- Older kindle fire very slow upgrade#
- Older kindle fire very slow full#
- Older kindle fire very slow free#
Everything seemed to reduce fairly predictably, the exception being CNN.com which saw a compression ratio of 0.801. The average compression ratio for these test web pages through Amazon's servers was 0.891. I cleared the cache between each run to always request data from Amazon's servers. I also ran each test at least 5 times to deal with any differences in ads that loaded.
To deal with the fact that these are live websites with ever changing content I ran all of the tests back to back, ensuring that the actual website content didn't change between runs. This time I looked at the same three websites from earlier (AT, Engadget, NYTimes) but also added CNN.com for something a bit more mainstream, and for something a bit more awesome (and text heavy). Instead I sniffed the Kindle Fire's traffic on my network and looked at total bytes transferred for a handful of page requests.
Older kindle fire very slow full#
This claim was a little more difficult to investigate as requesting a full uncompressed JPG didn't seem to go through Amazon's compression routine. In other words, Amazon is able to perform server side compression of things like images to deliver a seemingly lossless reduction in file size and thus improve performance. Web pages simply load slower if you have this feature enabled.Īmazon also argues that it's able to improve performance by optimizing content for the device you're viewing it on. The numbers are mirrored in my own use of the Kindle Fire. In fact, it slows it down compared to going direct to the servers I'm trying to reach. I did the same with and without the Silk browser's accelerated page loading feature enabled (cloud caching).Īs expected, Amazon's accelerated page loading does nothing to accelerate page loads. I loaded each one 10 times in a row and averaged all of the run times. I started out by doing some raw web page loading tests. In the interim, I was curious to see what it did to the web browsing experience on the Kindle Fire.
Older kindle fire very slow free#
If Amazon were to introduce a 3G Kindle Fire with a very affordable or even free dataplan, cloud caching might have made sense. The choice to launch this cloud-caching feature alongside the Kindle Fire always seemed suspect. Not to mention those pesky CPU limitations will keep you from loading any web page at even 15Mbps. The WiFi stack in the Kindle is limited to around 15Mbps so even if you opt for a slower internet package you should be able to exceed what the Kindle Fire is capable of consuming. Customers can purchase cable internet plans maxing out at 50Mbps downstream. Time Warner recently (finally?) upgraded the Raleigh area to DOCSIS 3.0. Consolidating network access on a cellular network seems to make sense, there's just one problem: the Kindle Fire was launched as a WiFi only model. Things are even worse on Verizon's EVDO network where I get sub 1Mbps speeds. AT&T's 3G at my house tops out at 3Mbps, but more frequently than not it's down in the 1 - 2Mbps range. The parts of the loading process that aren't CPU bound are typically limited by the speed of the cellular network you're on.
Older kindle fire very slow upgrade#
It's why you notice a performance difference when you upgrade from a two year old smartphone to a modern day model, even if both were running the same OS. A huge portion of web page loading on smartphone platforms is actually CPU bound. The reduction is even more impressive if you look at what it does to a more involved front page like Engadget's: there the list drops from 34 down to 1.Īmazon claims the cloud-side caching can improve performance, however I was skeptical of this claim. The list of 13 is reduced to a single IP address. The table below shows you all of the IPs that are contacted when loading with and without Amazon's cloud acceleration feature turned on: With Silk, the request is sent to Amazon's cloud, where Amazon's servers retrieve (and cache) all of the elements of the web page and deliver the result to you directly. Each host is contacted, the request acknowledged and then data is exchanged between it and your browser.Īmazon believes that this is an inefficient way of loading a web page. A typical load of pulls content from thirteen different hosts.
What makes Silk unique is its ability to funnel your web requests through Amazon's Web Services (AWS) cloud. Silk is yet-another-webkit based browser with all of the usual features: tabbed browsing, Flash support, integrated search/URL bar, etc. At its launch Amazon introduced a new web browser called Silk. We've been working on our Kindle Fire review over the weekend but I thought I'd break out a particularly interesting section of the review for release a bit early.
0 kommentar(er)
