Faster is faster, but in reality AOL is SLOWER.
From
==============================================================================
Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 3, Issue 42
Brought to you by NetGuide Magazine < netguidemag.com >
==============================================================================
Competitive Pricing Won't Be Enough for AOL (Web Speed Test)
============================================================
Well, the headline should be a pretty good indicator of how the test went.
Before I get into the equipment used, the methodology and the results, the
conclusion I came to -- that competitive pricing won't be enough for
America Online -- was based on factors besides just "time," specifically
the overall Web experience. Overall, Web pages did load slower on AOL,
yet there was also some inconsistent performance that made the experience
much less enjoyable. But I'll go into more detail on that later.
I should say from the outset that with AOL 3.0 for Windows or Windows 95,
you can use AOL as a straight TCP/IP connection and run whatever browser
you want. This is sort of like using AOL for access. If you pop up a
browser outside AOL (such as Netscape's Navigator or Microsoft's Internet
Explorer), the performance is comparable to a standalone Internet service
provider/Web browser combo. But the beauty of AOL, or at least part of
the beauty that AOL wants to sell us, is the ease of use and the seamless
integration of the Web browser. That part doesn't work so well, and
that's the part I'm commenting on here.
I told AOL chairman Steve Case that AOL didn't fare so well in the
testing. Case told me I need to try again toward the end of next week,
because AOL will be "expanding the proxy servers substantially over the
next 48 hours, and then further capacity is being added next week." And
just for grins, I WILL do the test again in a couple of weeks during
Thanksgiving break (no newsletter that week), but, man, it's irritating
that AOL isn't keeping up with capacity. Not that Case was crying
"growing pains" by any means -- I think he's taking his lumps here -- but
that's not really good enough. The bar is raised. Web browsing isn't
getting less popular, it's getting more popular -- even on AOL. As people
decide that a really good Web experience is as important to them as a good
online experience, AOL could face a lot of trouble if it doesn't stay
ahead of the growth curve. Its plan is to add several million more
members in the next year or so. Providing good access to the Web will
become increasingly vital in retaining customers and, ultimately,
in attracting new ones. If AOL doesn't stay ahead of the
quality-of-service curve, it probably won't achieve its objectives. And
at that point, there can be no excuses. AOL must have all its proverbial
ducks in a row.
*Background*
All testing was done on the same computer, a Dell Dimension XPS Pentium
166 with 32 MB of RAM running Windows 95. The following Web experiences
were
tested:
- standalone ISP with 16-bit Navigator
- standalone ISP with 32-bit IE 3.0
- AOL for Windows (16-bit) via AOLNet
- AOL for Windows 95 via AOLNet (with IE 3.0 used as integrated browser)
I ran the testing over a three-hour period from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern
time on Wednesday. With the exception of Dashboard for Windows 95, no
other programs were running besides those necessary for the test (either
AOL alone) or a dial-up network connection and a browser. When switching
from one configuration to the next, I rebooted my computer so there was no
issue of memory or resource loss, which sometimes happens when you've
opened and closed a lot of applications.
Also, after bringing up the browser I purged the graphics cache before
testing.
Believe it or not, my standalone ISP for the testing was none other than
Microsoft Network -- not the online service, just the TCP/IP network that
is provided by UUNet (which merged with MFS Communications, which in turn
will be merging with WorldComm). If you've installed MSN and are an
active subscriber, you can make this sort of connection too. Just look in
your "Dial-Up Networking" folder and you'll see a couple of icons for "The
Microsoft Network." If you connect via one of these icons, rather than
via the icon for the online service itself, you'll make a straight TCP/IP
connection. In my area, the MSN TCP/IP network works pretty well, but I
was in Chicago last month and found it unusable, so I guess it varies from
city to city. And there are times even here in New York's Westchester
County where you can't access anything very quickly that isn't on the MSN
site, but most of the time it's OK.
Another point worth noting is that when calling my local MSN number, I
usually connect at 28.8 Kbps. During my testing, I connected at 28.8 each
time. With AOLNet, I can never make a 28.8-Kbps connection, at least not
according to what it tells me. With AOLNet I always connect at 26.4 Kbps,
but I know people who connect at 28.8 Kbps in other areas nearby, so maybe
it's just me and my phone lines . . . the same phone lines that DO connect
to other services at 28.8 Kbps.
In each configuration I ran three separate tests on the home pages of 5
Web sites and then averaged the results. For some reason, I was never
able to connect to SimbaNet at all during the three-hour period via AOL
for Windows (16-bit).
For purposes of testing, I turned off the graphics compression available
on AOL (in both 16- and 32-bit versions). I did actually run a test with
the compression turned on, and all I can tell you is that sometimes it was
a little faster, sometimes it was a lot slower, and sometimes I had to
exit all the way out of AOL and bring it up again to get things working.
Maybe it's just me.
*The Results*
AVERAGE TIME IN SECONDS
Web site ISP+16-bit ISP+32-bit AOL 16-bit AOL 32-bit
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
CNET 23 28 27 35
ZD Net 31 36 45 42
TechWeb 46 40 72 82
Schwab 25 27 38 36
SimbaNet 45 56 Didn't work 71
*Other Tidbits*
Besides AOL usually being slower (often MUCH slower), there were two
things that I found annoying, both with the 16-bit version of AOL.
For one thing, sometimes after the page has finished loading, not all of
the graphics have drawn. The box where a graphic would be if it would've
drawn is there, but it's blank (other than the label telling you what the
graphic would've been had it actually been there). While this didn't
happen all the time, it happened enough to be annoying. The other problem
was that quite often I got the message saying that I couldn't connect
because of an error or network congestion. If I'd have added this time
into the time trials, AOL would've fared much worse.
Regards |
