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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:18:50 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <84r87ulpts.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 1051102053 19565 80.91.224.249 (23 Apr 2003 12:47:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:47:33 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 23 14:47:28 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 198Jeq-000558-00 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:47:28 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198Jka-0002zd-00 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:53:24 +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 198Jej-00018L-06 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:47:21 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198JcV-0008AP-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:45:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198JcO-000821-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:44:57 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 198JZI-00064T-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:41:44 -0400 Original-Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 198JXz-0004I5-00 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:40:23 +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 198JCX-0002jL-00 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:18:13 +0200 Original-Lines: 23 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), windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:KAfh55Ey+ffYxq0/1rYQWBt3J2I= 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:13391 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13391 Frank Schmitt writes: > David Abrahams writes: > >> 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. I know it's a long shot, but I >> thought someone over here should know about it. > > Well, for me Gnus' general performance (mainly building summary buffers > (nntp and nnml)) is much better under GNU Emacs than under XEmacs (also > MS Windows). I think I'm seeing something similar. My complaint with GNU Emacs only applies to "almost anything" having to do IMAP transactions over SSL. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com