From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gnu Emacs way slower than XEmacs Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:20 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030422150920.GA7693@gnu.org> References: <84r87ulpts.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422123301.GA26968@gnu.org> <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051024324 15960 80.91.224.249 (22 Apr 2003 15:12:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 22 17:12:03 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 197zOu-0003yJ-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:09:40 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 197zU5-0003bU-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:15:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 197zPE-00029s-03 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:10:00 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 197zP2-00027U-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 197zOe-0001vV-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 197zOb-0001ow-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:21 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 197zOa-0002Bk-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:20 -0400 Original-To: David Abrahams Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13360 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13360 On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:15:05AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > > Um, it might help if you actually said what operation is slower.... > > Almost anything. `M-g' to get new message headers is one example, but > downloading a large message (with, say, a several-megabyte > attachment), shows a really remarkable difference in speed. Almost anything, like C-f, C-n, and M-x hanoi? At least in this message you gave an example -- M-g (I assume in a gnus summary buffer) -- but even that is very vague. Is it only with imap (as you previously implied)? Does it happen with local (file) mailboxes too? Pop3? If you want to report a bug, please give specific examples, with lots of details! What may be obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to the rest of us; see the info node `(emacs)Bugs'. -Miles -- I have seen the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo