The pictures was a mistake on my part, which had now been corrected by resizing.

My apologies

Arghhhhhhh... :-)))

I was searching Google, and had just got as far as

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dmqMNC3FLHjKTPKiMES727jSx9Id_RbO

and the image resized as I clicked off 'height: auto'. For a moment, I thought I'd cracked it - but then I couldn't get the stretch back anyhow I tried!

Thanks Bernie, that restored the thread to usable format. Even though some pictures posted there, does not take into consideration that so many people
are still using slower connections like ADSL, or even dialup connections.

I still use ADSL and am not 100meg, just 65 meg download and have never had any problems with pictures here.

I was away recently and was using "hotel Wi-FI" that just about managed 2meg and I have to say I didn't notice the picture threads being any slower to load.

However, if it is a problem I will no long post pictures as I feel they do need at least 1100x800 (which all my usually are) to get a good picture.

And yes I could post links but many may not bother to click them.

Sorry to have caused a problem.

Much of the problem is the need to cater for everybody, at a time when:

• the complexity of the technical world is increasing explosively
  
• designers as working as hard as they can to hide that complexity from end users
  

So, you get an enormously complex and near-professional resolution camera for free in an everyday bit of clutter - your smartfone. You're encouraged to 'share' with everyone - with no need to consider hosting sites, format, resolution, bandwidth, or any technical detail at all.

Even when I was briefly a mod here - around 10 years ago now - I spent quite a bit of my time guiding users to post images at sizes friendly to bandwidth and the web code used at the time - for all the reasons that Tut states. I don't know what the current mod policy is towards guidance like that, but Bernie (having just been caught out by the problem :P) might like to discuss it with his colleagues. Reading the internet, the image problem with Internet Explorer is widely known and discussed, but Microsoft are showing no sign of curing it.

Thanks Bernie, that restored the thread to usable format. Even though some pictures posted there, does not take into consideration that so many people
are still using slower connections like ADSL, or even dialup connections.

I still use ADSL and am not 100meg, just 65 meg download and have never had any problems with pictures here.

I was away recently and was using "hotel Wi-FI" that just about managed 2meg and I have to say I didn't notice the picture threads being any slower to load.

However, if it is a problem I will no long post pictures as I feel they do need at least 1100x800 (which all my usually are) to get a good picture.

And yes I could post links but many may not bother to click them.

Sorry to have caused a problem.

Your pics isn't normally any problems Bernie. There are others, in for example the "Photographs by Setizens....." thread, who posts pics that's
of an enormous size, and slows down the loading of the thread hugely, even though I have reduced the number of posts/page.

And how on God's green earth btw, can you get 65 Meg download speed from ADSL, when the max from the latest
ADSL2+M, is 24.0 Mbit/s, but only if the Distance (from DSLAM) is max 0.6 km (approx 0.37 miles) You must have VDSL with that speed.....

As I said, I only pay for 5 Mbit, and that's usually enough for my needs, but not when people (not you normally) posts huge pics.

And how on God's green earth btw, can you get 65 Meg download speed from ADSL, when the max from the latest
ADSL2+M, is 24.0 Mbit/s, but only if the Distance (from DSLAM) is max 0.6 km (approx 0.37 miles) You must have VDSL with that speed.....

I think Bernie lives in an urban area with closely-spaced telephone exchanges.

I'm in a semi-rural area, and I'm getting

Downstream: 54.93 Mbps
Upstream: 9.999 Mbps

I'm probably ~3 miles from the exchange, but the UK has a technology called 'Fibre to the Cabinet' (that being optical fibre). That effectively moves the DSLAM out of the exchange and into the roadside connection point - in my case, about 0.3 miles away. That final leg is still some form of ADSL (using the same in-house filters as I've used since 2001), but the ISP-provided router isn't showing me the technical specification - those have gone out of fashion and been replaced by vague platitudes like 'Superfast' and 'Ultrafast'. Bah humbug.

And how on God's green earth btw, can you get 65 Meg download speed from ADSL, when the max from the latest
ADSL2+M, is 24.0 Mbit/s, but only if the Distance (from DSLAM) is max 0.6 km (approx 0.37 miles) You must have VDSL with that speed.....

I think Bernie lives in an urban area with closely-spaced telephone exchanges.

I'm in a semi-rural area, and I'm getting

Downstream: 54.93 Mbps
Upstream: 9.999 Mbps

I'm probably ~3 miles from the exchange, but the UK has a technology called 'Fibre to the Cabinet' (that being optical fibre). That effectively moves the DSLAM out of the exchange and into the roadside connection point - in my case, about 0.3 miles away. That final leg is still some form of ADSL (using the same in-house filters as I've used since 2001), but the ISP-provided router isn't showing me the technical specification - those have gone out of fashion and been replaced by vague platitudes like 'Superfast' and 'Ultrafast'. Bah humbug.

Ah, so that explains it. I'm on real "old-time", copper telephone line ADSL all the way, with my exchange/DSLAM several kilometers away. I could get 1000 Mbit fibre if I wanted, since my house/apartment
is already connected with fibre, but I don't need it.

I've just checked with my own ISP, and their line checker says that the fastest I can get is 38-40 Mbps. I'd best keep quiet about the almost-55 Mb, or they'll put my price up!

I too am limited to a 5Mb/612k connection due to the 6km cable limit to the downtown exchange (just barely make that limit). It's ironic since the same companies Trans Canada fibre connection (T off main) to the city and Canadian Forces Base is located about 400 feet from where I'm sitting. And their cell tower for the area is on the opposite corner of our home quarter section of land.

That 100Gb connection is so close I can smell it, but just out of reach. Well that is without paying for the fiber run ourselves ...

I'm on real "old-time", copper telephone line ADSL all the way, with my exchange/DSLAM several kilometers away.

What a lot of people forget and most ISPs don't tell you, is that fibre is nice and all, but the lines inside the house are mostly all copper. If not the Ethernet cables from the modem to the computer, then the telephone wires from the exchange box in the street to your house. Only if you have a laser modulator/demodulator in your computer, do you have fibre all the way.

And then the numbers they don't want you to know:
Copper can reach 10GBit speeds.
Fibre can reach 255Tbit speeds.

---

A delusion starts like any other idea, as an egg. Identical on the outside, perfectly formed. - Legion.

"The worst thing about being lied to is knowing you weren't worth the truth."

I haven't kept up to date with the copper standards since 100 MBit 'fast ethernet', but the rules then were:

No cable run longer than 100 metres
No more than two hubs/switches between endpoint users
No more than 5 metres between hubs/switches

Fortunately, my house is less than 205 metres in any dimension except the fourth, where it's about 160 years.

Reading the internet, the image problem with Internet Explorer is widely known and discussed, but Microsoft are showing no sign of curing it.

They're pushing people to use Edge.
Unfortunately, while it is very quick to load & display pages & their contents, everything else about it leaves a lot to be desired.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

What a lot of people forget and most ISPs don't tell you, is that fibre is nice and all, but the lines inside the house are mostly all copper. If not the Ethernet cables from the modem to the computer, then the telephone wires from the exchange box in the street to your house.

I'm lucky enough that my NBN (National Broadband Network) connection is FTTP- Fibre to the Premises, the connection from the exchange to the NBN modem in my house is fibre, the connection from the modem to my router is Cat5E and 1GbE (Gigabit Ethernet).
Unfortunately for various political reasons what was meant to have been FTTP for 95% or so of the population became rather corrupted. Now you're lucky if you will end up with what Richard has- FTTN (Fibre to the Node) where the fibre is run to mini roadside exchanges, and they connect to your house using ADSL or VDSL technology (the data rate Richard has makes me think they're using VDSL). Not much good if you've got crappy phone lines all the way to your house.
The really unfortunate people get HFC- Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial which makes use of existing pay TV Coax cable runs. Fibre from the exchange to a roadside box that then connects to the Coax cable runs and those go the houses. Unfortunately HFC has something like a 15% + failure rate at present- it's reliability is exceptionally poor. It's rollout was suspended for a while, although it appears they think they've sorted it's issues out as they have re-commenced it's rollout.
The other method for connecting people is wireless- Fibre to the wireless tower & then a 4G connection for the users.
And the final method is Satellite (The less said the better).

And then the numbers they don't want you to know:
Copper can reach 10GBit speeds.

And of course those are data cables, not phone lines. The fact that phone lines are capable of 24Mb speeds over short distances is still pretty impressive given their original intended purpose (although with VDSL / VDSL2 / VDSL2+ apparently 100/ 200/ 300Mb/s is possible).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

While my desktop is wraping things nicely on my phone some posts just run on and on......

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

While my desktop is wraping things nicely on my phone some posts just run on and on......

Could you give details, please, ideally with a screenshot? One of us needs to tell David about that.

I'll try....
Phone is a Samsung Galaxy A3.
The wrapping issue is there in both "portrait" and "landscape modes - even the short line I posted earlier extends beyond the screen in landscape mode (portrait was always an issue, but is far worse now). Longer lines in the "test" thread can be two or three screens wide, and that is a real pain as I have to continuously swipe to read almost every message.

Now using my laptop, which is wrapping "correctly", even when I reduce the window to "stupidly narrow".

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

We'll probably need to report the name of the browser / display app your Samsung uses.

And then the numbers they don't want you to know:
Copper can reach 10GBit speeds.

And of course those are data cables, not phone lines.

No, those numbers are for phone lines. And that already in 2014!

My ISP uses cable and I've had 200/20Mbit for a while now. Even had 250/25 for a bit, but adjusted my subscription and went back a bit in speed. Not that we notice that. Their fastest speed is 500Mbit, but later in the year they expect that to go further up to 800.

---

A delusion starts like any other idea, as an egg. Identical on the outside, perfectly formed. - Legion.

"The worst thing about being lied to is knowing you weren't worth the truth."

Browser describes itself as "Samsung browser", and I'm using whatever the defaults are for that, including font size.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I posted a screengrab from my Sony Xperia M2 (960 x 540) in https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/pull/2743#issuecomment-429895536

My Sony says:
Screen Size 4.8 inches
Resolution 540 x 960 pixels, 16:9 ratio (~229 ppi density)

Rob's A3 seems to be
Size (Main Display) 4.7" (120.4mm)
Resolution (Main Display) 720 x 1280 (HD) (~ 312 ppi)

These posts about connection speeds from International users other than U.S. just reinforces the articles and studies that show the U.S to have the worst connection speeds in the world. I have a 18Mbs download/1 Mbs upload ADSL+ connection (15.5M/768K in actual tests) and that is the fastest available. My entire city is just copper pairs. Same for dozens of cities in any direction for 100 miles. Only the large metropolitan cities like San Francisco or Sacramento are beginning to get fiber to the home in new constructions. I am so envious.

---

Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours