I routinely have over 8 gigs of RAM chewed up by my browsers,
sometimes almost 14 GB... You need big boy PCs to be on the Internet
anymore. ;-)
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Vlad Sedov" <[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:15:24 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant>
I just did a quick memory usage test on our NMS box...
Firefox (google.com): 76MB in RAM
Firefox with Canopy 450 AP interface open, logged in: 84.5MB.. a gain
of less than 10MB of RAM usage.
Firefox with ePMP AP open, logged in: *170-185MB* in RAM. over 100MB
RAM usage, to display the same stuff. Why?
IE (google.com): 64MB in RAM
IE with Canopy 450 AP interface open: 53MB (less than google!)
IE with ePMP AP interface open: *138MB*
Similar results with Chrome.. About 75MB difference.
eh.
vlad
On 1/21/2015 8:56 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
Not sure what it is, but in my case, the Machine did make a
difference in load time. Be interested in others feedback as
well. Do you see similar results? Are my results bad? Do
older/slower machines take longer?
On 1/21/2015 8:52 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND NUMBERS,
why should it need an i7 on the client side for that?
No shit.
So you're saying it's clock speed? I've no idea what my
phone does but I would be kind of surprised if the Galaxy S3
and my phone vary too much in CPU (I think they're both 2013
products).
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Nate Burke
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Just to sorta provide some more data from the original
Thread, it seems that CPU Makes a huge difference in how
fast the pages load.� I ran a test from the office to
the same EPMP radio using 3 different machines.
On my 6 core I7 Desktop.� Initial web load takes 4-5
seconds.� And login takes another 4-5 seconds.
On an old Dualcore Xeon, it's 10 seconds for initial
load, and 10 seconds to login
On my atom netbook, it was 20 seconds for initial Load,
10 seconds to login, and another 10 seconds for the graph
to display and all the red '!' marks to disappear (they
were on all left menu items)
I know people just said 'well just get a faster laptop'.
But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND
NUMBERS, why should it need an i7 on the client side for
that?
On 1/21/2015 8:34 AM, Vlad Sedov wrote:
Yes they did, and it was definitely for the better.
Most of the improvements were based on some sort of
real world feedback.. That's how you make a good UI :D
vlad
On 1/21/2015 1:29 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
�
I do recall they did completely redesign the
interface, due to our request, after the initial
complaints of v1....� : /
�
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Vlad Sedov <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:15 AM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System
Specs <rant>
This has been one of our biggest complaints
from day one.
The interface, while it has gotten slightly
more usable, is still
complete garbage. It's unpredictable, slow,
and inconsistent.. Let alone
the features that just don't work.
Why on earth did they not just stick with a
field-tested, fast, usable
interface from the Canopy line? Nobody buys a
radio for it's slide-out
menus and pretty HTML5 crap.
We need, fast, intuitive, consistent.. Forget
the shiny.
grr
Vlad
On 1/20/2015 10:57 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
> Ok, Cambium, this is a little sad.� My
Field Laptop, a Lenovo S10-3t,
> Atom Processor with Windows 8.1 cannot load
the EPMP WEB Pages in a
> timely manner.� We're talking 40-60
seconds for initial load, and
> 20-30 seconds per screen refresh/menu
change.� Since I'm going to have
> to go to the boss, and tell him that I need
a new laptop to do any
> field troubleshooting for these new radios,
what are the minimum
> system specs for a machine to view the EPMP
Screens?� Unless Cambium
> is going to get their Web interface under
control as of Yesterday.
>
> They still swear that the GUI was all
developed in house and not
> purchased (something I still can't
believe).� I'd like to know who the
> engineers/managers are who signed off on
that design.� I can only
> imaging that there was a group of guys
sitting around the conference
> table, watching the presentation on the GUI
on the projector up front,
> all nodding their heads in agreement, "I
think this is a wonderful
> layout, the field tech's won't mind waiting
a couple extra minutes for
> the pages to load so they can look this
pretty!!"
>
> I think that Cambium should step up and get
engineers from ALL aspects
> of product development out into the
field.� 40 seconds waiting for the
> page to load is fine when you're sitting in
the office, but not when
> you have the laptop balanced on a stack of
firewood in the freezing
> rain trying to get to the monitoring page
to see why a radio isn't
> linking up.� I think that every WISP on
this list would be more than
> happy to host an engineer for a day. Heck,
even if they go into the
> parking lot and assemble it on the tailgate
of someone's Pickup,
> they'll get some idea of what we experience.
>
> I have a feeling that if all steps of the
Dev process took a week in
> the field, We'd have a radio that had a GUI
that responded instantly
> on any device, and radios that assembled
and mounted (and unmounted)
> with 1 gloved hand.
>
> </rant>
> Nate
