True enough - CPU performance seems to make a difference, for those of us who are going to be picky about details. :P
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > Clockspeed != CPU performance. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > *To: *"af" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:29:01 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant> > > Yes... saying just get a faster laptop would all be fine and all if there > was a good reason for it, but it's doing exactly the same function as the > canopy interface, which works fine on... anything. > > Clock speed does seem to make a difference, on my Core 2 toughbook, it > seems to be around 10 seconds. > > The current interface is definitely a huge improvement from the > monstrosity that they started out with, but there's still plenty of room > for improvement. > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected] > > 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]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
