








Your rating: Now say why...



| Downloads:5,307 |
| Version Downloads:255 |
| Type:Internet : Internet Utilities |
| License:Shareware |
| Date:18 Oct 2011 |
| Platform:PPC / Intel |
| Price: $49.95 |
Overall (Version 2.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
-1
+9
Roddy-Mckay reviewed on 23 Aug 2011
If you are new to optimization this app should be at the top of your list as there is an almost zero learning curve. Its performance and features have improved enormously since its introduction and I don’t think anybody would be disappointed with the results.
Web surfers are impatient people and won’t wait for your sluggish files to download.
Google Webmasters says, “Monitor your site's performance and optimize load times. Google's goal is to provide users with the most relevant results and a great user experience. Fast sites increase user satisfaction and improve the overall quality of the web (especially for those users with slow Internet connections), and we hope that as webmasters improve their sites, the overall speed of the web will improve.”
I think this latest version with its new features and ease of use deserves 5 stars.
+1
-8
Anything to do with purchased or Demo version?
-1
+4
http://www.ragesw.com/support/
Must be something strange going on.
Jamie Kelley reviewed on 02 Mar 2009
This is an outstanding product and their service quality and support is nothing short of excellent. I needed some assistance with tweaking my preferences and the support was immediate and effective.
WebCrusher is brilliant. I encourage any web developers interested in optimizing their website downloads to purchase this product.
Jamie Kelley
+9
Roddy-Mckay reviewed on 12 Nov 2008
The developers need to do a lot of work and lower the price to make it viable.
-1
+4
What kind of work do we have to do in order to make WebCrusher meet your standards? Feel free to email us using the form at http://www.ragesw.com/support/ and we would be happy to discuss features for an upcoming release.
+9
http://www.tonbrand.nl/wsmmactest.htm
-1
+4
Please keep in mind, this is an extremely biased test for the following reasons;
1) The web site is a fictional site created by the developer of a competing product. They have created a test website that is best suited for the strengths of their software. I just did a quick test by enabling the SAME options that HTML Optimizer enables by default in WebCrusher and it knocked the socks off some of its optimizations. For example lotto_chances.html saved 58.43%, almost 3 TIMES what THEIR software did for THEIR OWN test site. And I didn't even enabled all of WebCrusher's optimizations!
When I changed the settings for the red_cyclamens.jpg I was able to save 81.42%.
2) If you look at our optimization options in the Preferences you will see that we have many more optimization techniques then HTML Optimizer. We have some not found even on Optimizers made for Windows. And WebCrusher has ONLY been around for 3 months, whereas HTML Optimizer has been around for 10+ years according their website. Just wait to see what we have coming up!
3) Their PNG optimization, which takes up the balk of their savings of THEIR test site DOES NOT WORK WITH MASKED PNG FILES. This is extremely important here, PNG FILES ARE MOST USEFUL WHEN USING A MASK. JPEGS are almost always smaller than PNG files so if your image does not need a MASK and you are trying to reduce file size, a JPEG is what you need. This pretty much makes their PNG optimizers useless in the real world, except of course for their test sites.
I am not hear to bash a competitor, just to let current and future users know how powerful WebCrusher is and to provide them with a fair comparison. Do not be afraid to play with the Preferences, there are plenty of options.
So I urge you to try both products, using the Preferences BEST SUITED for your website and see which one comes out better. If you have a site that can be optimized better in a competitors product, Windows or Mac, feel free to send it to me at http://www.ragesw.com/support/ and I will make sure we beat it for the next release.
I am looking into the Reports bug that they claim to have found on their site. However I am getting the right numbers here. So I am not sure if this is a problem with specific set ups, but I assure we will get this fixed as soon as possible. We do not intend to mislead people, especially with something that can so easily be recognized by comparing the Report to the main window.
+1
+4
I was using some settings of a yet to be released version. I just wanted to point this out to avoid confusion.
However my point about the website being biased still stands.
We are working on a comparison of our own.
Also to address the Reports bug issue we have fixed this for the next release. It adds half the optimized size to the Final report ON THE FIRST OPTIMIZATION OF A WEBSITE only. We will release a bug fixed version very soon. I apologize for the confusion.