Speed of New Interface vs. Old

[FromLine]

Although there are plenty of changs and improvements with the new interface (which are discussed in other threads, etc.), one significant difference with the current version is speed.

Years ago when I started using fastmail, one of the main criteria for selecting this service was it's simplicity, lack of graphics, and lighting fast speed.

Today, I did a comparison of the two services, both current and with the new interface, going through READ messages and cleaning out my inbox via the

< Mailbox > Delete and: < Mailbox >

functions, as well as the similar links on the new interface.

What I've noticed is that the new interface is much slower.

The older version lacks "images" which take time to load on each screen.

When scanning through messages and wanting to either read the next, or delete and skip to the next message, there's no comparison when it comes to speed. The older version is clearly faster.

I like the new version and surely appreciate the advantages of using it on my iPod Touch as mobile fitting is one of the major improvements.

Given that speed may be a significant factor, I hope that there's an option to continue to use the old interface once the new interface is introduced.

[sflorack]

Images (and CSS files) are cached, and shouldn't have impact on load speed. It's probably due to the huge amount of javascript.

[joe_devore]

I concur with "FromLine" Speed and simplicity, yet rich functionality were the reasons I moved to Fastmail "6 YEARS ago and have never used anyone else...

options would be nice.
A new section on the option page would be great, maybe??

[bvaliron]

Originally Posted by FromLine

Although there are plenty of changs and improvements with the new interface (which are discussed in other threads, etc.), one significant difference with the current version is speed.

I do agree. From the variety of OS's and computers more or less fast I use, I would say this has to do with all the javascript and CSS widgets around.
I've just tested removing javascript and using "no style" (in firefox: View->Page Style->No Style), things are faster, and the overall speed seems closer to the one of the old interface.

-- Benoît.

[justinh]

You must balance apeed against the fact that fastmail would become an increasingly niche player.

When people compare the old fastmail UI with the one offered by many free products there is no doubt fastmail looks confusing and very unintuitive - for us geeks it may be good but we are a tiny proportion of the population.

Like all software Fastmail must move forward or die.

[joe_devore]

Originally Posted by justinh

You must balance apeed against the fact that fastmail would become an increasingly niche player.

When people compare the old fastmail UI with the one offered by many free products there is no doubt fastmail looks confusing and very unintuitive - for us geeks it may be good but we are a tiny proportion of the population.

Like all software Fastmail must move forward or die.

I hear what your saying..

[sflorack]

I enjoy this legacy document..

http://www.fastmail.fm/pages/fastmail/docs/about.html

No graphics, no ads and lean HTML pages means that most screens take 2-3 seconds even over a modem.

FastMail doesn't require cookies, Java, JavaScript, or any other technology.

[pingme97]

This is the precise reason, I used to like FM Now with new interface, I prefer runbox a lot...

Originally Posted by sflorack

I enjoy this legacy document..

http://www.fastmail.fm/pages/fastmail/docs/about.html

[sflorack]

Originally Posted by pingme97

This is the precise reason, I used to like FM Now with new interface, I prefer runbox a lot...

Reliability > interface, so best of luck with the change.

[FromLine]

I don't beleive it has to be one or the other.

The new iterface is wonderful on the iPhone / iPod Touch and greater functionability overall.

The old interface is wonderful for speed and efficiency on a traditional browser.

I just hope that when then new interface is implemented, there's an option to use the original version.

Even Google's Gmail has an "Older Version" link option.

[neilj]

Originally Posted by sflorack

I enjoy this legacy document..

http://www.fastmail.fm/pages/fastmail/docs/about.html

It still doesn't require JavaScript/Java etc. - great care has been taken to make sure it works fine without. And if people are using really slow connections, they can change the stylesheet to remove all images, so I would say that's not just a legacy document...

[sflorack]

All sites speed up when you disable external images. I'm certain that disabling basic web elements wasn't one of the fundamental ideas for creating Fastmail.

I'm really playing devils advocate here (as usual) -- I like the new interface and don't mind sacrificing a small portion of speed for improved functionality. The resistance some forum users provide is as intriguing to me as FM's position on removing the old interface.

[FromLine]

Originally Posted by sflorack

I like the new interface and don't mind sacrificing a small portion of speed for improved functionality.

I like the new interface too, it has many great features and advantages.

The main focus as I see it is that older version should remain readily available - as an option - for those who choose to use it for their own specific purposes.

[Merovingian]

options are always good.

[stanwood]

Has anyone compared the interfaces on the Chrome browser. That one is supposed to be a lot faster at running Javascript. Your results may be different. BTW, the next version of Firefox should be much faster at Javascript as well.