<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mapping APIs &#8211; Google Maps vs Bing Maps: Part 3 Download sizes and delivery speeds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/</link>
	<description>Interactive Mapping Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:31:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Unknown</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7272</link>
		<dc:creator>Unknown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7272</guid>
		<description>India
Google 38kb/s
Bing 13.58 kb/s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>India<br />
Google 38kb/s<br />
Bing 13.58 kb/s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Indrit Selimi</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7138</link>
		<dc:creator>Indrit Selimi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7138</guid>
		<description>Milan, Italy
Mean value time for 7 refreshes:
Google: 127.5 ms = 125kb/s
Bing: 263.5 ms = 60,7 kb/s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Milan, Italy<br />
Mean value time for 7 refreshes:<br />
Google: 127.5 ms = 125kb/s<br />
Bing: 263.5 ms = 60,7 kb/s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RENO</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7118</link>
		<dc:creator>RENO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7118</guid>
		<description>Japan
GMaps: 100 kb/s
Bing : 169.8 kb/s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Japan<br />
GMaps: 100 kb/s<br />
Bing : 169.8 kb/s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maven</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7079</link>
		<dc:creator>Maven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7079</guid>
		<description>Oh, meant to say I&#039;m in KC, MO, running on AT&amp;T DSL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, meant to say I&#8217;m in KC, MO, running on AT&amp;T DSL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maven</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7078</link>
		<dc:creator>Maven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7078</guid>
		<description>GMaps: ~162ms = 98.8 kb/s
Bing: ~160ms = 100 kb/s
10 refreshes each

Note: Bing varied widely, much more so than Google. First result was 384 ms. second was 320 ms. third was 150 ms. most of the rest were 130-160 ms, but I had another &gt;300 ms. GMaps tended to stay right around 150-160 ms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GMaps: ~162ms = 98.8 kb/s<br />
Bing: ~160ms = 100 kb/s<br />
10 refreshes each</p>
<p>Note: Bing varied widely, much more so than Google. First result was 384 ms. second was 320 ms. third was 150 ms. most of the rest were 130-160 ms, but I had another &gt;300 ms. GMaps tended to stay right around 150-160 ms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7076</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7076</guid>
		<description>UK, via BT Internet

GMaps: Av 150.6 ms = 106.2 kb/s
Bing: Av 142.4 ms = 112.4 kb/s

5 refreshes of each:

Google: 147, 144, 137, 147, 178
Bing: 97, 82, 215, 219, 99</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UK, via BT Internet</p>
<p>GMaps: Av 150.6 ms = 106.2 kb/s<br />
Bing: Av 142.4 ms = 112.4 kb/s</p>
<p>5 refreshes of each:</p>
<p>Google: 147, 144, 137, 147, 178<br />
Bing: 97, 82, 215, 219, 99</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Norman</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7073</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Norman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7073</guid>
		<description>Thanks for you help David. I have added a bit to the blog post telling readers how to load each test without using the browser cache.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for you help David. I have added a bit to the blog post telling readers how to load each test without using the browser cache.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7070</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7070</guid>
		<description>United States
GMaps: 484ms = 33.06 kb/s
Bing: 558ms = 28.67 kb/s

NOTE: The browser cache must be cleared between tile fetches because MS is setting Etag and Last-Modified headers while Google does not. Consequently, my initial tests showed the transfer times for subsequent loads from the MS servers to be artificially low because the map tile was being loaded from the browser&#039;s cache (after receiving a 304 response from the server).

If Firebug reports &quot;1 request 16 KB (16 KB from cache) 42 ms&quot; instead of &quot;1 request 16 KB 488 ms&quot;, you should not factor that time into your average speed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>United States<br />
GMaps: 484ms = 33.06 kb/s<br />
Bing: 558ms = 28.67 kb/s</p>
<p>NOTE: The browser cache must be cleared between tile fetches because MS is setting Etag and Last-Modified headers while Google does not. Consequently, my initial tests showed the transfer times for subsequent loads from the MS servers to be artificially low because the map tile was being loaded from the browser&#8217;s cache (after receiving a 304 response from the server).</p>
<p>If Firebug reports &#8220;1 request 16 KB (16 KB from cache) 42 ms&#8221; instead of &#8220;1 request 16 KB 488 ms&#8221;, you should not factor that time into your average speed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Norman</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7069</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Norman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7069</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your feedback Andrew, I have added a section recommending users take the average of three tests.

As for needing to compare tiles at the same location and zoom level, as we are just talking about download speed the only thing that might effect results is the file size of each tile and we have made sure both are 16kb.

The time of day and ISP shouldn&#039;t matter also as long as both tests (google and bing) are conducted at almost the same time</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your feedback Andrew, I have added a section recommending users take the average of three tests.</p>
<p>As for needing to compare tiles at the same location and zoom level, as we are just talking about download speed the only thing that might effect results is the file size of each tile and we have made sure both are 16kb.</p>
<p>The time of day and ISP shouldn&#8217;t matter also as long as both tests (google and bing) are conducted at almost the same time</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/comment-page-1/#comment-7066</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/mapping-apis-google-maps-vs-bing-maps-part-3-download-sizes-and-delivery-speeds/#comment-7066</guid>
		<description>United Kingdom via BT Internet
GMaps: 17k in 63ms = 270kb/s
Bing: 17k in around 80ms = 212kb/s

Should you not be comparing tiles which show the same place and zoom level? Should you not have suggested an average of five or ten downloads? The Bing result varied wildly (slowest was 161ms). It&#039;s conceivable that download speed will vary with time of day and ISP as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>United Kingdom via BT Internet<br />
GMaps: 17k in 63ms = 270kb/s<br />
Bing: 17k in around 80ms = 212kb/s</p>
<p>Should you not be comparing tiles which show the same place and zoom level? Should you not have suggested an average of five or ten downloads? The Bing result varied wildly (slowest was 161ms). It&#8217;s conceivable that download speed will vary with time of day and ISP as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
