oh one other thing I was thinking maybe you need more info for helping me so there is another screenshot with more details on that page:
http://s13.postimage.org/3qzvu4pfb/ewww2.png
Thanks!
waiting for it to work and rate 5 star 😛
Well, as it is, you can already use it for JPGs. If you don’t have any PNG or GIF images to optimize, you can just turn off optipng and gifsicle and go on your merry way. For the next release, I’m going to try and compile 64-bit binaries for everything, as lots of people seem to be having trouble on 64-bit machines.
thanks for the very quick reply,
even when I tried before to just run the program,
and also now after I did disable optipng and gifsicle
it gives me the same results..
this is what i see no matter what pics i chose and how much
its the same for all images no matter if they are jpg or not..
http://s17.postimage.org/yno7iy2wv/7u7u7u.png
If the plugin was installed when you uploaded the images, they would be optimized on upload. If you run the bulk optimize on images that have already been optimized, you will see No savings, just like your screenshots show.
Re-optimized images show only the savings on that run, not a cumulative savings.
By way of example, if you optimize a jpeg from 300K to 270K, the first time it would show 30K of savings. If you tried to re-optimize it, it would show ‘No Savings’.
sorry but no dude i tried on old pics that was uploaded 4-5 months ago like 15 pics i tried and same results…
oh and also it won’t work for png files even if we get this to work because i don’t understand how to install optipng witch is more relevant for me because most of my pics are png…
revisiting this issue, and the likely reason that you can’t run optipng or gifsicle is that your system is missing the ‘file’ command. This is a low level utility that is used for determining file-type/mime-type, and is used to verify the integrity of the bundled versions of optipng and gifsicle. Install that, and you should be well on your way.
Regarding the jpgs that don’t seem to optimize, it depends a lot of if they were edited, and what you used for the editing.
If they are straight from a camera, you ought to see some savings, if not, your editor might be optimizing them pretty well already. If you can post a link of an image that you were talking about, I will try to run it on my test site and see if I can squeeze any more out of it.
