If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote:
I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? -- Silver Slimer Embrace mediocrity. Install GNU/Linux today. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-18 6:04 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? It only freezes for video and graphics heavy rss feeds. Rarely on anything else. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-18 8:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. Just posting this message takes 138 MB RAM. It's kind of a resource hog. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 18/02/2014 9:58 PM, Adam Kubias wrote:
On 2014-02-18 8:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. Just posting this message takes 138 MB RAM. It's kind of a resource hog. I absolutely want to remove Thunderbird and replace it but I have no idea what newsreader to use instead. Thunderbird is so fully-featured that it's hard to move away from it. If WLM quoted properly on Usenet, I'd be sold but it doesn't. -- Silver Slimer Embrace mediocrity. Install GNU/Linux today. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-18 10:05 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 18/02/2014 9:58 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: On 2014-02-18 8:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. Just posting this message takes 138 MB RAM. It's kind of a resource hog. I absolutely want to remove Thunderbird and replace it but I have no idea what newsreader to use instead. Thunderbird is so fully-featured that it's hard to move away from it. If WLM quoted properly on Usenet, I'd be sold but it doesn't. I probably won't switch it up either. Overall losing a couple of minutes a day (not really losing since I instantly switch activities) is not all that big of a deal. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Silver Slimer wrote:
If WLM quoted properly on Usenet, I'd be sold but it doesn't. Are you aware of QuoteFix? See: http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 19/02/2014 03:05, Silver Slimer wrote:
I absolutely want to remove Thunderbird and replace it but I have no idea what newsreader to use instead. Thunderbird is so fully-featured that it's hard to move away from it. If WLM quoted properly on Usenet, I'd be sold but it doesn't. Perhaps old WLM !!!!!!!!! I am still using TB but I rarely update it. -- Good Guy Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk Website: http://html-css.co.uk Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Adam Kubias wrote:
On 2014-02-18 8:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. Just posting this message takes 138 MB RAM. It's kind of a resource hog. Just posting this message, takes 321MB of RAM. But, there's a good reason for that. My biggest .msf file is 48MB. All the .msf files are open right now, and held in memory. That's the memory consumption. The fewer or smaller the .msf, the smaller the memory footprint. I can clean up the .msf files. If I delete .msf and .dat for each newsgroup, they'll be re-created. And they will be smaller (as only the current articles on the server, will define the file content). My 48MB .msf, contains the headers of the last five years of the newsgroup in question. Those could be safely tossed. I would be able to significantly reduce the 321MB figure that way. ******* Another option, is recent versions of Thunderbird have a timer set to five minutes, which closes unused .msf/.dat pairs. So if you have newsgroups in your list, which you have not accessed in the last five minutes, that amount of RAM won't be needed. These are supposed to be the entries in Configuration Editor, that control the behavior. The 300000 number is milliseconds, or five minutes. mail.db.idle_limit 300000 mail.db.max_open ******* Of course, a news client doesn't have to be designed this way. Years ago, on a Unix box, I used a news client that kept only an .rc file (keeps high_water, low_water, and tracks articles which have been read, a string of numbers). The .rc file is tiny, perhaps half a megabyte at the time. No record at all is kept for each newsgroup. So the .msf/.dat pairs are totally unneeded. Of course, the .msf/.dat pairs on Thunderbird, are capable of keeping more history than the event horizon of the news server, and you can debate whether that's an essential feature or not. If I click on an old article in there, it doesn't load, because it's no longer on the server. All I can see is headers of messages, not the bodies. You can debate whether the feature set of Thunderbird is wise, but the memory consumption can be traced to how you're using it. There are people who never clean mail folders, who use 2GB of RAM, but that's their fault. The reason the files are kept in memory, is a performance trade-off. On a slow computer, the initial parsing time for a large .msf might be significant. The design decision is to keep it in RAM. My experience here on my processor, is that isn't an issue. If the files were not kept in memory, it would only slow things down a little bit. If I was running on a 300MHz Celeron, I would think otherwise. I would load the newsgroups once in the morning, and go make coffee while it happened. If I set mail.db.max_open to "1", I expect that would significantly reduce the memory footprint. I have plenty of RAM, so it's a non-issue. ******* I only consider a tool "broken", when no tuning knob is available. I prefer that programs make good choices on their own, but when a complicated program offers tuning adjustments, it's a second best option. Now, if the Configuration Editor had popup balloons to explain what the settings did, *that* would be a good design. You have to comb the mozilla.org site, looking for hints. Paul |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Silver Slimer wrote:
On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? I have a rather most modest PC (i7-2600S @ 2.8GHz, 4GB) and TB has never frozen on me. I have no complaints about speed. Incidentally don't you just love the way Microsoft's informational displays fail to provide any way of copying their text to the clipboard? -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
"Char Jackson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. It isn't rocket science. All you have to do and open up the Task Manager and see what all of the processes are doing with the CPU. I also run Process Lasso and it logs processes, which ones that hogs the processor. And both Thunderbird and Firefox are usually the only ones in the log for days. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
"Daave" wrote in message ... Silver Slimer wrote: If WLM quoted properly on Usenet, I'd be sold but it doesn't. Are you aware of QuoteFix? See: http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ I've heard of it before, but I never tried it. But I am a big user of OE-QuoteFix for OE6. I just played with it and it appears it only adds another layer of quoting on the replied to post and inserts a sig. Apparently it is for WLM versions, which doesn't add quoting at all. But doesn't seem to be any benefit for versions like WLM 2009. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14 Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:52:57 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:
"Char Jackson" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. It isn't rocket science. All you have to do and open up the Task Manager and see what all of the processes are doing with the CPU. I also run Process Lasso and it logs processes, which ones that hogs the processor. And both Thunderbird and Firefox are usually the only ones in the log for days. After seeing the wild claims in this thread, the only conclusion I can come to is that for some people it's indistinguishable from rocket science. Case in point: the statement above that says "It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it?" is utterly ridiculous. I don't mean to pick on one person, though. This entire thread, or at least the part about Thunderbird, has been laughable from the start. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Adam Kubias has written on 2/18/2014 6:10 PM:
On 2014-02-18 6:04 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? It only freezes for video and graphics heavy rss feeds. Rarely on anything else. Would you explain that please? Do RSS feeds actually deliver video content to you and you can view it in Thunderbird? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Paul has written on 2/19/2014 12:43 AM:
Adam Kubias wrote: On 2014-02-18 8:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:55 -0500, Silver Slimer wrote: On 18/02/2014 5:33 PM, Adam Kubias wrote: I have an even better computer. i7-4770 @3.40 GHz with 32 GB RAM. Thunderbird is slow as hell, at least 5 times a day it totally freezes. Holy ****. It freezes on THAT kind of a configuration? Jesus Christ it's worse than awful isn't it? You're assuming that Thunderbird is the one and only application ever running on that system. That sort of assumes facts not in evidence, as a lawyer buddy is fond of saying. Without knowing what else is running, you can't come to a conclusion WRT Thunderbird. Just posting this message takes 138 MB RAM. It's kind of a resource hog. Just posting this message, takes 321MB of RAM. But, there's a good reason for that. My biggest .msf file is 48MB. All the .msf files are open right now, and held in memory. That's the memory consumption. The fewer or smaller the .msf, the smaller the memory footprint. I can clean up the .msf files. If I delete .msf and .dat for each newsgroup, they'll be re-created. And they will be smaller (as only the current articles on the server, will define the file content). My 48MB .msf, contains the headers of the last five years of the newsgroup in question. Those could be safely tossed. I would be able to significantly reduce the 321MB figure that way. ******* Another option, is recent versions of Thunderbird have a timer set to five minutes, which closes unused .msf/.dat pairs. So if you have newsgroups in your list, which you have not accessed in the last five minutes, that amount of RAM won't be needed. These are supposed to be the entries in Configuration Editor, that control the behavior. The 300000 number is milliseconds, or five minutes. mail.db.idle_limit 300000 mail.db.max_open ******* Of course, a news client doesn't have to be designed this way. Years ago, on a Unix box, I used a news client that kept only an .rc file (keeps high_water, low_water, and tracks articles which have been read, a string of numbers). The .rc file is tiny, perhaps half a megabyte at the time. No record at all is kept for each newsgroup. So the .msf/.dat pairs are totally unneeded. Of course, the .msf/.dat pairs on Thunderbird, are capable of keeping more history than the event horizon of the news server, and you can debate whether that's an essential feature or not. If I click on an old article in there, it doesn't load, because it's no longer on the server. All I can see is headers of messages, not the bodies. You can debate whether the feature set of Thunderbird is wise, but the memory consumption can be traced to how you're using it. There are people who never clean mail folders, who use 2GB of RAM, but that's their fault. The reason the files are kept in memory, is a performance trade-off. On a slow computer, the initial parsing time for a large .msf might be significant. The design decision is to keep it in RAM. My experience here on my processor, is that isn't an issue. If the files were not kept in memory, it would only slow things down a little bit. If I was running on a 300MHz Celeron, I would think otherwise. I would load the newsgroups once in the morning, and go make coffee while it happened. If I set mail.db.max_open to "1", I expect that would significantly reduce the memory footprint. I have plenty of RAM, so it's a non-issue. ******* I only consider a tool "broken", when no tuning knob is available. I prefer that programs make good choices on their own, but when a complicated program offers tuning adjustments, it's a second best option. Now, if the Configuration Editor had popup balloons to explain what the settings did, *that* would be a good design. You have to comb the mozilla.org site, looking for hints. How about using Compact Folders? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|