Re: Gnu Emacs way slower than XEmacs

[David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> 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?

No, almost anything that involves talking to the IMAP server.  I'm
sorry, I thought that was obvious from my previous post, but I see now
that it wasn't.

> 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)?  

Yes.

> Does it happen with local (file) mailboxes too?  Pop3?

No.

> If you want to report a bug, please give specific examples, with
> lots of details!  

It's hard to gather much detail on this one.  What more would you like.

> What may be obvious to you isn't necessarily
> obvious to the rest of us; see the info node `(emacs)Bugs'.

Believe it or not, I'm familiar with good bug reporting practice.  The
problem is that I don't know whether anyone's interested in looking at
it and I feel that I can't give much detail about the problem.  I can
say that it's been reproduced by others, though.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com