Talk:Network performance

Merge proposal

I support merging this material. Take a look at the Speed issues section of the World Wide Web article. It would fit perfectly in there. JonHarder 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think this isn't really notable enough to be here on its own. Even the article itself says that the rule is mostly irrelevant now that broadband is more widespread. -- DImfeld 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: In case it's unclear, I'm referring to the merge of 8-second rule. The Discuss link came here. DImfeld 02:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision was to merge 8-second rule with Network performance. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Edit/addition

November 8, 2006 According to content on W3 Schools, their study stated that people would leave a website that would not load in 7 seconds. Maybe this should be put in this article

Merge from Relationship between latency and throughput

After a move discussion at Talk:Relationship_between_latency_and_throughput#Requested_move, it was decided that the best course of action would be to merge the information in that article into this article. Any objections?--Aervanath (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no objections, so I've moved the content here. It probably needs to be better integrated, though.--Aervanath (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

paper on response time in conversational HCI incorrectly cited

At the top of the "Web surfing" section, it is claimed that "Users browsing the Internet feel that responses are 'instant' when delays are less than 100 ms from click to response", and this paper by Robert B. Miller is cited: "Response time in man-computer conversational transactions". However, the paper makes no such claim. First of all, it is from 1968 and does not focus on interaction with a network specifically, only with computer systems in general. Secondly, the paper does not deal with perceptual thresholds, but with appropriate response times with respect to human concentration on a task. Finally, none of the response times it describes are in the 100ms range apart from basic UI events, such as the response of a graphical display to a key click or the motion of a light pen. A two-second threshold is typically recommended for information-retrieval events, which is the category that Web browsing might have fallen under, had it existed at the time. Interesting old paper, but what's up with this citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshsh (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Network performance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608040231/http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/ to http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]