Has anyone else had any issues with ebay being REALLY slow recently? I use Firefox and typically have multiple tabs open at any one time. All my other favorite sites come up and refresh pretty quickly, but ebay lately seems to be in slow motion.

Just wondered if anyone else has noticed this.... heck, maybe it's just me or someone trying to tell me something. :)

Marty

Yep, I had the same problem a few days ago. It has just come right for me within the last couple of days.

Same here. Slow. And a short time back their auctiva site was messed up. I heard they had some sort of paying/shipping problem or something. Lost a couple of ebay bucks paying directly.

Yeah Marty,
Slow, pokey, unresponsive, uncooperative, winken', blinken', nod...

....and generally crappy

Yep ! same here... we all know that epay is a POS!! LOLOL!

Wes

Marty - eBay is a memory hog. If you look at task manager it always is a big memory eater regardless of your browser (I like Chrome at the moment). It also seems the longer you stay on the session the more memory it eats. So you might try closing and restarting your eBay sessions. I bought some more memory and my whole machine is much happier!

I also think eBay is slower on weekends as people tend to be more active on the weekends. Other than that may just have been some IT or network issues.

Tom

Yeah, I cleared out the cache (whereas ebay clears my cash), cookies, history, rebooted my machine and it's STILL pretty dang slow, be it FireFox, IE, or even Opera...

I have a pretty beefy machine and considered the whole "crappiness of Comcast" thing, but like I say, I have 5 or 6 other tabs open and they all run great, just eBay being the pig.

Ebay is never the fastest page I have open, but it's never been as pokey as it has been the last week.

Thanks for chiming in though guys, glad to know I'm not the only one seeing it.

Epay needs more bandwidth power to keep their site running smooth.

Wes

The issue with E-Bay is mostly due to their heavy use of Adobe Flash Player 10. That's what sucks up all that CPU since regular HTML rendering takes a trivial amount of CPU and memory capacity. This issue can also be impacted by how well the Adobe Flash Player interacts with your browser and OS. I'm running Safari 4.0.3 on Snow Leopard 10.6.1 with Adobe Flash Player 10 and it's very responsive, even with multiple tabs open with other tabs running video streaming. This was not the case with Snow Leopard 10.6 (RTM) and the previous version of Safari. The current Safari/Flash 10 combination is now noticeably faster than the Firefox/Flash 10 combination on my Mac. On my Windows 7 (RTM) netbook running Chrome 3 with Flash 10, E-Bay's site is downright snappy even with a measly Atom processor and only 2 GB of RAM.

I guess you can blame E-Bay for putting a lot of Flash content on their web site. But more and more sites are doing it in their quest to provide a slicker and more visually appealing user experience. This just means that you'll need a reasonably fast computer with as much general purpose and video processing capacity and memory as you can stuff in it and as fast of an Internet connection as you can afford if you want to enjoy the (or being subjected to) the online experience that web sites are providing these days. Then you have to find the right combination of operating system, browser, and flash player plug-in (which in turn is also dependent on the underlying Java runtime environment) to get everything running smoothly. Then you have to hope that one of the many system, browser, and plug-in updates that are getting pushed down to your computer doesn't break the magic combination that works well.

Keep in mind that these big browser plug-ins, like Adobe Flash (and AIR), Microsoft Silverlight, and JavaFX are really like small operating systems. That's "small" by today's behemoth OS perspective. By legacy OS standards, they are larger than most older operating systems. The system requirements for some of these plug-ins may exceed the system requirements for your base operating system.

I worked in the mainframe computer field for over 25 years. It is hard for me to comprehend the amount of resources it takes to run a single user PC. I can remember when an entire corporation could run on an IBM mainframe with only 16 meg (not GIG, but MEG) of memory. The operating system, to handle hundreds of users and run batch programs, only took up about 8 meg. Our online programs were designed to be no more than 12k in size.

The amount of resources required to run a PC have simply gotten out of control. Because of my situation (spending time in multiple locations) I still use a dial-up connection, which allows me to only pay for one account and access it anywhere. eBay is no longer an option as the response time and memory required far outpaces the machines I dedicate to the internet.

A single IE 6 session on my PC uses close to 500 meg just to access eBay. And pegs the processor at 100%.

I use old machines that others no longer want in order to access the internet. My internet machines are occassionally replaced with "newer" machines when they become available. I don't do anything fancy, so they should be fine. However, the resources required (for both the operating system and web sites) have now far outpaced the power of any of these machines. Most will go to 256 meg of physical memory, which is simply not enough.

My first machine was a 486/33 running DOS with 8 meg of memory. Except for upgrading to 32meg years ago, and adding in larger (2 gig) hard drives, I still use that machine for all personal record keeping. And you know what? It still does all I need and more running DOS and Windows 3.1. I have tons of unused disk space, the machine NEVER crashes and the software is old enough that you can still understand most of the functions.

There is clearly a need for an ongoing maintainable operating system and internet browser that don't require NASA sized supercomputers to do simple tasks. Computers are being thrown away that are perfectly good, yet the software makes them obsolete.

In the mainframe world, we used to have to write programs to run within the capabilities of the machine. In the PC world, the user is forced to buy more and larger hardware to run the programs. In the mainframe world, a program written 40 years ago will still run on today's hardware and software. In fact, new software often results in better memory usage. In the PC world, a new operating system may well mean those old programs are obsolete.

It's insane.

Too funny Joe. I understand your sentiment. My original PC, which was equipped with a 30 Meg hard disk would today hold a whopping 3 or 4 high fidelity MP3 files. A 40 pound beast for playing less than half an LPs worth of music. Only trouble is, the pokey old 8088 wouldn't be up to the task of decoding the files, much less driving the audio circuitry at a data rate fast enough to produce decent playback quality. A modern PMP like the iPod Touch, which is running a fairly beefy version of OS X, which is built on Unix, and the Zune HD which has a multi-core are full blown multi-processor equipped computers that are orders of magnitude faster than my first PC and fit in my pocket. So there are reasons for bringing more power to bear in computing. Yeah, a 1950s record player can serve this application using vinyl platters with grooves stamped in them. No gigabytes and gigahertz involved but it won't fit in your pocket, especially if you have several dozen albums you want to carry around with you all the time.

Bottom line is that it all comes down to what you want to do with a computer. If you have a 1970s vintage mainframe computer in your garage and just need to run 1970s applications, and don't mind the power bill, then there is no compelling reason to update your setup.

If you can figure a way to run You-Tube from a teletype terminal and do email using punch cards, now that's something I'd like to see. :)

Clearly there have been technological advantages of which you SHOULD be able to take advantage. But the problem, as I see it, is that you are being FORCED to use them (if you want a computer).

My old 486 simply doesn't have the power to do all sorts of fancy things, like streaming video. But it has more than enough horsepower to do what I bought it to do; run a word processor or spreadsheet, play a CD or play (older) games. It doesn't need to be a combination of every electronic gadget on the market.

However, if I were to try to buy some software today to use on that machine, I would be out of luck. Why does a word processor or spreadsheet need a multi-gigahertz processor and a couple gig of memory? Sure the new programs may do more, but I don't need the features and probably don't want them.

Do you know anyone who knows more than 10% of the functions available in Microsoft Office?

Windows 95 was the big jump up from DOS/Windows. But all the releases after that may have added lots of whiz-bang features, but the basic functionality is all that I every really needed. All I would have asked for is that each new release of the operating system be more stable and more efficient. Isn't that what we ask of every other applicance we own?

An internet browser that allowed the user to turn off features of a webpage would permit more computers to access the internet. I started accessing eBay with a P233 with 32 meg of memory and got fairly decent response time. What I got then would do me just fine today. Whatever it is that is causing eBay (and other sites) to demand more and more resources is something I don't need. I really do not see where my enjoyment of eBay is enhanced.

Most of us probably forget just how small DOS and Windows 3.1 really are and the low resources they required. When Windows 95 came along, I was surprised that it took over 100 meg of storage to load. I now understand that the new Windows 7 may take as much as 8 gig of storage. DOS could run in 1 meg of memory, Windows 3.1 wanted only 4 meg. Windows 95 wanted at least 8 meg of memory. I guess Windows 98 wanted a little more. I now use Windows 2000 on my internet machines and 256 meg isn't enough. I'm sure XP and Windows 7 want multi-gig memory. The resource reqirements have jumped beyond belief.

So, until an operating system and browser come along that will actually do just the basics, my internet access will be limited to those sites that allow me to use the machines and software I already own.

Joe

Gee, it's kinda like government, ain't it?

I ran into a guy that had been in computers for over thirty years.
He told me what he was currently running and about all the advancements that were coming.
I said, you know it's funny, but back in 95, I had to wait about 3 minutes for my 486 to load up where I could start using it.
Today, I still gotta wait about the same time for my average computer to run today.
Then, I could browse the internet on dial up, it would take about 10 to 15 seconds for a page to load.
Today, it seems about the same speed with a cable connection.
Then, the Pentiums were coming out.
I guess we were all excited about the prospect of computers reacting to us as fast as we could think.
I guess that's just never going to happen.

Windows 98 rules.

Rich

"... still smarting from the whoopin' I just took at the feet of the gang of jack booted g-men who kicked in my door and forced me to log on and read my email and check out the HT postings. Ouch. Pretty brutal. I'm thinking of turning Amish, but I'm just not digging the color choices they give you on your ride. Black or, um black, one horsepower, and no wheel spinners. But who knows, maybe I will give up the accoutrements of modern society for a little more control over my technology choices...

Hi, I'm a Mac.

And I'm a PC.

Howdy, I'm a Yoder, and I like pie.

"

Gee, it's kinda like government, ain't it?

I ran into a guy that had been in computers for over thirty years.
He told me what he was currently running and about all the advancements that were coming.
I said, you know it's funny, but back in 95, I had to wait about 3 minutes for my 486 to load up where I could start using it.
Today, I still gotta wait about the same time for my average computer to run today.

Rich

Knkow what you mean. Sounds like my office system, with all the front end stuff (security and whatnot) that has load on boot it still takes the preverbial 3-4 minutes to come up where I can start to run things. :freak: rr

I just updated my Java and WOW! , what a difference in page load times.
And graphics on my email is loading faster as well.

Epay also is way faster now.
Try updating your Java if you have not done so yet, might be your problem.

Thanks,
Keith

Corporate PCs are always bloated up with all kinds on "inventory control" and configuration management software, plus all the services for connecting to the corporate LAN and domains.

Win7 on my netbook booted from cold iron to login prompt in 26 seconds and is ready to go with the full desktop running in 51 seconds, which included the time it took me to login. This is a low end box. On a faster, higher end multicore PC (like a $400 bargain box PC) I'd expect it to be even faster.

When looking at old PCs you also have to keep in mind that you probably paid a lot of money for precious RAM and hard disk space back then. Today, 2 gigs of RAM will set you back $80 and a 1.5 terrabyte hard disk, all of $125 (this month - next month it will be less). Hardware costs have plummeted dramatically and the hardware itself has become commodity. Even low end gaming video cards have 512 meg of RAM, with high end cards having 2 gigs. Unless you're a hard core gamer the greatest expense in a Windows based home PC is or will soon be the software, with the OS itself being a big part of the total software cost.

Joe, I know you'll be disappointed to hear that Win7 (64-bit) can only take 192 gigabytes of RAM. I know, disappointment is hard to swallow. Someday the 128 bit systems arrive and we'll be able to break free from the nasty 192 gigabyte bottleneck. It will happen, be patient.

Joe, I know you'll be disappointed to hear that Win7 (64-bit) can only take 192 gigabytes of RAM. I know, disappointment is hard to swallow. Someday the 128 bit systems arrive and we'll be able to break free from the nasty 192 gigabyte bottleneck. It will happen, be patient.

Only 192 gig? Is that enough to run the operating system, let alone eBay?

Hardly seems worth the trouble to get a PC today until those 128 bit machines arrive. What can I do with only 192 gig and a multi-gig processor?

And just imagine how much faster I'll be able to write a word document, create a spreadsheet or post something here on HT when I have all that computing power at my disposal. I'll bet Lesuire Suit Larry will be a whole lot more fun too; he'll probably run through the whole adventure. The possibilities make the mind boggle.

Oh, I can't wait.

Joe

yes ................................ marty ........................................ it's .................................................. .....running .................................................. .....................slow .................................................. ....here .................................................. ..................................too .......


:jest:

You guys crack me up! Yeah, I REALLY miss the days when I was surfing the web in text on my 2400 baud modem. Those were the good old days. Waiting in line at the VAX lab to get a paper done? Awesome! Spending $300 on a single speed CD-ROM drive? Not so priceless!

I love hearing the old guys say everything was better... those 5 guys that knew how to use the mainframe only took up 8 K of space, as long as your punch cards were in order. Records sounded better, people were friendlier, poop smelled like roses.....

The first PC I bought actually cost me $1700, it was a 486-33DX (math co-processor built right in, woohoo!) with 2 MB RAM and a 170MB hard drive which friends said I would NEVER fill up. I recently built up a mini server to do some virtual computing work for $250 and it will run Windows XP, Windows 2003, and Ubuntu Linux at the same time with no problems at all.

So yeah... sign me up for some of that old school slowness any day of the week, with regards to the good old days of computers.... they can stay right there. :)

Just tell the million other tools, you guys included, to stop trying to find deals on my slotcars! ;)

I love hearing the old guys say everything was better...
So yeah... sign me up for some of that old school slowness any day of the week, with regards to the good old days of computers.... they can stay right there. :)


I'm not saying that the technology today is not leaps and bounds better than the technology of yesterday, or that it is not far less expensive. All I'm saying is that the software is out of control. For every step forward for hardware technology, the software requirements take a giant leap forward without necessarily giving you anything that you really need.

When you combine new hardware with new software, you may get some new features that you'll actually use, but mostly you are getting Bloatware; and a lot os useless, unwanted features.

I liken this to what has happened to golf with all the new technology. New technology allows you to hit the ball farther, so they make the holes longer. What is the point? If you want to hit the fall farther down the fairway, just use the ladie's tees and save yourself some money.

Technology has obsoleted some wonderful golf courses and eliminated anyone but the longest hitters from contention in tournaments. Software has obsoleted very useable PCs.

Joe

All my stuff was strictly tongue-in-cheek Joe, I do agree with you that software bloat gives me the jingles at work every day. I'm a data storage architect/implementation guy so I know all too well.

I'm convinced that updates to Java are nothing more than making the logo prettier to look at while I am waiting for my interface to come up while working at client sites....

Back to ebay so I can vent a bit.. I noticed the bay got slower when they started plastering the pages with 20 ads, and adding useless options that are so touchy, God help you is your curser even gets close to a "larger view". If I wanted a larger view, I'd click on the listing!!! Once the darn thing is enlarged, you have to scroll all over creation to get rid of it. I guess jacking up the sellers rates for listings didn't raise enough capitol, so plastering the pages with useless junk ads was the way to go.

software is out of control

Au contraire my punch card and paper tape heathen. It may appear that way to an outsider. But there has never been, and never will be, anything created by man that has more potential to change the way we live our lives than software. From a computer engineering and architecture perspective, there has been very, very little progress on the hardware side of computer design in nearly 50 years. Most of the advances in capacity and performance are a consequence of vast improvements in material science, fabrication technology, and manufacturing technology.The latest multi core, multi gigahertz CPUs are largely built around the same architecture and design patterns that were devised in the 1950s. Rather than taking up an entire room, they now take up only a few square microns on a silicon wafer. Very impressive evolution, but one that is starting to hit a wall due to absolute physical constraints and lack of evolution of computer architectural design.

Software on the other hand is still at the caveman rubbing two sticks together to make fire level. There's no denying the apparent sophistication of some software today, Leisure Suit Larry notwithstanding, but where software is today versus where its potential resides, that's a huge delta almost beyond human comprehension. Software is infinitely malleable and extensible, unlike any other tool that man has ever devised.

Still, the potential and the manifestation of the potential into everyday utility is still one that may elude our best intentions. The most remarkable computing entity that's ever been assembled, or evolved, is the human brain. But anyone who has been behind the guy in the checkout line who is taking 20 seconds to make the "paper or plastic" decision using that remarkable cognitive machine may wonder how we'll ever get beyond the rubbing two sticks together level with software technology.

Au contraire my punch card and paper tape heathen.

You've been looking through my desk again, haven't you?

Well, I'm going to grab my wooden driver and balata golf balls and head out to the newly expanded 600 yard par 4, which is now drivable off the tee with the new Nitroglycerin insert and radar technology built into the latest drivers.

Joe

My Hobby Talk has been slow the last couple of days. Anyone else?

My Hobby Talk has been slow the last couple of days. Anyone else?

No. Even with dial-up, my HT sessions are very quick.

I did an experiment today with eBay. I decided to try putting eBay into my restircted sites list (TOOLS - INTERNET OPTIONS - SECURITY for IE6). When I did this, the pages loaded much faster. The bad part was that I could not sign on; I'm guessing this was because cookies were disallowed.

I'm not really up on all this new kaka that web pages use, but is it possible that putting sites into the restricted list disables some of the CPU eating features and allows pages to load quicker?

Joe

Slow for me too. Slower than ebay.

actually THIS site has been loading slow for me, both at home and at work....

If you are using Firefox...

1) Install AdBlock Plus (this works on all operating systems)
2) Install and run this: http://www.crystalidea.com/speedyfox

Firefox uses SQLite and over time it gets fragmented and needs to be optimized. That's what SpeedyFox does. Run it periodically.

(snip)

The first PC I bought actually cost me $1700, it was a 486-33DX (math co-processor built right in, woohoo!) with 2 MB RAM and a 170MB hard drive which friends said I would NEVER fill up.

(snip)

oh my gawd. in 1994, right after we got married, we went to Monkey Ward and bought a Packard Bell 486-DX2-66 with a 40 MB hard drive. flippin' thing was TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. I remember upgrading the RAM to something like 16 or 32 MB and it was a big deal. the machine i am working on now was around 500 bux--it's an Acer 2.4 gHz dual processor with a 640 gig hard drive and 4GB of RAM. the DVD drive has been giving me fits, but other than that it's lightning fast and works well...

my how times change.

--rick

I did an experiment today with eBay. I decided to try putting eBay into my restircted sites list (TOOLS - INTERNET OPTIONS - SECURITY for IE6). When I did this, the pages loaded much faster. The bad part was that I could not sign on; I'm guessing this was because cookies were disallowed.

I'm not really up on all this new kaka that web pages use, but is it possible that putting sites into the restricted list disables some of the CPU eating features and allows pages to load quicker?

Joe

Just to expand on this, I seem to have found a partial solution to the slowness problem without having to buy a new machine every other month.

I IE6, I modified the options (TOOLS - INTERNET OPTIONS - SECURITY) for the Internet zone to disable Java and set to PROMPT all the options for Active X and Scripting. This has allowed my eBay, Yahoo and other sites to load much faster than I could have imagined.

The Internet zone is the default for all web sites that you have not placed in other zones. If you've never used this option, all your web sites are treated as if they are in the Internet zone.

Now, there are problems. First of all, you are going to get prompted on almost every page (and multiple times) asking to allow scripts and/or Active X to run. It seems most times you can reply NO, but there are times when it must run in order for the page to fully work. For example, in Yahoo Mail, I don't seem to need to let scripts run unless I want to use my address book.

Same with eBay. I can actually browse very quickly now and only need to let scripts run when I want to sign on or bid. The beauty of this is that you can choose only those pages that you want to run scripts. If you bring up a page that doesn't work quite right because you didn't let the scripts run, just reload the page and let them run this time. The pages will take a lot longer to load, but you'll get the full functionality.

After a while, you'll probably learn where you must let them run, and where you can turn them off. If you have a site where you always need the full functionality (Paypal fr example), put that site into your Trusted Sites list and you will not get prompted.

It seems scripting is the big CPU eater. When a page does scripting, my CPU gets pegged at 100% and everything slows down. With no scripting, the CPU only gets to about 20%-30%.

Before I did this, a page would display and yet the screen would stay locked for about 20-30 seconds. Now, when a page displays, I'll get a prompt asking if I want to run scripts. I say NO, and the page is freed up.

Hope this helps.

Joe

No reasonable person would still be using Internet Explorer 6 if they have a choice.

It's not an IE versus Firefox versus Safari versus Chrome thing either, IE6 is simply a horrible piece of technology that has done more to sully Microsoft's reputation than anything that's come out of Redmond. Yeah, Windows Me was a train wreck too, but it went away on its own rather quickly. IE6 needs to be killed before it inflicts any more damage. If you must use a Microsoft browser, use IE8. Otherwise, take your pick and make your pick your new default browser.

I am not alone in my assessment of IE6: (there are many more)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/we-come-to-bury-ie6
http://ripie6.com/

This is obviously a case where the "It needed killin' " defense would most certainly lead to an acquittal.

No reasonable person would still be using Internet Explorer 6 if they have a choice.

Ah, but what are the resource requirements for IE8 or another more recent browser? The machines I'm using for the Internet are maxed out at 256 meg using a 600Mhz and 900Mhz processor, and W2000. I'm sure new browsers are not more efficient; clearly the operating systems are not.

So the choice comes down to buying another machine or trying to get along with something that does work except for the extraneous garbage on a web page. If IE8 runs on 256 meg and W2000, great. If not, I'm left trying to figure out how to circumvent the software obsoleting the hardware.

Right now I can tell you that turning off scripting on web pages has made my web browsing fly - even on dial-up. It takes less than 2 seconds to load pages here on HT.

Joe

I think IE8 requires Windows XP minimum, even though the hardware requirements are low, in the range that you would be able to use. A better solution with Windows 2000 is Firefox 3, which has a recommended configuration (not minimum) of 500 MHz CPU, 128 MB RAM, and 52 MB disk space. An added bonus of Firefox is its huge plug-ins library, the first of which to install is Adblock Plus. It removes most all banner and animated ads from web pages, further speeding up your surfing. I use FF3 on all of my computers, the lowest end one being a PIII-550 with 384 MB RAM running XP. It runs fine.

The issues with IE6 are mostly due to its noncompliance with web standards (which is why no web developer wants to develop web sites for it) and it opens up big security holes in your computer unless you keep up with all of the updates, 150+ security holes in IE6, and still counting.

Dial-up is a huge problem with any computer these days, but especially Windows machines with the constant updates and patches. The last time I installed a fresh copy of XP on a machine with a modem I calculated that it would take between 40 and 60 hours of modem download time just to bring it up to snuff on all required security updates. That was a few years ago too, the situation would only be worse today. This situation has gotten so bad that next week, when Windows 7 is released with much fanfare, users are going to install this brand spanking new ("cough cough") OS on their machine and find out that it already has many megabytes of required updates waiting for them. Brand new and already broken before you get it out of the box. By the way, there is no direct update path from XP or earlier to Win7. It will not bring over any of your existing applications or settings unless you are upgrading from Vista. Monty, please queue the donkey behind door number one ...

Incidentally, the situation with the Mac is not much better. Snow Leopard required a huge update (~60 MB) within a few days of its release to fix bugs in Safari. Same with Ubuntu, constant updates that force you to have a high speed connection just to keep up with the constant changes. The big difference though, with Windows you pretty much HAVE to install all security patches. With Mac and Ubuntu (Linux), nobody is out there trying to break them or hack into them all of the time like they are with Windows. Windows, with its near 90% market share, is under constant attack.