I used to have an FTP portion of my HTTP site because I thought it was so much easier to update when all you wantd to do was dump files for people to download.

What I had on it was scanned and digital photos of some plays. I'd take some shots at rehearsal and they'd be available for the kids to download that night. Real easy for me. I also thought it was real obvious what to do on their end.

However, I was amazed at how many people were confused as to what to do to save / view the jpgs on the FTP site. I finally gave up on it and now always create an HTTP page with thumbnails. It is a whole lot nicer looking, but it obviously takes more time on my end to set up.

Now as for your speed question. I have not done any kind of benchmark, but I think I know the answer. There should be no difference. The slowest part of the whole process is the actual transmittal speed over the internet. For example, even the fast server in the world is slow to the visitor if their connection is slow.

So, this also means that any differences between the overhead of HTTP or FTP on the server is not an issue because the connect speed (even the fastest) is so much slower in comparison. I know what I mean, but I'm not sure it came across. Let me know if I need to explain some more.


>>HTTP relies on its standard thus you can't add specific FTP commands in the URL such as passing the username and the password. This is one difference.
>
>Thanks. Actually, I meant advantages for the end-user - that is me - if the server (e.g., www.OpenOffice.org) supplies both options. Do you think FTP would result in a faster download?
>
>Hilmar.