SG200, IE8, Win7, no go

[Brian Bergin]

So as with pretty much every other recent Cisco device with this new GUI, IE8 in native mode (not compatibility mode) simply has problems with these devices.  SA500's and ESW's and RV0x2's are often unreadable because of the colour gradients (I've posted several screen shots of this problem).  All are dog slow when accessed remotely or via RDP session and now the SG200 shows me a blank gray screen until I do one of two things, either I put IE 8 in compatibility mode or I resize the IE window.  I see this on all our Win7 x64 machines (this is IE8 32-bit).

Honestly, think about it this way.  Cisco is the #1 Internet router provider.  I'm not talking about SA500's or RV082 type routers, though I'm sure they're right there too, I'm talking about big iron for routing Internet traffic from one ISP to another.  Now, if Intel or Broadcom were to make a NIC that would not pass traffic to a Cisco router how many folks would be up in arms?  Come on Cisco, go back to the drawing board, remove all the fluff and junk from the GUI, if it serves no functional purpose then it needs to go, and clean it up so it work 100% of the time.  IE has ~60% of the market which means if you add up all the rest of the browsers IE still has 50% more market share then everyone else combined!

I know these beta teams didn't design this new GUI, but surely someone knows who did.  There's just no rhyme or reason to not work with the biggest vendor and then if Firefox and the other minority players work with it then great, but until you provide 100% support for IE you are creating problems for your customers and your tech support folks.

[Brian Bergin]

Sorry just saw Kurt's post on this.  I'm able to repro it every time if I'm not in compat mode. BTW, Chrome is able to log in and show me the main screen but going ot screens like User Accounts it also only shows me a gray box (and there's no compat mode for Chrome).  Firefox seems to work fine.

[Kurt Schumacher]

No problem!

The key message is even harder: It's simply ridiculous and incredible to see two very similar products like the Sx 200 and the Sx 300 dod not make use 100% the same Web UI code. Isn't that all done under the "Nikola" project, and all by one OEM (==DNI)?

Somehow, this is an industry problem. Here another Web UI designer or implementation engineer has attempted to implement the same style.

In my opinion, that should not be required! In the year 2010, the effective application (a industry standard Ethernet switch silicon, very likely Broadcom, probably expanded with very few specific Cisco feature like CDP) is running mostly independent of what the service core (typically a MIPS or ARM core, running on eCos) has to handle.

There is no other explanation, why we have an nice "System Summary" with an impressing good "TCP and UDP Services Table" on the lowest Web managed switch level - something that would be perfect on a RV0xx (!!!), but does neither exist there, nor on the Sx 300 Series: No plan, poor structuring, ...  Still, Cisco SB is on a single shoot and forget channel, instead of creating a unique user experience over many different product lines.

-Kurt.

[ddiep]

>There is no other  explanation, why we have an nice "System Summary" with an impressing  good "TCP and UDP Services Table" on the lowest Web managed switch level  - something that would be perfect on a RV0xx (!!!), but does neither  exist there, nor on the Sx 300 Series: No plan, poor structuring, ..

Thanks for pointing this out. Definitely we need to be more consistence in gui layout and information display.

[Brian Bergin]

My problem with it is the "unique user experience" is actually a uniquely BAD user experience and it's becoming pretty clear to me that there's very little undestanding on what business owners want or need.  While, for example, an ASA's GUI - ASDM - is very rough around the edges, it's fully functional, with few if any of the compatiablity problems this GUI has and is blazing fast even over a remote or RDP connection.  Has anyone at Cisco tried to manage an ESW, RV0xx v3, Sx300 or SG200 over a RDP connection at say 3Mb/sec (ADSL speeds)?  Based on what I see it's pretty clear the answer can't be yes.

IMHO, Cisco has failed to understand that until the small biz management teams ask themselves for every product they make, 'would this be acceptable with our enterprise customers if we delivered (insert product or functionality here) in the way we've designed it?' and that if the answer is No then they don't do it.  My list is growing by the day of problems that need addressed if Cisco is to really thrive in the small biz market and not just exist.

Don't get me wrong, reliablity wise you can do no wrong with Cisco small biz products, but their design and implementation create too many problems after the sale.

[Kurt Schumacher]

More Web UI fun:

Click to the Cisco logo on the left top side of the Web UI:

Sx 200: opens www.cisco.com in the very same browser window

Sx 300: opens www.cisco.com in a pop-up (one more...!)

I don't think this is the appropriate place for marketing!

[Brian Bergin]

100% agree. It's like car dealers who plaster their logos on the tail end of a car they just sold.  They always remove it after I tell them there will be a $100/month advertising fee to leave it on my new car ;-).  If Cisco wants to advertise on a paid-for product then they need to pay the billboard owner.  Hmmm.... that's a new idea, ad-driven hardware.  I've never seen that done, but I have plenty of ad-driven software and that's fine with me.

IMHO, that link, if it's to remain, must go to the support page for the specific device NOT to Cisco's generic web site that half works some of the time (I find that 1/3 or more of links provided by Cisco's search option are broken or moved links and their HTML code isn't smart enough to just redirect to the new page -AND- their search engine isn't smart enough to update pages to their new links and to stop serving up the old ones.  It's like no other major vendor's site.  If MS had as many broken or redirected links they'd be the butt of even more jokes.

[ddiep]

>Sx 200: opens www.cisco.com in the very same browser window

>Sx 300: opens www.cisco.com in a pop-up (one more...!)

>I don't think this is the appropriate place for marketing!

I'm not sure what to make of this, but definitely will relay your message.

>IMHO, that link, if it's to remain, must go to the support page for the  specific device NOT to Cisco's generic web site that half works some of  the time

I also like this idea. Will send your suggestion to the team.

Thanks!

[ddiep]

>So as with pretty much every other recent Cisco device with this new  GUI, IE8 in native mode (not compatibility mode) simply has problems  with these devices.  SA500's and ESW's and RV0x2's are often unreadable  because of the colour gradients (I've posted several screen shots of  this problem). All are dog slow when accessed remotely or via RDP session

I understand your concern. I, too, use Remote Desktop alot and notice same problem. I've already mentioned your concern in RV0xx forum and will do again here for Sx200 (although these are managed from different teams).

> now the SG200 shows me a blank gray screen until I do one of two  things, either I put IE 8 in compatibility mode or I resize the IE  window

This is a known problem and engineering team is still working on the fix.

[Brian Bergin]

Don,

The only fix is to remove all the fluffy background graphics that server absolutely no purpose.  They're like pin stripes on a new car.  They might look good when you buy it, but after a few months you realize they're much more of a pain than they're worth when you have to use a tooth brush to remove wax buildup.  Whatever team designed the new GUI should be required to run using a 384k upstream DSL connection for 6 months.  When everything they fix their code to run as fast as the RV082 v1 & v2 units do in RDP mode today they can call what they've designed a success.  Right now what they've designed show they're clueless about performance and functionality.  At the very least we need a check box that says "Low Graphics Mode".  That should be a very simple fix, but honestly I'm not holding my breath.  Once Cisco gets its focus on something it often takes years to fix all the while Partners and end users suffer.

[kspharler]

I have a little to add to this.

Using Win7x64, IE8x32, NOT in RDP, this happens when I am connected to the switch locally:

  If I click on the 'Getting Started' menu entry (at the top of the menu list on the left-hand side of the GUI), the page goes grey and it never displays.  If I click on this in Chrome (dev branch), I am taken to the Getting Started page without issue.  From the grey page in IE8, if I click on any other link in the menu, I will be taken there without a problem.  I believe the Getting Started page is what is displayed when you first log in, and IE8 shows it at that point without any problem.

[gherul]

I agree with this issue on Win7+IE8 for this product. GUI is very slow when try to use during 1st time setup. Also, if device is rebooted, it doesn't save any user ID beside default Admin ID. Not sure if I am doing something or device it self even I save settings before reboot.

[ddiep]

Gherul,

First of all, welcome to the forum!

Since you're here locally (RCDN), try to bring the unit w/ you and I'll help you to upgrade the firmware if you havenot done that already (ping me).

If you're already upgraded fw, please elaborate what slowness did you see during 1st setup.

Last but not least, after changing the config, there is a tiny *save* should be appeared on top of the screen (yep, famous tiny save button and everyone is having issue w/ that :-)). Click on save button to save your config before reboot.

Regards,

ddiep