Download WebCrusher for Mac - One-click website optimization. MacUpdate Mac Internet Utilities Software Downloads

RAGE WebCrusher offers one-click website optimization, reducing the time it takes for your website to load in your customer's web browser. Create your web site any way you like then run it through RAGE WebCrusher and publish it to your web server. In less than 5 minutes you will have a faster loading web site with absolutely no additional work on your part.

RAGE WebCrusher reduces the size of your image files as well as your web page code. Whether you built your website with iWeb, Rapidweaver, Dreamweaver or RAGE WebDesign, RAGE WebCrusher can ensure your website loads as fast as possible for your customers.

Version 1.6:

[NEW] Only optimizes modified files for faster optimizations
[NEW] Improved MobileMe publishing now publishes your website faster to MobileMe
[NEW] Improved Snow Leopard support
[FIX] Fixed an occasional crash when comparing original and optimized web pages

OTHER PEOPLE SUGGEST

No similar products suggested yet

Suggest something else:

JAMIE KELLEY I have now successfully employed WebCrusher on 4 of my last site builds. I create websites that are heavy in visual content and although I reduce all jpgs and pngs in Photoshop, WebCrusher's algorithms smash these photos without any loss of integrity so that I am getting downloads 60-80% faster.

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
(Version 1.5)

DAVY SUMMER WebCrusher produces a final optimization report that shows a 'Saved' percentage practically twice as large as the real percentage!

When you optimize your website folder, WebCrusher first produces a report showing the Original Size and the Optimized Size of your files, plus a 'Saved' Percentage.

index.html, orig. size 3775 bytes, opt. size 3512 bytes, 6.97%

image.png, orig. size 148006 bytes, opt. size 145748 bytes, 1.53%

style.css, orig. size 1087 bytes, opt. size 910 bytes, 16.28%

However, the final optimization report mentions in the Details section:

index.html, orig. size 4038 bytes, opt. size 3512 bytes, 13.03%

image.png, orig. size 150264 bytes, opt. size 145748 bytes, 3.01%

style.css, orig. size 1264 bytes, opt. size 910 bytes, 28.01%

By a magic touch the original sizes (!) have been increased, so that the 'Saved' percentage becomes almost twice its real value.

Didn't the people from WebCrusher detect this error?

By the way, the program's performance is 10 times slower than its competitors Web Site Maestro and HTML-Optimizer Plus.
(Version 1.2)

Replies:

Nov 13 2008

PLEVINE I just tested this again and it reports everything correctly. If you are seeing this issue, please feel free to send your website folder to us using the form at http://www.ragesw.com/support/

If this really is happening to you, and any other users, we will fix this ASAP. However, everything is reported correctly for me on multiple machines with multiple website folders.
(Version 1.2)

RODDY MCKAY WebCrusher is a very simple application to use with very little effort. However, its performance, speed and and price don't give it much chance to compete with its main competitors, Web Site Maestro and HTML Optimizer Pro.

The developers need to do a lot of work and lower the price to make it viable.

Replies:

Nov 13 2008

PLEVINE Hi Roddy,

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.
(Version 1.2)

Nov 14 2008

RODDY MCKAY You need to look at the comparison chart to see what improvements have to be made to catch up with the opposition....

http://www.tonbrand.nl/wsmmactest.htm
(Version 1.2)

Nov 14 2008

PLEVINE Hi Roddy,

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.
(Version 1.2)

Nov 14 2008

PLEVINE I just wanted to correct something in my previous post, the optimization done to lotto_chances.html was not as significant as I previously posted. It was comparable to what HTML Optimizer compresses.

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.
(Version 1.2)

SJSW I've been using this for several months at this point and have found it to be a very useful utility, it does exactly what it says and does it very well. Highly recommended for faster page loads and saving bandwith.
(Version 1.2)