The image will load faster if you include the width and height, as in reply #31.
Um, no it won't.
It'll load at exactly the same speed either way.
However, without it people using Netscape will not be able to see anything that appears below the image on the page until it at least receives enough of the image file to get the image header which contains the image's height and width, so the page will *seem* to load faster if you pre-specify the size of the image.
This is because Netscape is brain-damaged. I program for a living -- the Netscape programmers must have been on heavy drugs to design it the way they did.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand, will show the entire page immediately even before it gets any image headers, by leaving a bit of space for the image to eventually be put in, and if the image turns out larger than IE's guess, it instantly shuffles the page arrangement around to make room. This makes perfect sense, and I don't know why Netscape still does page loading the stone-aged way.
I positively hate this behavior of Netscape (having to wait for the images to show up before it'll even show me the text on the page is insane, unnecessary, and annoying as hell), and I'll never even consider using Netscape again unless they fix it.