Exactly. There are too many web developers that just use a GUI to make their sites and don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes. I realize that people expect more out of their sites than you would probably want to hand code, but there needs to be a middle ground. This is more in reference to the web in general than epmp.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Vlad Sedov <v...@atlasok.com> wrote: > lol.. > shit code is mostly why we need gigabytes of RAM these days. > > > vlad > > > On 1/21/2015 9:42 AM, Jon Bruce wrote: > > And we only need 64k of RAM. > > > > > > > On 1/21/2015 10:30 AM, Nate Burke wrote: > > > You need big boy PCs to be on the Internet anymore > > Who's fault is this? There are sites I don't visit anymore because > they've made them so bloated they won't run (chicagotribune.com) They > provide the content, they should make sure they work for me, not the other > way around (Even though I realize that I am the eyeballs being sold) > > Just think if the whole web was as neat as the packetflux equipment is. > You'd still only need 10mb interfaces on your servers. > > > On 1/21/2015 9:21 AM, Vlad Sedov wrote: > > Oh, no doubt. I like my sea of tabs too. > > But we're talking about a radio web interface. I don't care how much RAM > your PC has, using 10x more resources to display the same stuff is a huge > waste. Consider how many lower-powered gadgets are used to manage radios.. > It has to be nimble. > > > Vlad > > On 1/21/2015 9:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > 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" <v...@atlasok.com> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','v...@atlasok.com');> > *To: *af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *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 <n...@blastcomm.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','n...@blastcomm.com');>> 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','v...@atlasok.com');> >> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> >> *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 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
