From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gnu Emacs way slower than XEmacs Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:15:05 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> References: <84r87ulpts.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422123301.GA26968@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051021045 29352 80.91.224.249 (22 Apr 2003 14:17:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 22 16:17:20 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 197yaG-0007cw-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:17:20 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 197yfY-0002mV-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:22:48 +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 197yaz-0006QM-0B for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:18:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 197yZU-0005Lk-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:16:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 197yZ1-0005DT-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:16:03 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 197yYu-0005Bq-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:15:56 -0400 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 197yXz-0006nz-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:14:59 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 197yXR-0006ka-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:14:25 +0200 Original-Lines: 21 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) XEmacs/21.4 (Native Windows TTY Support (Windows), cygwin32) Cancel-Lock: sha1:K4jfCa8jHvegNJsRfThaTO0IUPc= 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:13354 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13354 Miles Bader writes: Miles Bader writes: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:43:59AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote: >> Now that I've got your attention, I should qualify that. On Windows >> XP using GNUs and talking to an IMAP server, it's way faster to use >> XEmacs than to use Gnu Emacs. Nobody over on the GNUs list has a clue >> as to why, but since they just work on elisp code they surmise it's >> something in the emacs implementation. > > 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. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com