Comments on: Photo hosting: Zooomr or Picasaweb albums?

By: Ollie Treend

Ollie Treend — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:07:36 +0000

I have been a long term user of Zooomr. In my opinion, it always has had a lot more to offer against Flickr. Not only has it always offered unlimited photo storage, but it also tends to have more mod-cons than the Flickr alternative… for example I'm pretty sure geo-tagging was first seen in Zooomr, and then Flickr incorporated it into their system following that.

However, unlimited photo storage must come at a cost – if not monetary, what is it? I think that cost is speed. Since I've been spoiled by fast web services such as Gmail, YouTube, Facebook and Flickr, Zooomr just seems painfully slow to load… pages sometimes take well over a minute to load. That's just wrong!!

I'm not sure what the bottleneck for Zooomr is. I'm guessing it might be processing power more than bandwidth, since it's hosted in a pretty nice server rack in Japan.

But despite the speed problems, I'll still stick with Zooomr. My two cents.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:22:06 +0000

Try www.onedump.com thats much better image host than imageshack!

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:24:04 +0000

I am personally using Zooomr because it has unlimited storage, bandwidth, and image resolution uploading.

To create albums, or sets, build a smartset. Customise the tags of the photos you want to include, then under owner, add your account name.

By: Ederic

Ederic — Thu, 10 May 2007 21:36:17 +0000

Picasa ka na lang, para centralized sa Google ang services mo. Hehe. :p

By: thess

thess — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:00:17 +0000

sorry 'can't help u w/ Zoomr …but I wish you find what you're looking for.