on 12/25/04 11:16 PM, Allen Watson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm curious, and have a qustion or two.
Hope to be able to answer them :-) > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 02:50:03 -0800, Scott Haneda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is more a note for the developers, though I am sure if some of you >> chime in, it may help them notice this is a issue. >> >> Some stats: >> Dual G5, 2 Gigs Memory, 2 drive Raid >> >> Identity: Main Identity >> Folders: 70 >> Messages: 48,444 >> Data Folder Size: 397mb >> >> If I click on a single email, in this case 384k in size, plain text, it will >> take about 8-10 seconds to deal with the display of that email. During that > > That is a HUGE MESSAGE for plain text. It would print out to something > around 100 pages. I don't think you'd see much faster performance in > any mail program. But, one suggestion: make sure you have chosen a > fixed space font for plain text display, such as Monaco or Courier. I > believe that will display faster than a variable spaced font like > Times or Helvetica. You didn't just mention monaco in the same sentence as Entourage 2004 :-) At any rate, I do use a mono space. While I agree that 384k is a large email, it is not uncommon, bounce email digests and the like. I personally don't think it should be a issue, I can paste that same copy to Stickies and it loves it. >> time, I have a spinning beach ball, Entourage can do nothing else during >> this time. >> >> In general, Entourage seems to be only able to handle one action at a time. >> For example, it puts undo connection times on my email server, total time to >> connect 6 pop accounts is about 12 seconds. Total time to connect 6 pop >> accounts to the same email server using Outlook on windows is under 1 >> second. During the time the connections are in progress, I can click and >> hold on the connection monitor list, during that click and hold, no further >> action in Entourage can happen. IE: I just found a way to steal 6 pop >> connections from a email server for as long as I like, or at least until >> they timeout on the pop server. >> > This sounds more like a need to protect Entourage against people who > do something malicious like "stealing connections from a mail server" > for no purpose. Agreed, I was more trying to drive home a point, that Entourage has a case where you can cause bad things to happen to a remote email server. Granted, not many will do this, but the way I look at it is that moving the connection progress window while it is making connections stalls Entourage as well as other things. I don't think this should happen. While not as bad, take this scenario. What if in Safari, if every time you moved the safari window around when a page was mid render, it locked that http connection on the remote http server, bad news. More so, I just want sub one second connection start through stop like other email clients have. >> The same 384k email when viewed, can not be resized as it will invoke such a >> stall in Entourage that you can not move the mouse to grab the window. At >> least, when you do, you are so much ahead of it that it makes a mess of what >> you are trying to do. > > I do not experience any resize problems with my larger messages, > although none approach 384K. It is rare, but I can certainly "feel" the problem on smaller messages as well. >> In pretty much any of the scenarios above, I can see both CPU's on my >> machine spike to 70% or slightly more, yes, that much for a email client! >> > > Something isn't right here. And I'm not sure the problem is with Entourage. Agreed, but since it follows me to so many other users machines, and is only happening within Entourage, I see it as something that needs investigating. >> Launching the app in general takes too long compared to other apps, though >> this is at least tolerable since I need only do it once a day. >> > Do you have any schedules set to run at launch? Do you have custom > views open that build when you launch? These can slow things down. I > tend to agree that launch time can use some improvement, but you can > help by eliminating such extra things. I try to have just the main > mail browser open to the Inbox when I shut Erage down, so that is all > that has to display at launch time. It helps. > >> All in all, I love Entourage for its features, its performance, I would not >> go as far to call it awful, but I will tell you, it is the worst of all the >> apps I have installed. > > Hah! Try Dreamweaver! Try Acrobat Reader! Try Omniweb with a couple of > windows open! Damnit, I was so impressed with DreamWeaver on the PC that I was about to switch to It from Golive, since GoLive crashes on me so much, you just made me unhappy :-) > I have seen these exact same problems happen on any >> of 10 other macs, from friends, family, clients etc. Seeing as how I have >> the fastest machine of them all, I can not imagine it being my setup, plus I >> have clean installed the OS so many times I know it can not be a setup >> issue. >> > I find it hard to believe that all your friends and family routinely > send 100-page plain text messages to one another! Seriously, I find > Entourage to be downright zippy most of the time, unless I have dozens > of apps open (which happens, and then everything crawls until I shut > most of them down or logout and log back in). I have an 800 MHz iMac > with 1 GB RAM. Sorry, let me clarify: I see the same slowdowns on large emails no matter what machine I end up moving to. The zippy part is purely in connecting. Create 6 pop accounts and connect to them all at the same time, you are looking at about 6 seconds. Compare that to gyazmmail, Outlook on the PC, (yes, same email server) and we are talking sub one second. I specifically remember 2 friends, Scott Sheppard of OSXfaq.com and anther not so well known calling me the moment they updated to 2004 and asking me why the pop connections were so much slower. I know this is not me, not my email server. > One other suggestion. Try using Finder to duplicate your Identity > folder, and then delete the old identity folder and rename to new to > replace it. This defrags your files; sometimes this will help. Or, > same result: just rebuild the database. That also creates a new > contiguous file. Pretty routinely I do this, just to be sure I am not one to get bit by the corrupt database issue. Thanks for your comments. If you can think of ways for me to empirically prove my claims that would be valuable to the devs, let me know. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Haneda Tel: 415.898.2602 <http://www.newgeo.com> Fax: 313.557.5052 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novato, CA U.S.A. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
