<?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>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:54:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dyego</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-8022</link>
		<dc:creator>Dyego</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:54:29 +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-8022</guid>
		<description>Brasil 41.3 KB 3.12s
Google 185.8 KB 3.11s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brasil 41.3 KB 3.12s<br />
Google 185.8 KB 3.11s</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jones</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-7946</link>
		<dc:creator>jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2011 06:48:38 +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-7946</guid>
		<description>I prefer bing, it&#039;s better, smoother, faster more user friendly and that&#039;s why people are switching to use bing maps instead of google maps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I prefer bing, it&#8217;s better, smoother, faster more user friendly and that&#8217;s why people are switching to use bing maps instead of google maps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<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>
</channel>
</rss>

