At 4/9/09 12:07 AM, fluffkomix wrote:
is it faster to load a web page if you have a looping background where the original picture is big, and therefore it doesn't have to copy it so much, or when the original picture is small, so it has less file size but has to copy much more?
The smaller the file the faster your page will load, if this is the only thing we're considering. A smaller filesize is always better but can easily be overshadowed by other performance issues.
A page load is determined by how fast the server sends all necessary data to the client. Once that's finished the server moves on and handles another. So the less total filesize including page code and images the server has to send, the better.
Yes, a smaller background must be 'copied' more. But this is the job of the web browser and consequently, the end user's cpu that powers the web browser. It's better to reserve more work for the client to do if it's no detriment to you.
Our computers are capable of advanced 3-d graphics processing; copying a 2d image several hundred or even several thousand times once per site access is insignificant.