Well the answer is quite simple.

Repeating backgrounds require some extra instructions, so yes, pages like
that are slower to load.  But considering the fact older systems (we're
talking 486 here) are generally just very slow 'displaying' images in a
browser (less optimized instructions regarding multimedia) and graphics
cards served just for getting something on-screen, it's isn't just
repetetive backgrounds that are the culprit.  In fact, if you think about
it...

Memory bandwith is slow on those computers.  Caching large graphics takes up
a lot more time and memory than just repeting those few-pixels backgrounds.
That's what cache is for, and the smaller the image you'd suspect the
better/faster it is to just fill the screen with it.

I've taken some tests, and the difference in processor effort as comparing a
background-filled page (2x2 pixels repeated), was 12% relative (assuming an
empty page is 100%, the graphics page would take 112%, or 62% against 70%)
on a PIII 600MHz.

I don't think that's a lot.  It's about the processing power it takes when
you just hold a button on your keyboard to get like
dddddddddddddddddddddddd.

Kernel times activity were the same.

When dragging the windows around, there was no difference.  I guess these
things are taken care of by the graphics car (could be different on older
systems) so whatever, it has to draw a full screen of pixels, whether of not
these poxels are one colour or a whole rainbow wouldn't make too much a
difference for that piece of hardware.  I don't know about those old VESA
local bus graphics cards though (I just threw away the last one I had - so
can't test, sorry).

It all boils down to common sense... in this age where minimum system
requirements for 3D-frogger is something like 1.2GHz Pentium-IV processor
with 512MB of RAM and 32MB 3D Graphics card capable of displaying 1600x1200
in 4.294.967.296 colours at 120Hz and 6GB free space on your system disk;)
what are we bragging about a 50-byte gif image that gets repeated just some
48.000 times on a screen?

Whatever, skip the previous comment and answer the following question: does
it look good?


- Kayjey -
www.fiatcoupe.net



> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]Namens scott bickell
> Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2001 6:29
> Aan: hwg-techniques
> Onderwerp: Repeating background images (processor intensive?)
> 
> 
> One of my coworkers is entirely opposed to repeating background 
> images for use in table cells and body backgrounds, etc. His premiss 
> is that these repeating images (a few pixels by a few pixels) are 
> processor intensive and slow down older systems.
> 
> I am not a huge fan of these, but they seem to work quite well for 
> tables set at percentage widths. I don't have any data to back up my 
> assumption that he is misinformed, but my instincts tell me that he 
> is.
> 
> Or am I the misinformed one?
> 
> Thanks for the comments
> 
> .scott
> 

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA