2003 slow to load page

[Pete Beall]

I finally upgraded from FP 2002 to 2003. I was getting used to the interface
on a simple small page, and then switched to my digital photo page. I store
my digital photos on a local-only page, several pages per month, and each
page containing thumbnails linked to the full sized picture. Using 2002 the
page would populate in the blink of an eye; switching to 2003, the page
would take TEN MINUTES to populate. Removing 2003 and going back to 2002, no
problem.

I couldn't Google an answer to the problem. Obviously I'll stick with 2002
until this problem is solved.

 

[Pete Beall]

Lets get serious, “optimized down to 30K with no visible difference”? My
photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the response
just ducks the question.

The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won’t load is only thumbnails of 3K or
so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that will
make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?

in message I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should
optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same
image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.

Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in FP,
why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ---- AFTER
you've optimized them of course

 

[Pete Beall]

These pictures are not on the web. These pictures are my digital pictures
that I keep on my machine, and I keep high quality files that would be
suitable for printing. I just happen to like the web page format for saving
my pictures rather than a flat file format. The “Who, What, When, Where” of
each photograph is also stored in an Access dB and clicking on the dB
description creates a hyperlink that finds the actual photograph on the web
page. In addition, I have an Access dB going back to 1983 by day and 1945 by
month that is cross referenced to over 500 rolls of film with another 1,000+
to be added. I do know something about image quality.

I still don’t know why FP2002 opens a page with thirty 3K thumbnails for
editing instantly, and FP2003 fails.

in message Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way way
down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no reason
to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. Period.


And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized images
within FP?

Lets get serious, “optimized down to 30K with no visible difference”? My
photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the response
just ducks the question.

The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won’t load is only thumbnails of 3K
or
so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that
will
make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?

in message I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should
optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same
image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.

Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in
FP,
why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ----
AFTER
you've optimized them of course