Email question for W-8

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a desktop
with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and that is run
WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him I seriously doubt
OE would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask about WindowsMail. Not
WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can get it to work like those of us
with W-7?

"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a
desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and
that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him
I seriously doubt OE would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask
about WindowsMail. Not WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can
get it to work like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird. It's GUI will be
familiar to your friend. The biggest different your friend is likely to
encounter is defining accounts (where SMTP servers are defined
separately of the POP/IMAP account and you select which SMTP server to
use with which POP/IMAP account). Of course, the difference is only
encounted the number of times you have accounts to add into Thunderbird.
Once they're defined, it's unlikely you'll have to edit them later.

WLM is also similar to OE but you chose to omit that choice on behalf of
your friend although your friend might still like it (you did not say
your friend told you not to suggest WLM). WLM is not recommended for
Usenet posting due to Microsoft's dropping of proper indentation of
quoted content that the user is now expected to perform. You asked
about an e-mail client.

If you want to suggest to your friend a free equivalent of MS Outlook
(e-mail, better notes, calendar, task/todo list, contacts) then have
your friend look at EssentialPIM (EPIM). Show your friend the
screenshots at http://www.essentialpim.com/pc-version/screenshots. I
suspect there are different pane arrangements available if your friend
doesn't like the default. To compare the free versus paid versions, see
http://www.essentialpim.com/pc-version/pro-vs-free. For personal use,
your friend can start with the free version and decide later if he/she
wants to pay $40 which is much cheaper than buying standalone Outlook.

If I were to drop the Outlook that I already have (as part of the MS
Office suite), the free version of EPIM is a strong candidate for me.
Both EPIM and Tbird are free and I, as a user, am not interested that
one is closed versus open regarding source code. How many of your
non-developer friends do you know that download Tbird's source code
(https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...rce_Archives)?
EPIM includes calendaring. With Thunderbird, you have to install an
add-on (Lightning) or get a derivative of Tbird, like Sunbird. I have
not found a feature-by-feature comparison between the two to see which
one might have more features (and those that I want and would use, and
ignore the surplus).

EPIM is available as an installed or portable version with each version
shown on the same download page (http://www.essentialpim.com/get-epim).
Tbird has both types, too. For Tbird's portable version, you can go to
http://portableapps.com/apps/interne...rbird_portable or to
PortableApps.com. Some folks like to walk around with a USB flash drive
to run the portable version of their e-mail client from there so all
their e-mails are locally in one place no matter on which computer they
ran the e-mail program; however, with proper configuration of POP3
settings or by using IMAP, you can keep multiple installed copies of the
e-mail client in sync. A portable version works around computers where
you cannot install software or don't want to, like you don't want to
pollute your friend's laptop while sharing it on vacation. Just be
aware that many schools, Internet cafes, libraries, other publicly
accessible computers, or your friend's computer may have their USB ports
disabled. If they locked down their computer, you can't install
software on those computers and the USB ports are disabled or you're not
permitted to run programs from there.

On 12/8/2012 12:49 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a
desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and
that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him
I seriously doubt OE would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask
about WindowsMail. Not WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can
get it to work like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never bothered
with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy to use and
slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and keep releasing bug
fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years, they went from v3 to
v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might get it right around version 93.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable application.
That makes syncing between machines very easy. And I thought it was slow
on my 6 year old machines. But it is just awful on my new Intel Atom
Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor sometimes freezes for 30 to 45
seconds at a time on these machines. Mozilla really needs to get some
better programmers that actually knows what they are doing. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 12/8/2012 10:43 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 12:49 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a
desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and
that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him
I seriously doubt OE would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask
about WindowsMail. Not WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can
get it to work like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never bothered
with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy to use and
slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and keep releasing bug
fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years, they went from v3 to
v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might get it right around version
93.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable application.
That makes syncing between machines very easy. And I thought it was slow
on my 6 year old machines. But it is just awful on my new Intel Atom
Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor sometimes freezes for 30 to 45
seconds at a time on these machines. Mozilla really needs to get some
better programmers that actually knows what they are doing. :-(


Well, if something doesn't work for Bill the Braggart, you know it will
work for everyone else. I've been using T-Bird and its predecessors for
years and it isn't slow at all.

--
Alias

In ,
Alias typed:
On 12/8/2012 10:43 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 12:49 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought
a desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program
and that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I
told him I seriously doubt OE would run on any of the new OSs, but
I would ask about WindowsMail. Not WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone
know if he can get it to work like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never
bothered with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy
to use and slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and
keep releasing bug fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years,
they went from v3 to v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might
get it right around version 93.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable
application. That makes syncing between machines very easy. And I
thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just awful
on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor sometimes
freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these machines. Mozilla
really needs to get some better programmers that actually knows what
they are doing. :-(

Well, if something doesn't work for Bill the Braggart, you know it
will work for everyone else. I've been using T-Bird and its
predecessors for years and it isn't slow at all.

You are also an admitted pirate, thief, cheat, and have no respect for
honesty and truth. So no surprise there.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 12/8/2012 12:40 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Alias typed:
On 12/8/2012 10:43 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 12:49 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought
a desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program
and that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I
told him I seriously doubt OE would run on any of the new OSs, but
I would ask about WindowsMail. Not WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone
know if he can get it to work like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never
bothered with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy
to use and slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and
keep releasing bug fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years,
they went from v3 to v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might
get it right around version 93.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable
application. That makes syncing between machines very easy. And I
thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just awful
on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor sometimes
freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these machines. Mozilla
really needs to get some better programmers that actually knows what
they are doing. :-(

Well, if something doesn't work for Bill the Braggart, you know it
will work for everyone else. I've been using T-Bird and its
predecessors for years and it isn't slow at all.

You are also an admitted pirate,

A lie.

thief,

A lie.

cheat,

A lie

and have no respect for
honesty and truth.

The irony!

So no surprise there.


What's no surprise is you can't configure T-Bird to work properly and,
well, you're a liar.

--
Alias

"BillW50" wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a
desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and
that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. ...

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never bothered
with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy to use
and slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and keep
releasing bug fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years, they
went from v3 to v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might get it
right around version 93.

Mozilla got influenced by Google, their primary revenue source. Instead
of using major, minor, and build versions as their version number, they
went to incremental version numbers (just like Google Chrome). They
then implemented their ESR (Extended Support Release) scheme so
businesses could plan on stabilizing at specific version levels.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

While that lists the ESR & incremental release schedule for Firefox, you
could also follow it for the releases of Thunderbird. If you want to
follow Thunderbird's own ESR schedule then look at:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/organizations/

You don't have to update until you choose to do so. The reason for the
ESR schedule to to help companies focus on a version level for awhile.
They, and you, can do the same for Thunderbird. Do you really need
every little security update that comes out when it comes out? Do you
need every feature change they push into FireFox or Thunderbird when
they decide to push it out? And do you really need every bug fix? That
is, why do you concerned about bug fixes on functionality you don't use
or doesn't alter your use of the product? Do you also burn your BIOS
every time a new version comes out and update your working video card
setup because a newer driver became available?

If you chose to use Google Chrome, do you really let it automatically
update without prompt every time Google decides to push out another
build level?

Personally I prefer the mm.nn.bbbb (major, minor, build) versioning to
which software development houses, companies, and users have been
accustomed for decades. However, there are lots of users that still
want to download every build that gets released so they're doing the
same as you in updating when they don't need to. They have 2.1.4.1808
and then 2.1.4.2144 comes out and, bam, they have to get that newer one
now. They don't even bother to read the release notes to see if there
is anything that could possibly affect their use of the product. It
doesn't matter if incremental versioning is used or major.minor.build
versioning is used since the user for either scheme that installs every
one of them is getting every little update when it comes out. Unless
there is a specific fix in a build or incremental release of a product,
I wait until the minor version comes out before I care about updating
the product. For incremental versioning, I look at the release notes
and decide if it's worth the hassle to install and the hassle of
functional changes. The security updates in build or incremental
release schedules is usually trivial.

I haven't experienced Thunderbird being slow, especially when compared
to something like WLM which abandoned using a speed database to store
records and went to saving files in the file system and using an index
to track them. However, I don't let my message store get bloated with
worthless e-mails. For the vast majority of my e-mails, extremely few
have any remaining value after they are 5 years old. I purge older
records. The few that are important for longer than that go into their
own archive folder. I'm neat oriented. The same for when I clean my
house twice a year: if I haven't used it in the last 5 years and it
doesn't look like there's any possibility that I'll use it in the next 5
years then it gets discarded (trashed, given away, sold off). I'd
rather have a select number of quality items than accumulate junk to
fill up my house or my message store. I've seen folks that leave 8000
e-mails in their Inbox folder because they're too lazy to read it, trim
it, and organize it (as it came in incrementally - when it piles up they
are less inclined to take the time all at once).

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable
application. That makes syncing between machines very easy.

That isn't synchronization. You're using the SAME message store each
time you go to another host and run the SAME instance of Tbird over
there. Synchronization doesn't require a portable version of your
e-mail client. Configuring a POP e-mail client to leave messages up on
the server (rather than DELEte after RETRieve) for a time far longer
than it would take for all your hosts to poll the same account would
allow all of them to retrieve the same e-mail. If you set your POP3
e-mail client to leave messages up on the server for, say, 30 days then
you can still retrieve that message by each instance of your e-mail
client on the other hosts. Do you need to retrieve e-mails that over a
month old? They're aren't out of date, irrelevant, or dead by then? If
not, you could up the expiration to 60 or 90 days, or longer, like a
year. If you're using IMAP, each of your clients will also see the same
messages sitting up on the server. That is client-side controlled
synchronization (versus server-side or cloud synchronization). Moving
around your message store and updating the same one to poll the same
account(s) is not synchronization anymore than toting around your
computer to the different locations and updating the same message store
is synchronization.

And I thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just
awful on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor
sometimes freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these machines.
Mozilla really needs to get some better programmers that actually
knows what they are doing. :-(

I don't see other Thunderbird users (that I know so I can see what they
get for responsiveness of the product) having your difficulties. Since
your the one who reconfigures a fresh install of whatever version of
Windows, it's possible you're doing something in each install that
affects Thunderbird. I've seen way too many times where users will
complain about a problem, start with a fresh install of Windows, install
everything they did before, and just end up with the same problem again.
Have you done a fresh install of Windows, performed only the updates for
Windows, and then installed Thunderbird to see if the slowness still
happens in a clean install of Windows?

Another test would be to replace the current message with a blank one.
That is, move out the old message store, start with an empty one, and
see if Tbird suddenly speeds up. Outlook Express got a bit slower as
its database files got bigger (but it had an in-built limit of 2GB for
the database file so it didn't slow much until eventually your
overflowed the database file and OE behaved badly). Outlook starts to
get slower when its message store (.pst file) starts to get huge. It's
not like these e-mail clients are using SQL or mySQL tailored for
enterprise use to keep speedy the record retrieval rate. Instead
they're more like products that use SQLite as a serverless database
(just the sqlite.exe file is needed and can be copied onto the host
rather than install a full-blown SQL database program). Even SQLite
gets slower as the number of records increases that it has to track in
the file it updates as its database. Sure, using an SQL or mySQL server
would make the e-mail client but what users would want to go through the
added install of an SQL server (on their host or in their intranet) to
do e-mail? SQLite doesn't need to be "installed", just copied (dump the
sqlite.exe file on the host or portable media) but it does have its
limits (http://www.sqlite.org/limits.html). Still it's a pretty good
non-installed SQL database manager for most non-enterprise tasks. It
lacks some SQL command (http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html), like some
directives for the Alter Table command (e.g., adding or deleting a
column or even of renaming it to change the record format). Instead you
have to go through the rigamarole of creating a new table with the new
record format and migrating the old table's records into the new table
(http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q11). This is a linear operation that
takes a l-o-n-g time on a big table. Most applications know the
structure of their records and don't change it so the deficiency is
often not a concern. Because SQLite uses file I/O to read and write to
the database, it will be slower than using a full-blown server,
especially since the transaction is typically small but the database
large and an SQL server offloads the work from the client. SQLite can
be slow if you don't use it most efficiently. See an example article at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...ance-of-sqlite.
So using SQLite eliminates having to install an SQL server, won't be as
speedy as using an SQL server, and could be hampered by poor design with
the client that is using SQLite.

Then remember a lot of e-mails clients don't even use a good database
program or don't use one at all. While the WLM proponents like to say
its message store is a database, I hardly consider saving a bunch of
files, one for each item in WLM, of having to use the system API for
file I/O, and hoping to correctly track all those files and their
contents in an indexing file is, to me, not really a database. It's
something of extracting the guts of a simple database server and dumping
it into the file system. If the e-mail client is using SQLite then
anything that interferes with the transactional updates to the file will
impact SQLite's performance, like an anti-virus program that reads the
whole file trying to match on its signatures rather than monitor the
small transactional data sent to the database file. While Firefox uses
SQLite, it appears Mozilla decided not to and instead do something akin
to WLM by using the file system and using the file I/O API to update
them. http://www.z-a-recovery.com/thunderb...l-database.htm leads
me to believe Thunderbird doesn't use a database, like SQLite, to manage
its message store but instead does something like WLM. While larger, I
was surprised to see there is a 4GB limit on the size of files for
Tbird's message store but that looks to be a FAT32 limit (since the
message store is stored as files and not as a database). It can be
bigger when using NTFS (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird)
but bigger means progressively slower. You didn't mention how big are
your Tbird message store's files.

They note that compacting a folder larger than 4GB is "extremely slow".
Looks like they really don't want you to exceed 4GB and probably 2GB is
better for responsiveness of their program. If you leave Tbird
configured to automatically compact its database, maybe you'll getting
hit on responsiveness of the program because the compaction is taking a
long time on really big db files for Tbird. You could up the threshold
(of saved disk space) to reduce how often compaction runs, or disable
automatic compaction and do it manually whenever you choose.

Rename "Windows Mail" to "Windows Mail 8" (for not to need take ownership)
Create new "Windows Mail" folder (so all registry references still being
correct)
Copy content of "Windows Mail" folder from Vista (or a working version from
Windows 7) into new created "Windows Mail" folder
Copy "msidcrl30.dll" into "Windows Mail" folder (from Windows 7 or the above
attachment)
Run "Windows Mail"

http://www.eightforums.com/browsers-...ows-8-a-2.html

"R. H. Breener" wrote...
I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a desktop
with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and that is run
WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him I seriously doubt
OE would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask about WindowsMail. Not
WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can get it to work like those of us
with W-7?

"R. H. Breener" wrote in message
...
I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a desktop
with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and that is run
WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. I told him I seriously doubt OE
would run on any of the new OSs, but I would ask about WindowsMail. Not
WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can get it to work like those of us
with W-7?


Hi R H,

Yes you can most definitely use your Vista Windows Mail email program on
Windows 8 as many have done already, it's almost the same procedure just like I
see 'You' did the other day on Windows 7 over in the alt.windows7.general
group. Many people have and use WM on Windows 8 just fine!
It's almost the same procedure as you've done on Windows 7, but it's just a
little different in the beginning. But seeing that you had so much problems
with understanding how to do the simple tasks in the Windows 7 tutorial may
mean that you haven't the techie experience yet to pull it off on Windows 8
too. You won't find the support for it especially on this group like you
did the other day in the other group for something that is so unsupported and
not very well explained on how to accomplish the task. Perhaps at some point
someone will make a detailed tutorial on that Windows 8 forum just like they
did on the Windows 7 forum.
Anyway you can check how to do it in the below link, realize though it seems
you need to read further than just the first post there, and read the whole
first page of posts and discern the necessary info first before you proceed:
http://www.eightforums.com/browsers-...ndows-8-a.html

Good luck

On 12/8/2012 7:36 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"BillW50" wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just bought a
desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the email program and
that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress on his new PC. ...

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never bothered
with it at all. After all of these years it is still clumsy to use
and slow as molasses. And they can never get it right and keep
releasing bug fixes like crazy. Just in the last three years, they
went from v3 to v17. That's just insane! Maybe Mozilla might get it
right around version 93.

Mozilla got influenced by Google...

Yes so true and thanks for the info.

You don't have to update until you choose to do so...

Also so true. I was running v14 and v15 for awhile, but went back to v12.

I haven't experienced Thunderbird being slow,

Many people have. Just Google 'Thunderbird slow editor' and you get over
2 million hits.

especially when compared
to something like WLM which abandoned using a speed database to store
records and went to saving files in the file system and using an index
to track them. However, I don't let my message store get bloated with
worthless e-mails. For the vast majority of my e-mails, extremely few
have any remaining value after they are 5 years old. I purge older
records. The few that are important for longer than that go into their
own archive folder. I'm neat oriented. The same for when I clean my
house twice a year: if I haven't used it in the last 5 years and it
doesn't look like there's any possibility that I'll use it in the next 5
years then it gets discarded (trashed, given away, sold off). I'd
rather have a select number of quality items than accumulate junk to
fill up my house or my message store. I've seen folks that leave 8000
e-mails in their Inbox folder because they're too lazy to read it, trim
it, and organize it (as it came in incrementally - when it piles up they
are less inclined to take the time all at once).

Yeah, I am not that impressed with WLM either. It resembles a badly
hacked version of OE.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable
application. That makes syncing between machines very easy.

That isn't synchronization. You're using the SAME message store each
time you go to another host and run the SAME instance of Tbird over
there.

I know what you are saying, but the way I do it it is really
synchronization. As I leave a copy of portable TB on all of my
computers. And I use SyncBack for this and other data. Although for
portable TB, it only updates the files that has been changed and deletes
the old files that doesn't exist anymore. Thus only the files that has
changed gets updated and the rest are untouched. It is also extremely
fast this way. I don't know, seems like it only takes like 5 seconds or
so to sync 1.12GB.

Synchronization doesn't require a portable version of your
e-mail client. Configuring a POP e-mail client to leave messages up on
the server (rather than DELEte after RETRieve) for a time far longer
than it would take for all your hosts to poll the same account would
allow all of them to retrieve the same e-mail. If you set your POP3
e-mail client to leave messages up on the server for, say, 30 days then
you can still retrieve that message by each instance of your e-mail
client on the other hosts. Do you need to retrieve e-mails that over a
month old? They're aren't out of date, irrelevant, or dead by then? If
not, you could up the expiration to 60 or 90 days, or longer, like a
year. If you're using IMAP, each of your clients will also see the same
messages sitting up on the server. That is client-side controlled
synchronization (versus server-side or cloud synchronization). Moving
around your message store and updating the same one to poll the same
account(s) is not synchronization anymore than toting around your
computer to the different locations and updating the same message store
is synchronization.

Oh man! I hate that method. Sure I used that method n the early days.
Lots of problems though. All new POP email on the other computers come
in as new, when they where read previously. Any flagged (aka Starred)
doesn't sync, etc. Same problems happens with the newsgroups too.

Now IMAP works well syncing this way. As read once on one machine also
gets marked as read on all of the others. Even flagging gets synced to
all of your other machines too.

And I thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just
awful on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor
sometimes freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these machines.
Mozilla really needs to get some better programmers that actually
knows what they are doing. :-(

I don't see other Thunderbird users (that I know so I can see what they
get for responsiveness of the product) having your difficulties. Since
your the one who reconfigures a fresh install of whatever version of
Windows, it's possible you're doing something in each install that
affects Thunderbird. I've seen way too many times where users will
complain about a problem, start with a fresh install of Windows, install
everything they did before, and just end up with the same problem again.
Have you done a fresh install of Windows, performed only the updates for
Windows, and then installed Thunderbird to see if the slowness still
happens in a clean install of Windows?

Yes I have and the problem is worse on the less powerful CPUs. A fresh
install or an old Windows install doesn't matter. That is all of the same.

Another test would be to replace the current message with a blank one.
That is, move out the old message store, start with an empty one, and
see if Tbird suddenly speeds up. Outlook Express got a bit slower as
its database files got bigger (but it had an in-built limit of 2GB for
the database file so it didn't slow much until eventually your
overflowed the database file and OE behaved badly). Outlook starts to
get slower when its message store (.pst file) starts to get huge. It's
not like these e-mail clients are using SQL or mySQL tailored for
enterprise use to keep speedy the record retrieval rate. Instead
they're more like products that use SQLite as a serverless database
(just the sqlite.exe file is needed and can be copied onto the host
rather than install a full-blown SQL database program). Even SQLite
gets slower as the number of records increases that it has to track in
the file it updates as its database. Sure, using an SQL or mySQL server
would make the e-mail client but what users would want to go through the
added install of an SQL server (on their host or in their intranet) to
do e-mail? SQLite doesn't need to be "installed", just copied (dump the
sqlite.exe file on the host or portable media) but it does have its
limits (http://www.sqlite.org/limits.html). Still it's a pretty good
non-installed SQL database manager for most non-enterprise tasks. It
lacks some SQL command (http://www.sqlite.org/omitted.html), like some
directives for the Alter Table command (e.g., adding or deleting a
column or even of renaming it to change the record format). Instead you
have to go through the rigamarole of creating a new table with the new
record format and migrating the old table's records into the new table
(http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q11). This is a linear operation that
takes a l-o-n-g time on a big table. Most applications know the
structure of their records and don't change it so the deficiency is
often not a concern. Because SQLite uses file I/O to read and write to
the database, it will be slower than using a full-blown server,
especially since the transaction is typically small but the database
large and an SQL server offloads the work from the client. SQLite can
be slow if you don't use it most efficiently. See an example article at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1...ance-of-sqlite.
So using SQLite eliminates having to install an SQL server, won't be as
speedy as using an SQL server, and could be hampered by poor design with
the client that is using SQLite.

Then remember a lot of e-mails clients don't even use a good database
program or don't use one at all. While the WLM proponents like to say
its message store is a database, I hardly consider saving a bunch of
files, one for each item in WLM, of having to use the system API for
file I/O, and hoping to correctly track all those files and their
contents in an indexing file is, to me, not really a database. It's
something of extracting the guts of a simple database server and dumping
it into the file system. If the e-mail client is using SQLite then
anything that interferes with the transactional updates to the file will
impact SQLite's performance, like an anti-virus program that reads the
whole file trying to match on its signatures rather than monitor the
small transactional data sent to the database file. While Firefox uses
SQLite, it appears Mozilla decided not to and instead do something akin
to WLM by using the file system and using the file I/O API to update
them. http://www.z-a-recovery.com/thunderb...l-database.htm leads
me to believe Thunderbird doesn't use a database, like SQLite, to manage
its message store but instead does something like WLM. While larger, I
was surprised to see there is a 4GB limit on the size of files for
Tbird's message store but that looks to be a FAT32 limit (since the
message store is stored as files and not as a database). It can be
bigger when using NTFS (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Limits_-_Thunderbird)
but bigger means progressively slower. You didn't mention how big are
your Tbird message store's files.

They note that compacting a folder larger than 4GB is "extremely slow".
Looks like they really don't want you to exceed 4GB and probably 2GB is
better for responsiveness of their program. If you leave Tbird
configured to automatically compact its database, maybe you'll getting
hit on responsiveness of the program because the compaction is taking a
long time on really big db files for Tbird. You could up the threshold
(of saved disk space) to reduce how often compaction runs, or disable
automatic compaction and do it manually whenever you choose.

Yes I know how nifty the OE database is. I love that and I wished more
email and newsgroup readers did it that way. I never hit any limit or
problem with the size of my folders under OE. Heck sometimes I don't
compact the folders for years and I still never had a problem. The only
slow part of OE that I don't like is marking the whole newsgroup as read
"catch up". That is slow, but everything else is extremely fast.

As far as TB goes, it seems to corrupt its index files (*.msf) a lot.
And this is one of the major complains about TB. The fix is if they are
missing (because you deleted them), TB will recreate them when starting.
This fix only last so long and TB will manage to corrupt them once again
and slow things down.

Also apparently many happy TB users don't use IMAP. Although those that
do, often complain how slow TB is. Yes, I have many IMAP accounts too.

My TB db files? A quick check and they are pretty small. My whole
portable TB folder (which contains everything) is only 1.12GB in size.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 12/8/2012 6:26 AM, Alias wrote:
On 12/8/2012 12:40 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In , Alias typed:
On 12/8/2012 10:43 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 12:49 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"R. H. Breener" wrote:

I'm hoping I can get some information for a friend who just
bought a desktop with W-8. He wants to do as I did with the
email program and that is run WindowsMail or OutlookExpress
on his new PC. I told him I seriously doubt OE would run on
any of the new OSs, but I would ask about WindowsMail. Not
WindowsLiveMail. Does anyone know if he can get it to work
like those of us with W-7?

Introduce your friend to Mozilla's Thunderbird...

I've been running Thunderbird since v1.5 and I wished I never
bothered with it at all. After all of these years it is still
clumsy to use and slow as molasses. And they can never get it
right and keep releasing bug fixes like crazy. Just in the last
three years, they went from v3 to v17. That's just insane!
Maybe Mozilla might get it right around version 93.

The only thing it does right is to also work as a portable
application. That makes syncing between machines very easy. And
I thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just
awful on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor
sometimes freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these
machines. Mozilla really needs to get some better programmers
that actually knows what they are doing. :-(

Well, if something doesn't work for Bill the Braggart, you know
it will work for everyone else. I've been using T-Bird and its
predecessors for years and it isn't slow at all.

You are also an admitted pirate,

A lie.

thief,

A lie.

cheat,

A lie

and have no respect for honesty and truth.

The irony!

So no surprise there.


What's no surprise is you can't configure T-Bird to work properly
and, well, you're a liar.

I am not sure why somebody like you wants so badly to prove they are
such a clueless dork, but ok. And any half-wit could quickly in 0.13 of
a second search under Google 'Thunderbird slow editor' and find over 2
million hits. Heck there is a program (called ThunderFix) to delete TB
index files because TB keeps corrupting them and causing TB to run
slowly. Of course, dorky Alias doesn't know any of this because Alias is
too lazy to spend 0.13 second of their life to be educated.

And if you look at Amplicate's hate Thunderbird website, you will find
49% hate Thunderbird. And the main reason is because it is too slow. And
if you check out Amplicate's love Thunderbird website, only 51% love it.
So I don't know why you are so out of touch with reality? Maybe you need
to leave your room once in awhile and take a walk outside. ;-)

http://amplicate.com/hate/thunderbird
http://amplicate.com/love/thunderbird

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12.0.1
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 08 Dec 2012, BillW50 wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

I am not sure why somebody like you wants so badly to prove they
are such a clueless dork, but ok. And any half-wit could quickly
in 0.13 of a second search under Google 'Thunderbird slow editor'
and find over 2 million hits.

Google "Thunderbird love" gets you 13,800,000 results.

Gooble "avocado atom moscow bicycle" gets you 3,630,000 results.

Google "BillW50 clueless" gets you 3,430 results. I guess that proves
it, eh?

On 12/8/2012 2:25 PM, Nil wrote:
On 08 Dec 2012, wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

I am not sure why somebody like you wants so badly to prove they
are such a clueless dork, but ok. And any half-wit could quickly
in 0.13 of a second search under Google 'Thunderbird slow editor'
and find over 2 million hits.

Google "Thunderbird love" gets you 13,800,000 results.

Gooble "avocado atom moscow bicycle" gets you 3,630,000 results.

Google "BillW50 clueless" gets you 3,430 results. I guess that proves
it, eh?

Naw... most of those are from clueless Alias, who refuses to leave their
room and to go outside into the real world. As in the real world you
will find many comments about Thunderbird being slow as a very common
complaint.

--
Bill
Dell Latitute Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('11 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 7 SP1

On 12/8/2012 2:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:25 PM, Nil wrote:
On 08 Dec 2012, wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

I am not sure why somebody like you wants so badly to prove they
are such a clueless dork, but ok. And any half-wit could quickly
in 0.13 of a second search under Google 'Thunderbird slow editor'
and find over 2 million hits.

Google "Thunderbird love" gets you 13,800,000 results.

Gooble "avocado atom moscow bicycle" gets you 3,630,000 results.

Google "BillW50 clueless" gets you 3,430 results. I guess that proves
it, eh?

Naw... most of those are from clueless Alias, who refuses to leave their
room and to go outside into the real world. As in the real world you
will find many comments about Thunderbird being slow as a very common
complaint.

If you don't believe me, type in 'nil clueless' and you get 10,700,000
results. ;-)

--
Bill
Dell Latitute Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('11 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 7 SP1

On 12/8/2012 1:31 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 12/8/2012 7:36 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
"BillW50" wrote:
And I thought it was slow on my 6 year old machines. But it is just
awful on my new Intel Atom Z670 slate tablets. Heck the editor
sometimes freezes for 30 to 45 seconds at a time on these machines.
Mozilla really needs to get some better programmers that actually
knows what they are doing. :-(

I don't see other Thunderbird users (that I know so I can see what they
get for responsiveness of the product) having your difficulties. Since
your the one who reconfigures a fresh install of whatever version of
Windows, it's possible you're doing something in each install that
affects Thunderbird. I've seen way too many times where users will
complain about a problem, start with a fresh install of Windows, install
everything they did before, and just end up with the same problem again.
Have you done a fresh install of Windows, performed only the updates for
Windows, and then installed Thunderbird to see if the slowness still
happens in a clean install of Windows?

Yes I have and the problem is worse on the less powerful CPUs. A fresh
install or an old Windows install doesn't matter. That is all of the same.

I am running on the Dell Latitude ST with an Atom Z670 again. And I was
using portable TB on one of my XP SP2 machines earlier and it was doing
pretty well. Although this Dell is almost totally stock with Windows 7
SP1 pre-installed. I did turn off Control Panel\All Control Panel
Items\Performance Information and Tools\Advanced Tools for Performance,
turned off indexing, and installed Avast anti-virus), but that is pretty
much it under Windows 7.

It is still a bit sluggish but everything except Thunderbird runs pretty
well. As Thunderbird will suddenly freeze up for like 30 seconds or so
while writing this post. Copying and pasting to Notepad and editing this
post there is flawless. No delays or anything.

I was just running this portable Thunderbird on one of my XP SP2
machines for a few hours earlier running an Intel T5600 (Core2 Duo @
1.83GHz and I didn't see a problem. Although this brand new Dell,
Thunderbird is just awful! I seem to recall the same problem (but not as
bad) on my T7400 (also Core2 Duo but faster) running Windows 7 or Windows 8.

This prevents a huge problem for me. As Thunderbird seems fine on my XP
machines, but they also run OE6 which I rather use. But my Windows 7 and
Windows 8 machines, Thunderbird freezes up from time to time. Where OE6
won't run.

I'll jump to my Windows 8 machine for a few hours and see what happens
there.

--
Bill
Dell Latitute Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('11 era) - Thunderbird v12
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB - Windows 7 SP1