I'll keep this brief for Saddle.
Oh, no worries, I thought it was just my computer. Honestly, they
shouldn't take that long (I write this type of code for a living) but it is what it is. I noticed that JPEGs also take a long time - even if they shouldn't either. I'd thought that posting high res images around 2560 pixels wide would be nice for everyone for the extra detail, but if my uploads take years for everyone to download (crappy web software!) I can change to posting 1600 pixel wide less detailed images instead. Do people want the extra detail of 2560 wide or less and a faster load time at 1600 wide?
There are other factors as well past PNG vs. JPEG. I'll run tests tomorrow to see what exactly is making image display suck ass, so it can suck less ass. PNG decompression seems to be part of it (shouldn't be!), total pic dimensions and file size also seem to affect display. I'll find out.
Now, I do have a JPEG conversion tool I wrote to tinyify files and then optimize even more. I'll update that for image files specifically to be uploaded here once I find out the multiple causes of suckage. If anyone here uses a Crapintosh and wants to use it, I'll give it to y'all for free. It basically spits out converted JPEGs at multiple compression rates and then optimizes them to make them even smaller. Then you can upload the one you like the best. I'll add extras to make sure they are below the suck factors.
FYI, PNG files are just batches of zipped chunks of image data. Code to unzip zipped data has been super
super fast for ages - 30 years+ - so it shouldn't be even close to near this bad. Unless it…

- it's not compiled as Jesus intended but stuid slow ass python or javascript - mother effer. OK. I know what part of it is. Craaaaap. Total morons (website devs). I'll sort it out.
Cheers!