Five hours for a Local Publish

[Loren Sanders Sr.]

Chuck, it might help if you told us which anti-virus, firewall, etc programs
you use. Then folks could download a tryout and see if the issue is still
there. Just a thought.
"Chuck «BeyondFusion»" <supportno@spambeyondfusion.com> wrote in message
news:ekq8r7$i376@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> All of you with speed problems...
>
> Which anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewalls are you using?
>
> There has to be a common thread here.
>
> I've seen no slowdowns on any computer I own where I've tested 10.
>
> --
> Chuck Joslin
> BeyondFusion.com - Your Fusion Community
> www.beyondfusion.com
>
> Register domain names at www.awavedomains.com
>
> "Ben Geurts" <ben.geurts@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:ekq8a1$h9018@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com. ..
>>I am having a huge problem with 10 being slow. I tried just about
>>everything to increase speed.
>> I tried to generate my Christmas site with 245 pages (yes it is that time
>> of the year www.anoldfashionedchristmas.com) and it is a complete drama.
>> I decided to go back to 9 to update my site. Hope someone can give us
>> some tips to this speed problem.
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
>>>I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>>
>>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>>
>>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>>
>>> Charles
>>
>>
>
>

[Chuck «BeyondFusion»]

Loren,

McAfee Internet Security Suite 2007

I'm getting some slowdowns on one site now myself and am trying to pin down
what's causing it.

--
Chuck Joslin
BeyondFusion.com - Your Fusion Community
www.beyondfusion.com

Register domain names at www.awavedomains.com

"Loren Sanders Sr." <lssr@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:el23d1$g4c4@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> Chuck, it might help if you told us which anti-virus, firewall, etc
> programs you use. Then folks could download a tryout and see if the issue
> is still there. Just a thought.
> "Chuck «BeyondFusion»" <supportno@spambeyondfusion.com> wrote in message
> news:ekq8r7$i376@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>> All of you with speed problems...
>>
>> Which anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewalls are you using?
>>
>> There has to be a common thread here.
>>
>> I've seen no slowdowns on any computer I own where I've tested 10.
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Joslin
>> BeyondFusion.com - Your Fusion Community
>> www.beyondfusion.com
>>
>> Register domain names at www.awavedomains.com
>>
>> "Ben Geurts" <ben.geurts@chello.nl> wrote in message
>> news:ekq8a1$h9018@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com. ..
>>>I am having a huge problem with 10 being slow. I tried just about
>>>everything to increase speed.
>>> I tried to generate my Christmas site with 245 pages (yes it is that
>>> time of the year www.anoldfashionedchristmas.com) and it is a complete
>>> drama. I decided to go back to 9 to update my site. Hope someone can
>>> give us some tips to this speed problem.
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>>> "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
>>> news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
>>>>I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>>>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>>>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>>>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>>>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>>>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>>>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>>>
>>>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>>>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>>>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>>>
>>>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>>>
>>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Phil Garrett]

Hi Charles,

I should say, I'm a long time user of NOF here, going back to v2.0, and love
it. However, with NOF 10 I am experience slow behavior I have ~never~ seen
before in the app. **For now, I have to go back and use NOF 9 for my daily
work.**

NOTE: I saw in this thread someone mention "anti-virus" software as a
conflict. <soapbox> In all the years I've been doing this, I have ~never~
found it acceptable for a software publisher to tell a customer to turn off
virus protection as a work-around. </soapbox>

Ok, so now, the speed problem.

Local Publish: No problems.at all with speed.

*My problems where the app comes to a crawl:
1) changing views
2) selecting objects in a page layout
3) clicking/editing text.

My System Data:
---------------------------------
- 3.6GHZ Pentium 4, Windowx XP Pro, 2GB RAM, 21GB free HD space.
- Running Norton Antivius

NOF 10 Sys. Requirements:
---------------------------------
660MHz Intel Pentium III, Windows 2000/XP, 250MB, 256 MB RAM - 512 MB
recommended

Anyone know?

Thanks.

-Phil



"Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
>I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
> problem.
>
> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>
> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>
> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>
> Charles

[Ben Geurts]

Thanks Scotty!
"Scott" <info@boxa"antispam'.com> schreef in bericht news:el1185$cqe1@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
Hey Ben,
I know this is off topic but You should really try a noise filter on some of the images on your xmas site......
see below for example

Scotty
Boxa.com

"Ben Geurts" <ben.geurts@chello.nl> wrote in message news:ekq8a1$h9018@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com. ..
>I am having a huge problem with 10 being slow. I tried just about everything
> to increase speed.
> I tried to generate my Christmas site with 245 pages (yes it is that time of
> the year www.anoldfashionedchristmas.com) and it is a complete drama. I
> decided to go back to 9 to update my site. Hope someone can give us some
> tips to this speed problem.
>
> Ben.
>
> "Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
> news:r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com...
>>I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>> problem.
>>
>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>
>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>
>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>
>> Charles
>
>

[jkajfes]

I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this stuff
and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.

I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the pages...
I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
the comments! :-)

I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion is
using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time to
come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left of
the cpu power? amazing...

task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
connectivity to it?

The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows resources
how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call them,
things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys because
you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?

You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather complex
but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the performance
hits I'm getting.

My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram, service
packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff... Dell
Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.

I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required for
tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...

could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
throwing it out...

When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is all
that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just needs
processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
this?

any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
webpages.

also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or residing
there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
something like that...






"RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects.co m...
> In article <r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com>,
> Charles@nowhere.net says...
>> I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>> problem.
>>
>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>
>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>
>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>
>> Charles
>>
> I just did a publish of a large site(100 pages) with nof9.1. It took 2
> minutes. Five hours with 10 seems ridiculus.
> RT

[jkajfes]

Ken,
I would like to give this a shot also... might help to trouble shoot
something on my end...
I don't know if you can e-mail a 6.5 meg file... my isp might choke on it...
who knows
I'd sure like to get to the bottom of my problem...
bouncing e-mails back and forther to nof folks is brutally slow... seems
they take forever to reply and they're very selective in what they answer
with regard to questions... they answer one and ignore the rest...


"Trimdoner" <ken@lrcars.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ekqd7l$ipj6@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> Regarding system protection:
> Mine uses AVG 7.5 Free Edition, ZoneAlarm Free and AOL's spyware scanner,
> on
> XP SP1
> Just a suggestion - why not exchange template files, and check whether
> it's
> the system or the website file? As far as the one I exported to 10 is
> concerned, it's all on the web anyway, so I'm not giving away any secrets!
> It's 6.5mb if anyone wants it by email.
>
> Ken
[portion below clipped]

[Charles]

I am running the same Dell system but did not copy & paste the tables
from Excel. I made them all in NOF so I don't think the Excel tables
are the problem.

It can't be the number of pages either because the same site skipped
right along with version 9 with no speed problems at all.

Everything is running in slow motion. I worked with it for a few days
but can't stand it any longer. I envy the folks who were able to move
up to version 10 without these speed problems. I have gone back to
version 9. I'll try not to think about the $110.00 I spent for a
program that I can't use.

Charles

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:15:05 -0500, "jkajfes" <jkajfes@autoq.com>
wrote:

>I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
>pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
>time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this stuff
>and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
>geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
>grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.
>
>I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the pages...
>I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
>simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
>excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
>the comments! :-)
>
>I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion is
>using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
>web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
>stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time to
>come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left of
>the cpu power? amazing...
>
>task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
>program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
>because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
>website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
>connectivity to it?
>
>The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows resources
>how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call them,
>things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
>limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys because
>you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?
>
>You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
>few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
>would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather complex
>but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the performance
>hits I'm getting.
>
>My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram, service
>packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff... Dell
>Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.
>
>I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required for
>tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
>problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...
>
>could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
>included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
>throwing it out...
>
>When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is all
>that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just needs
>processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
>this?
>
>any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
>webpages.
>
>also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
>it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or residing
>there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
>folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
>something like that...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects.c om...
>> In article <r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com>,
>> Charles@nowhere.net says...
>>> I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>>
>>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>>
>>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
>> I just did a publish of a large site(100 pages) with nof9.1. It took 2
>> minutes. Five hours with 10 seems ridiculus.
>> RT
>

[jkajfes]

Charles thanks for your input... I'll mention your findings when they reply
to the ticket again... it's so frustrating slow back and forth through
e-mail... worse than a CB unit... they'll have to acknowledge some kind of
problem wether they like it or not... others are complaining so at least I'm
not the first one reporting it...
I'll bet it's some type of stupid connectivity thing somewhere... It's at
95% now from 9am this morning... I'm going to bed and we'll see what on the
computer by morning... I have this feeling though it's finally hung up...


"Charles" <Charles@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:gr8kn2h8ofh6gpcothn2ldo4qgh8u0j5k6@4ax.com...
>I am running the same Dell system but did not copy & paste the tables
> from Excel. I made them all in NOF so I don't think the Excel tables
> are the problem.
>
> It can't be the number of pages either because the same site skipped
> right along with version 9 with no speed problems at all.
>
> Everything is running in slow motion. I worked with it for a few days
> but can't stand it any longer. I envy the folks who were able to move
> up to version 10 without these speed problems. I have gone back to
> version 9. I'll try not to think about the $110.00 I spent for a
> program that I can't use.
>
> Charles
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:15:05 -0500, "jkajfes" <jkajfes@autoq.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I also have constructed a website that makes use of tables which I cut and
>>pasted from Excel spread sheets. I'm not a website designer or spend any
>>time desktop publishing. I'm an end user with little knowledge on this
>>stuff
>>and I guess I'm the type of person this whole product is supposed to be
>>geared to right? But I've gone and done certainly something stupid that's
>>grinding this program practically to a halt speed wise.
>>
>>I started uploading my site 3 hours ago it's half way throught the
>>pages...
>>I'm in here bitching about it because something's wrong somewhere. So do I
>>simply stop using these very simple cut and paste situation from tables in
>>excel? What's the alternative for someone like me? Please take it easy on
>>the comments! :-)
>>
>>I'm looking at the Windows tasks manager right now too... it says Fusion
>>is
>>using 98% of the CPU... yet I can use my email, I'm here, I can open up a
>>web browser and play on the internet fine while this fusion is churning
>>stuff in the background... and I can open other programs, they take time
>>to
>>come up but once up I can seem to work unhendered with 2% of what's left
>>of
>>the cpu power? amazing...
>>
>>task manger is indicating that excel is up and running... I don't have the
>>program open or running, yet it's grabbed 31,000k+ of memory... is this
>>because I've grabbed a bunch of tables and cut and pasted them into a
>>website page and Fusion needs this program open to do something or
>>connectivity to it?
>>
>>The other thing I'm wondering about is the connectivity to windows
>>resources
>>how the program is making use of them, the hooks or whatever you call
>>them,
>>things that pass data back and forth... maybe when you reach the upper
>>limits of cpu useage something seriously bottlenecks... and you guys
>>because
>>you design things very well don't run into this? Is that a possibility?
>>
>>You folks with 200-300 pages in sites and the program churns them out in a
>>few minutes... amazing wish I had that kind of performance. Obviously I
>>would assume with that number of pages some of them might be rather
>>complex
>>but you obviously know exactly what your doing... not to get the
>>performance
>>hits I'm getting.
>>
>>My system's a pentium 4, running XP, cpu is 1.60GHz 512 meg of ram,
>>service
>>packs installed etc... I use Zonealarm, only with their virsus stuff...
>>Dell
>>Inspiron 8200 system for what that might be worth in a docking station.
>>
>>I think it's the way the program handles or translates the code required
>>for
>>tables and stuff like that... things like pictures don't seem to be a
>>problem from I can see... just the generation of the tables...
>>
>>could it have anything to do with that ODBC or OBDC connectivity that's
>>included in Windows... I have no idea what I'm talking about here just
>>throwing it out...
>>
>>When you cut and paste table data... and you go to generate the page is
>>all
>>that working being done inside of fusion program period and it's just
>>needs
>>processing time to do it... it doesn't rely on anything externally to do
>>this?
>>
>>any thought appreciated... guess for now I just don't put this on my
>>webpages.
>>
>>also I'm wondering as you increase the number of pages in your website and
>>it gets bigger and bigger is all of your site going into memory or
>>residing
>>there? I have some more reading to do. I think I saw posts where some of
>>folks create chucks of pages work on them and then open another chuck or
>>something like that...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"RT" <larry@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1fda13db78ec1364989690@news.netobjects. com...
>>> In article <r0n0n2pd0nmlt40fohevvof1qfbkqblgv2@4ax.com>,
>>> Charles@nowhere.net says...
>>>> I like the new version a lot. Things do seem to run a bit slower than
>>>> with version 9 but a few extra minutes watching the hourglass and
>>>> wondering what the heck is going on in the background is no big
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> I have one site that is 174 pages and that's the one I chose to run
>>>> with version 10. I made the mistake of doing a local publish on the
>>>> entire site and it took nearly five hours to complete! It pretty much
>>>> shut me down for the entire evening because NOF 10 used most of the
>>>> machines resources and slowed everything else down to a crawl too.
>>>>
>>>> I normally just publish a single page only after I have made changes
>>>> so I won't be running into this again but it seems like five hours to
>>>> publish a site is a bit over the top.
>>>>
>>>> I know it's early but has anyone else run into a situation like this?
>>>>
>>>> Charles
>>>>
>>> I just did a publish of a large site(100 pages) with nof9.1. It took 2
>>> minutes. Five hours with 10 seems ridiculus.
>>> RT
>>