Our standard browser is IE8 and a lot of the IT folks have Firefox 4 as well. We are on 7.6.04 (no patch) and there are some odd things going on with Firefox. I think these things are supposed to be addressed in the patch. Firefox does work faster but I guess the word is "unstable." Some of our users were still on IE6 and noticed that when they Shift+Click, the browser crashed... especially on the Contracts Management Console. I know IE6 is not supported so I'll chalk it up to that. I think a 4 second response time is OK for opening up new forms so we can live with that. Saves and Modifies are sub 2 seconds so that is good as well.
-----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Peter Romain Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 9:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: midtier itsm screen load times average time It would be interesting to hear which browsers you are using. I my somewhat limited experience I see later IE versions performing better then earlier and Firefox performing better than IE. One thing I found annoying was a jitter every minute as something refreshed in the background. > I agree with Stephen. We actually did not plan for the complaints we got > from our users when we switched from the User tool to the web. We did let > them know that we were EOL'ing the User Tool but did not explain the > "performance impact." They did complain about the 4-5 second "wait" time > on forms loading but the other main complaint was the loading of the > consoles where the table queries can be quite large. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Stephen > Earl > Sent: Mon 6/20/2011 8:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: midtier itsm screen load times average time > > We found in our project that the shift from User Tool (thick client) to > the > Mid-Tier as the primary interface is very hard for users to digest, and we > see approx. 4 - 5 second render times for screens, it's not that this is > 'slow' it's just that the switch from UT to MT is something users have to > get used to. > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:59, patchsk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, did your users also complained 4 sec as very slow, or it is >> just our users not yet able to digest the shift from a thick client >> based remedy to browser based. >> We are using best practice view, to me it should be a lot faster than >> classic view because it has lot less fields on the view compared to a >> classic view, so the rendering time should be much more less after an >> initial caching. >> >> On Jun 19, 6:52 am, "Chowdhury, Tauf" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > We're on 7.6.04 and seeing similar times but we are on Classic View so >> it >> you can add a second for the redirect. The consoles really depend on how >> many requests are in the queue upon loading and what the default filter >> settings are. Ours are set to not show closed requests and then it's >> really >> up to the user. >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ********************************************************************** > This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. > proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to > copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or > action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail > is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this > e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently > delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" ********************************************************************** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
