.5 or 512 access but go over and have to operate at the reduced speed of 72kbit.

Hey, it's slightly better than 56k dial-up, but it only really somewhere between 64k and 128k ISDN.

You can argue that most people who surf this board probably do not use broadband, but you can't argue that a large amount of images that people post here will be big.

And for those people who have been shaped, run on old school ISDN, surf the web using cellular modems, or even use dial-up, the nice gesture that the post you may or may not want to read has lots of images and might make you wait a while before downloading them IS a nice thing to put out there.

Hell, we haven't even tackled the poor sods who signed up for a Bigpond account and have 500mb of downloads on their nice new Broadband connection, but with big image downloads, may caust a dent, albeit a noticeable one, in their meg spendings.

Broadband is getting more competition as Telstra continues to lose it's dominance. You can get 8gig download 256k for 30 bucks and have 2am to 10am the free period. Exetel. 30 bucks is nothing compared to how much phone cost you're saving. You can also enable VOIP for even cheaper alternative than copper line.

G'day,
Haven't used dial-up for ages, I tend to think that if you're interested in photography and invested $'s in a DSLR you'd go to broadband, but can understand that not everyone is on ADSL/broadband...

I dud use dial-up for a while but found that it wasn't any cheaper once you included call costs...

Maybe just a DUW- ${subject} header maybe?

I have broadband wherever I normally reside, but still appreciate the warnings. While I am at uni I pay an exhorbitant amount per meg to download, and try to avoid viewing these pics unless i have a real interest in them.

However, at home on my normal broadband connection, i really don't care about the warnings.

Just my $0.02,
Tristan

I have had broadband for about 4 years now and don't have any problems with people who post a number of 200k images...

I guess my point was that most people on this forum probably have a broadband link, so the dial-up warnings are probably mostly unnecessary...

If the people that post these images are truly worried about dial-up users, then they should post smaller (30k) versions with links to larger versions (as most of us already do...)

Interesting question John

Generally I feel that if there are a fair few images in a post a dial up warning is a polite "just in case" thing (there was a recent post with about 10 x 200K images which adds up even on broadband). While I have broadband I can occasionally get shaped to slower speeds when I've been too greedy so I'm back to dial up speeds even though I have broadband.

I guess D.U.W. is just being polite and at the end of the day can be ignored by broadband people so I guess I err on the side of caution. I do take your point about the thumbnail + link though and generally I tend to do just that (usually I'll post a medium size image from my SmugMug account and link to the large one)

stubbsy wrote:Generally I feel that if there are a fair few images in a post a dial up warning is a polite "just in case" thing (there was a recent post with about 10 x 200K images which adds up even on broadband).

A fair point Peter, but I find that it's not only the size of the photos that matters, but also where they are hosted... There are times when pixspot is painfully slow, so if I experience a delay in the serving of an image I normally click on cancel and move on to the next post... I would imagine that the same practice applies to our dial-up users...

I don't mind the warnings and mostly ignore them, but I was starting to get the impression that people thought that such a warning was obligatory...

Personally - I don't see the need for them... particularly if you look at the results of the poll so far... But I'll reserve judgement until we have a 100 votes...

My internet access takes 3 forms:

1. Dialup when on the road. I have enough email and website uploads to do that there's rarely time for serious surfing (only if there's something specific I'm after).
2. When in the office of one of my clients. They have shared 1Mbps access for the whole office, so it's very variable.
3. When in my home office, where I only have to share the 12/1 Mbps ADSL2 with my family.

So for me most of the time net access speed is not a problem, but I do use slower connections.

A couple of things you should be aware of:

• Big images (in terms of pixels) are not the problem.
  Big image files (in terms of kilobytes) ARE the issue.
• Big image files don't lock up dialup users. They can always stop the download of a page if it's taking too long (at least with all the browsers I've used).
• Some people have posted very large image files which take a long time to download, even on my highspeed connection. I suspect the problem may be the speed of the server(s) the images are hosted on.

The bottom line is that files that are downloaded quickly are going to be more-accessible to everyone. It doesn't take much to be careful about the JPEG compression levels.
I think it would be reasonable to try keeping your image files below 120 kB, but that's just a stab in the dark.

Bear in mind that there are also plenty of people who would like broadband - but just can't get it.

On the Central Coast in Sydney for instance, plenty of people commute to the CBD, but still can't get Broadband. I'm not talking about cable, which I'm lucky enough to have, but any form of ADSL.

It used to be a polite rule that image posts would be limited to 150K - I still tend to think that 150K per image gives plenty of room for posting a fairly high res image, while minimising the impact to dial-up users.

There is also the issue of image pixel size itself - with larger and larger desktop sizes, plus multi screen setups, I'm seeing plenty of images which I have to scroll to look at. I'd also like to see images limited to the old 1024 X 768 screen size - but I can't request that just to suit me of course !

Cheers

Justin

leek wrote:<snip>... I find that it's not only the size of the photos that matters, but also where they are hosted... There are times when pixspot is painfully slow, so if I experience a delay in the serving of an image I normally click on cancel and move on to the next post... I would imagine that the same practice applies to our dial-up users...

Honestly hadn't thought of that angle. I guess you really are right and at the end of the day there's always the cancel button (as you say) if the screen draw is taking too long whatever your connection. Not sure about the 100 votes happening though

Don't forget satellite

I share my Sat connection at work with about 20 other people so it's as slow as dialup during the day and 256k broadband at night.

With all due respect ...

leek wrote:Is this strictly necessary??? Are there m(any) people that still use dial-up???

Whilstever this god forsaken country is blessed with the incompetence of Tel$tra as the primary backbone provider, the answer to that question will be a resounding yes

I would have thought that anyone with a choice would have upgraded to broadband by now... Am I wrong???

Afraid so. Hel$tra have so majorly buggerred up our telecoms backbone that, in fact, the majority of residences in Oz are simply incapable of recieving the pisspoor excuse for broadband that these dickheads masquerading as telecoms experts deign to provide to us, let alone something that approaches the standards that most of the rest of the world enjoys.

Understand that were it still 1997, we'd almost be up to date in terms of the (lack of) service provided. Checking my calendar, I see that it's 2005 - rolling on to 2006.

While the rest of the world enjoys speeds and ease of access that we can only dream of, our leaders can't even figure out how to provide a service to major parts of Sydney!

And posters... if you are really, really worried about dial-up users, please post your images as thumbnails with links to a larger version...

Always an option, but both may be viable alternatives.

redline wrote:i have dial-up. i haven't really bother in looking into boardband, how cheap it it nowdays?

Cheaper than dialup, if/when you can get it.

gstark wrote:

leek wrote:I would have thought that anyone with a choice would have upgraded to broadband by now... Am I wrong???

Afraid so. Hel$tra have so majorly buggerred up our telecoms backbone that, in fact, the majority of residences in Oz are simply incapable of recieving the pisspoor excuse for broadband that these dickheads masquerading as telecoms experts deign to provide to us, let alone something that approaches the standards that most of the rest of the world enjoys.

Understand that were it still 1997, we'd almost be up to date in terms of the (lack of) service provided. Checking my calendar, I see that it's 2005 - rolling on to 2006.

While the rest of the world enjoys speeds and ease of access that we can only dream of, our leaders can't even figure out how to provide a service to major parts of Sydney!

I was quite careful with my words Gary ...
I clearly stated that anyone with a choice would have upgraded to broadband by now...
By the looks of the poll results so far it looks as if I'm close to the mark... So far, we only have 1 person who uses dial-up at home...

Perhaps another poll should be conducted asking if simple courtesy still has currency in what passes for our society. I think that the dial-up warnings are one of the polite niceties that help relative newcomers to this site, like myself, feel that there is a sense of communal concern rather than just alpha-male chest thumping.

Cheers,

I have cable and ADSL at my office and my home, once I'm off to my DRP then I have to use dialup, the area is not available for broadband which I requested when I first got in.
Dialup up there is just for me to checking mails or browsing the NET while I'm away from home base. I don't mind to use it coz better than nothing

I think it s a polite way of letting people know.


Does it realy hurt anyone???

I like it


MATT

I have nothing against them... I'm just not sure how necessary they are...

It seems to be a relatively recent phenomena introduced by new members... I don't recall seeing any of these warnings 6 months ago or before...

when I post pics, I usually (from memory) include how many images are contained - in the title
eg. Docklands Night Shoot (7 img)

That way, everyone knows how many images have been posted (unless others include their own versions or extra photos - which occassionaly happens, when critiquing or trying to help one another).

I guess it's the same thing (or very similar) as saying Dial-up warning.

I had the choice of dialup or dialup until 3 months ago. I simply passed large images over. Even with adsl, I will pass over large numbers and/or large images. My thought is that it is a little rude to post images that are bigger than 150-180k and bigger than 1000 pixels on the long side. Even at these sizes it will take a while on dialup.

So yes, give warning or better yet, keep the posting to a reasonable size.

Cheers  PS. My favourite annoyance is all Flash web sites.

leek wrote:I don't recall seeing any of these warnings 6 months ago or before...

It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

- Bob Dylan

Nothing remains constant, and neither should it. For better or for worse each day brings a new world and old farts like me sometimes have to work hard at accepting change. I don't feel I am alone.

Cheers,

Just putting a different point of view out there. The warnings help me know what not to look at whilst I'm at work. I don't mind browsing the posts with single images, but I don't want to chew up work's bandwidth limits by browsing threads that contain a heap of photos. I save those for when I'm at home.

I'm still in the dial-up dark ages at home. Can't get broadband cheaper than dial up here and as a student that matters. I appreciate the warnings.

hARDWARE wrote:I'm still in the dial-up dark ages at home. Can't get broadband cheaper than dial up here

Have you tried Exetel?

gstark wrote:

hARDWARE wrote:I'm still in the dial-up dark ages at home. Can't get broadband cheaper than dial up here

Have you tried Exetel?

I am with Exetel and I have had no complaints thus far. You certainly don't need to spend $50+ to obtain reasonable broadband access (as long as you stay away from "Hel$tra").

Are their pricing plans a joke, or what ? I honestly cannot believe that they have Broadband customers. Talk about exorbitant prices.....geez

leek wrote:I was quite careful with my words Gary ...
I clearly stated that anyone with a choice would have upgraded to broadband by now...

John,

My point though was that most of Oz simply doesn't have that choice, and we, as a poster, have no knowledge of who will be looking at the posting that we're making. Certainly, presupposing that somebody does have broadband access is not a correct appropach, and while your suggestion regarding posting thumbnails is valid, many people do not hand the skills to do that.

Seriously!

So, we're not in a postition to dictate anything in this regard, and for me, the bottom line is that this is simply a common courtesy being offerred to others by the poster; surely this courtesy is exactly in line with how this board likes to see its members treat one another?

gstark wrote:for me, the bottom line is that this is simply a common courtesy being offerred to others by the poster

Or to put it another way, do you want people to look at your images and get a proper appreciation for them? If so, you will probably:

1. Keep your files to reasonable sizes so that people aren't likely to be waiting for ages.
   If they have to wait they're likely to abort the page.
2. Keep your image dimensions (in pixels) to a size that is likely to fit onto browser windows on 1024x768 screens without having to scroll.
   If someone has to scroll to see all of your image then they're not going to get the full impact.

So it's not just about being nice to others, it's also about putting your work out there in the best way.

DaveB wrote:Keep your image dimensions (in pixels) to a size that is likely to fit onto browser windows on 1024x768 screens without having to scroll.

Actually, we strongly recommend keeping the longest dimension of any image to 800 pixels or less.

I voted Yes, sometimes use dial-up away from home. I'm sure Kris will back me up on this because I just came back from the ski slopes. Internet access there is dial-up and horrendously expensive (and please don't get me started on petrol prices there! )

Cheers.

Until 2 weeks ago (when I churned to Exetel) I was on a 512/128 plan where I was shaped to 56k for about 20 days a month. It's my own fault for not changing to a plan that better suited my needs and usuage. But I can say while it was slow, browsing the site was still usuable at the dialup speeds I was experiencing. I can happily say that now with Exetel, my shaping days are over, I just have to be careful not to blow my cap. I think it's polite to have the DL warning, or keep your posts pics small (with the option to link to a larger version), however this is just my humble opinion

John, I can't see any possible reason why this issue matters at all - unless you have dial-up. Then it matters.

But why do you care?

There may be good reasons, financial and otherwise, to change to broadband - although not all phone numbers can have ADSL apparently - but that isn't the question.

Since I changed to ADSL from dial up (and much happiness came into my life as a consequence), I see the dial up warnings in a new light. I'm glad it doesn't apply to me, I appreciate my ADSL, I recall when such a warning would be useful rather than deciding halfway through something to stop.

As others have mentioned, it is a little courtesy, it costs nothing, it hurts no-one.

Alpha_7 wrote: I just have to be careful not to blow my cap.

So what if you do? At 3 lousy Pacific Pesos per Gb, you're talking chump change for any overages.

When Leigh overruns our budgets, the actual cost runs into all of .... $0.45. Hell, even I can afford that!

So what if you do? At 3 lousy Pacific Pesos per Gb, you're talking chump change for any overages.

When Leigh overruns our budgets, the actual cost runs into all of .... $0.45. Hell, even I can afford that!

I have not problems with it.... she who must be obeyed does.


And $3 is very reasonable (especially when I am already getting 3x the downloads at the same price as my old plan) Exetel = value for money

Alpha_7 wrote:

So what if you do? At 3 lousy Pacific Pesos per Gb, you're talking chump change for any overages.

When Leigh overruns our budgets, the actual cost runs into all of .... $0.45. Hell, even I can afford that!

I have not problems with it.... she who must be obeyed does.

Then you need to point her at Hel$tra's plans, where the overage charges are a mere $150 Gb.

I've tried convincing her my d70 isn't real expensive.. buy quoting prices for d2x... that didn't really seem to work...

In a timely way the SMH announced a full 2 million Aussies have broadband, up 108% from last year. A pity for the other 18 million, hope most of them get the choice soon.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/two ... 83154.html