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 12:03:29 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <84n0iijz8u.fsf@boost-consulting.com> References: <84r87ulpts.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422123301.GA26968@gnu.org> <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422150920.GA7693@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051028687 10735 80.91.224.249 (22 Apr 2003 16:24:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 22 18:24:45 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 1980Yv-0002jt-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:24:05 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1980eF-0004n3-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:29:36 +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 1980Ne-0003C8-0A for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:12:26 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 1980NS-0003Bb-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 1980NR-0003B8-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:12:13 -0400 Original-Received: from stlport.com ([64.39.31.56]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 1980FN-0001Lq-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [146.115.123.42] (account dave HELO penguin.boost-consulting.com) by stlport.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 226933; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:03:45 -0700 Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <20030422150920.GA7693@gnu.org> (Miles Bader's message of "Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:09:20 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) XEmacs/21.4 (Native Windows TTY Support (Windows), cygwin32) 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:13363 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13363 Miles Bader 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