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" mailto: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
