A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 8 » Windows 8 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Recommended EMail Application



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old February 19th 14, 12:04 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Silver Slimer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 12:10 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Adam Kubias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 02:48 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 03:58 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Adam Kubias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 04:05 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Silver Slimer[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 04:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Adam Kubias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 04:50 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Daave[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 05:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Good Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,354
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 06:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 08:31 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Mike Barnes[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 537
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 01:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 02:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 03:45 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 04:43 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Juan Wei
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old February 19th 14, 04:48 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Juan Wei
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.