New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As Classic

LettuceNotes · 31 Dec 2009, 01:23 PM

I read on the website that "The new Webmail is better, faster, and more intuitive than the old version..."

But I don't think so........

I don't know which version ( AJAX or the regular version of 5 ) but whichever this link http://beta.runbox.com/mail?version=new takes you to is not ready for prime time.

I don't like it.

It is not as smooth or as fast as the current classic runbox website....plus it screwed up the order of my folders.

I tried to get into my spam folder and it wouldn't let me.

I would like Runbox to keep up to date but perhaps take the Beta back to the drawing board.......I am using 3 gigs of Ram with Firefox with both XP and Win 7.

Just wanted to voice my disappointment.

Aloha from Hawaii!!

Robert

digp · 1 Jan 2010, 01:11 AM

Runbox seems to be having a lot of problems.

kservik · 1 Jan 2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettuceNotes

It is not as smooth or as fast as the current classic runbox website....plus it screwed up the order of my folders.

I tried to get into my spam folder and it wouldn't let me.

Aloha from Hawaii!!

Robert

What we have done in the new version is to put the System Folders (Inbox, Drafts, Spam, Trash) on the top and most people find this much more logical.

Regarding your issue with the Spam folder: Could you try to enter it one more time? If it persists, then open a Support Ticket and we will have a look at it.

Regarding your speed problems: Could you try doing a full refresh? Click CTRL+F5.

We will doa lot more optimizing in the time to come and we are very interested in solving any speed issues that people have.

Kim

bipbop · 4 Jan 2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kservik

We will doa lot more optimizing in the time to come and we are very interested in solving any speed issues that people have.

Kim

Do you have a timetable for when the new Runbox 5 will come out of beta? I appreciate the new autosave function when composing mails. That is a big improvement, IMO.

Geir · 4 Jan 2010, 08:16 PM

We have had a few complaints of slowness in Runbox 5 Enhanced, but most users have no problems with it and we have thus far not been able to reproduce the problem here.

It would be very interesting to know if Runbox 5 Enhanced (AJAX version) also responds slowly (and/or uses excessive memory on your system) in a browser other than Firefox.

At any time you can disable the AJAX functionality and get a more "classic" behavior by clicking the "Switch to Runbox 5 Basic" button at the bottom left of your Webmail screen (or by using this direct link: https://beta.runbox.com/mail/list?version=old).

We will of course continue improving and tuning Runbox 5, and appreciate your feedback in this process.

For more information about the new functionality in Runbox 5, see http://doc.runbox.com/twiki/bin/view/RunboxHelp/RMM5.

- Geir

ghdavis · 26 Jan 2010, 01:42 AM

I totally agree... wish I were in Hawaii... LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettuceNotes

I read on the website that "The new Webmail is better, faster, and more intuitive than the old version..."

But I don't think so........

I don't know which version ( AJAX or the regular version of 5 ) but whichever this link http://beta.runbox.com/mail?version=new takes you to is not ready for prime time.

I don't like it.

It is not as smooth or as fast as the current classic runbox website....plus it screwed up the order of my folders.

I tried to get into my spam folder and it wouldn't let me.

I would like Runbox to keep up to date but perhaps take the Beta back to the drawing board.......I am using 3 gigs of Ram with Firefox with both XP and Win 7.

Just wanted to voice my disappointment.

Aloha from Hawaii!!

Robert

nanook · 27 Jan 2010, 05:16 AM

>>>We have had a few complaints of slowness in Runbox 5 Enhanced, but most users have no problems with it and we have thus far not been able to reproduce the problem here.<<<

Geir: With all due respect, this is the exact sentence I received (a form letter?) when filing a support ticket recently about speed/display problems with Beta 5. There was no real assurance that Runbox was taking the issue seriously. Questions:

1. I have some sense that the way Beta works is to hold all screen elements in buffer(s) during the download process to the client, prior to painting the whole screen, versus painting the screen more quickly in chunks as occurs with Classic 4 (and presumably Basic 5). While not as elegant, at least painting in chunks assures the user that the connection is working. Thus to the user out there on the Internet, this "hold before paint" would seem longer - slower - than using Classic 4. And this problem would be exacerbated by any greater element(s) size or complexity in the Beta build. Comments on any of these suppositions?

2. With the above potential screen paint delay concept in mind (if true)..... Since your tech staff is likely working in a lab, on a local and presumably fast network, you might not be able to test or notice (at least visually) the effects of Beta "hold before paint" that are more pronounced with the typical Internet latency. Comments?

I could be completely mistaken here. Apologies to all if I'm missing something important. But clearly, there is an issue with Beta 5 for some users, and most of us are reporting this in concert with reasonably fast computers, appropriate amount of RAM, etc.

Thanks, Geir.

Geir · 27 Jan 2010, 10:18 AM

nanook,

Thanks for the detailed comments/questions you've provided.

The responses you have received were similar because that's precisely what the situation is -- we have looked into it but thus far not been able to reproduce the problem. Apparently most users are not experiencing any slowness, and (assuming you're located in the US) I have personally used RMM5 extensively from the East Coast without any noticeable slowness.

This does not in any way imply that the problem isn't very real for you and other users, but it's difficult for our developers to resolve it without being able to reproduce it in a controlled, monitored environment.

I will forward your comments to our development team that will be better able to respond to your technical questions. And if you're able to produce any data that might shed light on the situation this would be much appreciated -- i.e. ping statistics and CPU/memory usage on your system (while experiencing the slowness).

- Geir

kservik · 27 Jan 2010, 02:28 PM

Nanook: If you are interested and have the time in finding the problem with RMM5, then it would be really helpful if you could install Speed Tracer: http://code.google.com/intl/nb/webto...t-started.html

When you have data that shows the slowness, you can send the file to us at beta / runbox / com.

Anyone else that that want to contribute, can do the same!

Kim

nanook · 28 Jan 2010, 04:38 PM

Kim:

re: forwarding Speed Tracer results to "beta / runbox / com" - can you provide better contact info? i.e., should it go to the support dot runbox dot com site (ticket) or somewhere else?

Another observation: I have noticed that the Basic version of RMM5 is more or less as fast as Classic 4. However, since Basic 5 has been set up as https, all messages which contain a mix of secure and insecure content (and most do) invoke that pesky IE warning dialog box. If I try to switch Basic 5 to "Normal" (insecure) mode with the Normal/Secure toggle by the login field (as can be done in Classic 4), and then log in, it still logs me in under https://beta.runbox.com. There are probably good reasons (beyond my server/network experience) why Basic 5 is not mode-switchable like Classic 4, but can you elucidate?

Thanks.

kservik · 28 Jan 2010, 05:45 PM

I meant for you to send to the email address: beta (at) runbox.com

If you log in to RMM5, then you can remove the "s" in https and use the normal version.

We might look at not routing everything to https regarding the new webmail.

Kim

nanook · 29 Jan 2010, 03:58 AM

>>>If you log in to RMM5, then you can remove the "s" in https and use the normal version.

I tried both methods while in Basic 5 (after using the "switch to Basic 5" button to set that mode as my login default): either using the Normal/Secure mode switch as I mentioned, or dropping the 's'. When I log in with http://beta / runbox the URL changes to https as soon as the login is complete and the Inbox page is presented.

If I log in as http://www / runbox, (thinking that 'beta' always invokes Enhanced 5, or at least, always invokes secure mode), the URL still changes to https://beta after logging in. Checking the mode buttons at the bottom of the left frame, I can tell that I'm still in Basic 5, but the URL is https, and working with any messages with mixed content still invokes the IE warning. Am I missing something obvious?

kservik · 29 Jan 2010, 03:39 PM

No matter what you do when you log in, you will be forwarded to HTTPS today. But after you have logged in, you can remove the s and use a URL like this:

http://beta.runbox.com/mail

When you use that URL it wont force you over before your session runs out.

Kim

nanook · 31 Jan 2010, 09:26 AM

That procedure works. Thanks, Kim. Sorry I didn't understand the first time.

laverton · 1 Feb 2010, 02:26 AM

The option to select between normal and secure on the frontpage login is a bit confusing, when you get the secure anyway. Sorry about that.

Have you had a chance to try SpeedTracer? Could you mail us the report? Thanks!

Also, I think Liz has sent you a private message asking you to test RMM on a development server, where we are testing a different message list layout (to improve speed). Hope you can test it and give us feedback regarding performance!

31 Dec 2009, 01:23 PM	#1
LettuceNotes Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 9	New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As Classic I read on the website that "The new Webmail is better, faster, and more intuitive than the old version..." But I don't think so........ I don't know which version ( AJAX or the regular version of 5 ) but whichever this link http://beta.runbox.com/mail?version=new takes you to is not ready for prime time. I don't like it. It is not as smooth or as fast as the current classic runbox website....plus it screwed up the order of my folders. I tried to get into my spam folder and it wouldn't let me. I would like Runbox to keep up to date but perhaps take the Beta back to the drawing board.......I am using 3 gigs of Ram with Firefox with both XP and Win 7. Just wanted to voice my disappointment. Aloha from Hawaii!! Robert

27 Jan 2010, 05:16 AM	#7
nanook Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 13	New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As Classic (4) >>>We have had a few complaints of slowness in Runbox 5 Enhanced, but most users have no problems with it and we have thus far not been able to reproduce the problem here.<<< Geir: With all due respect, this is the exact sentence I received (a form letter?) when filing a support ticket recently about speed/display problems with Beta 5. There was no real assurance that Runbox was taking the issue seriously. Questions: 1. I have some sense that the way Beta works is to hold all screen elements in buffer(s) during the download process to the client, prior to painting the whole screen, versus painting the screen more quickly in chunks as occurs with Classic 4 (and presumably Basic 5). While not as elegant, at least painting in chunks assures the user that the connection is working. Thus to the user out there on the Internet, this "hold before paint" would seem longer - slower - than using Classic 4. And this problem would be exacerbated by any greater element(s) size or complexity in the Beta build. Comments on any of these suppositions? 2. With the above potential screen paint delay concept in mind (if true)..... Since your tech staff is likely working in a lab, on a local and presumably fast network, you might not be able to test or notice (at least visually) the effects of Beta "hold before paint" that are more pronounced with the typical Internet latency. Comments? I could be completely mistaken here. Apologies to all if I'm missing something important. But clearly, there is an issue with Beta 5 for some users, and most of us are reporting this in concert with reasonably fast computers, appropriate amount of RAM, etc. Thanks, Geir.

28 Jan 2010, 04:38 PM	#10
nanook Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 13	New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As Classic Kim: re: forwarding Speed Tracer results to "beta / runbox / com" - can you provide better contact info? i.e., should it go to the support dot runbox dot com site (ticket) or somewhere else? Another observation: I have noticed that the Basic version of RMM5 is more or less as fast as Classic 4. However, since Basic 5 has been set up as https, all messages which contain a mix of secure and insecure content (and most do) invoke that pesky IE warning dialog box. If I try to switch Basic 5 to "Normal" (insecure) mode with the Normal/Secure toggle by the login field (as can be done in Classic 4), and then log in, it still logs me in under https://beta.runbox.com. There are probably good reasons (beyond my server/network experience) why Basic 5 is not mode-switchable like Classic 4, but can you elucidate? Thanks.

29 Jan 2010, 03:58 AM	#12
nanook Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 13	New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As Classic >>>If you log in to RMM5, then you can remove the "s" in https and use the normal version. I tried both methods while in Basic 5 (after using the "switch to Basic 5" button to set that mode as my login default): either using the Normal/Secure mode switch as I mentioned, or dropping the 's'. When I log in with http://beta / runbox the URL changes to https as soon as the login is complete and the Inbox page is presented. If I log in as http://www / runbox, (thinking that 'beta' always invokes Enhanced 5, or at least, always invokes secure mode), the URL still changes to https://beta after logging in. Checking the mode buttons at the bottom of the left frame, I can tell that I'm still in Basic 5, but the URL is https, and working with any messages with mixed content still invokes the IE warning. Am I missing something obvious?

31 Jan 2010, 09:26 AM	#14
nanook Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 13	New Runbox 5 (Beta) Not As Good As That procedure works. Thanks, Kim. Sorry I didn't understand the first time.

1 Jan 2010, 01:11 AM	#2
digp Master of the @ Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,338	Runbox seems to be having a lot of problems.

4 Jan 2010, 08:16 PM	#5
Geir The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 2,938 Representative of: Runbox.com	We have had a few complaints of slowness in Runbox 5 Enhanced, but most users have no problems with it and we have thus far not been able to reproduce the problem here. It would be very interesting to know if Runbox 5 Enhanced (AJAX version) also responds slowly (and/or uses excessive memory on your system) in a browser other than Firefox. At any time you can disable the AJAX functionality and get a more "classic" behavior by clicking the "Switch to Runbox 5 Basic" button at the bottom left of your Webmail screen (or by using this direct link: https://beta.runbox.com/mail/list?version=old). We will of course continue improving and tuning Runbox 5, and appreciate your feedback in this process. For more information about the new functionality in Runbox 5, see http://doc.runbox.com/twiki/bin/view/RunboxHelp/RMM5. - Geir

27 Jan 2010, 10:18 AM	#8
Geir The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 2,938 Representative of: Runbox.com	nanook, Thanks for the detailed comments/questions you've provided. The responses you have received were similar because that's precisely what the situation is -- we have looked into it but thus far not been able to reproduce the problem. Apparently most users are not experiencing any slowness, and (assuming you're located in the US) I have personally used RMM5 extensively from the East Coast without any noticeable slowness. This does not in any way imply that the problem isn't very real for you and other users, but it's difficult for our developers to resolve it without being able to reproduce it in a controlled, monitored environment. I will forward your comments to our development team that will be better able to respond to your technical questions. And if you're able to produce any data that might shed light on the situation this would be much appreciated -- i.e. ping statistics and CPU/memory usage on your system (while experiencing the slowness). - Geir

27 Jan 2010, 02:28 PM	#9
kservik Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 555 Representative of: Runbox.com	Nanook: If you are interested and have the time in finding the problem with RMM5, then it would be really helpful if you could install Speed Tracer: http://code.google.com/intl/nb/webto...t-started.html When you have data that shows the slowness, you can send the file to us at beta / runbox / com. Anyone else that that want to contribute, can do the same! Kim

28 Jan 2010, 05:45 PM	#11
kservik Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 555 Representative of: Runbox.com	I meant for you to send to the email address: beta (at) runbox.com If you log in to RMM5, then you can remove the "s" in https and use the normal version. We might look at not routing everything to https regarding the new webmail. Kim

29 Jan 2010, 03:39 PM	#13
kservik Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 555 Representative of: Runbox.com	No matter what you do when you log in, you will be forwarded to HTTPS today. But after you have logged in, you can remove the s and use a URL like this: http://beta.runbox.com/mail When you use that URL it wont force you over before your session runs out. Kim

1 Feb 2010, 02:26 AM	#15
laverton Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 28 Representative of: Runbox.com	The option to select between normal and secure on the frontpage login is a bit confusing, when you get the secure anyway. Sorry about that. Have you had a chance to try SpeedTracer? Could you mail us the report? Thanks! Also, I think Liz has sent you a private message asking you to test RMM on a development server, where we are testing a different message list layout (to improve speed). Hope you can test it and give us feedback regarding performance!