I remember working on an old Data General multi-user basic system. Sure, it was only running a basic interpreter, but it supported 4 simultaneous users in a TOTAL of 16 KB of memory (core memory at that)...

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 1/21/2015 7:42 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>
*To: *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 <mailto: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 <mailto:v...@atlasok.com>
                        *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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











Reply via email to