I thought divs were faster than tables?

[Funya Chin]

It all depends, it's not like it's set in stone.

Whatever the whether, tables that don't hold tabular data have no respect on the internet.

[iUnknown]

The divs coding may load faster, but images in them as backgrounds load slower than images in tables. That's my point here

[craigg.]

If you want to take your theory and make it evidence, i suggest you make two pages: one holding one div with a background and another page with a table holding a background. Then, add a php script which catches the load time and then see which one loads faster. There are loads of variables which would mess up your results but it would be interesting to see if you are right.

To be honest, div's and tables are equally efficient if used effectively. Using tables to create a whole website is just a no-no. Tables in holding data is more efficient. There is no law to how you code yet it is good practice to code efficiently.

[cunning]

Yeah its exactly the same for me, normaly.

Same also.

[iUnknown]

I don't think your method of testing this would work because it only takes longer to show the images afterwards. The page appears to have fully loaded and a PHP code at the end of the coding would identify it as ending earlier than the time it has taken for the images to show.

[craigg.]

Ahhh! true true. How about making two pages and then compare the file sizes? That should give an indication.

[Source]

no, after all it is only text... so they would be the same size most likely. The only real way to test it to use firebug and see how long the page takes to load and render in firefox.

[iUnknown]

Whats firefox? Will that work? Basically... the loading bar is complete but the images aren't quite ready yet. I don't think any software can really detect something like that.

[Decode]

You could put some javascript at the top of the page to start a timer, then stop it at the bottom of your page.

[Invent]

Images have nothing to do with if divs are faster than tables.