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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Paul has written on 2/16/2014 3:18 PM:
It's the kind of tool, where some user tuning may be required. The server has a maximum number of connections, and the client can be set to use less than that. And if you set the connections low enough, a more efficient serialization may occur for you. The latest TB versions are too asynchronous, and shoot themselves in the foot. These can be found in the Configuration Editor. In Firefox, this would be about:config, but in Thunderbird, there is a button to click to open the Editor. This is like a Registry, but uses a separate file. mail.server.server2.max_cached_connections 2 mail.server.server4.max_cached_connections 2 mail.imap.max_cached_connections 10 --- Not used by me mail.server.server2.hostname nntp.aioe.org mail.server.server4.hostname news.eternal-september.org # Tuning parameters not present in old versions. # idle_limit set to 300000 by default. Presumably 5 minutes, # but who can be sure. This means if the .msf isn't used # for five minutes, it'll be closed, and a future attempt # to use it will open it again. It means TB will be as slow # as it is at startup, if this is set too low. In older # versions, the unused databases would remain open, and # memory usage could be high. This might be a more useful # tuning, if you have an add-on that abuses databases. mail.db.idle_limit mail.db.max_open Paul What settings do you recommend? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:18:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
These can be found in the Configuration Editor. In Firefox, this would be about:config, but in Thunderbird, there is a button to click to open the Editor. Options Options Advanced General Config Editor -- s|b |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2/16/2014 2:16 PM, Paladin wrote: On 2014-02-16, BillW50
wrote: SNIP Nice machine! I wonder how well it compares to my Alienware machines? And I have 30+ machines here and the more CPU power a machine has, the less noticeable TB slowness is (those Atom processors is the worst, but then they only use 3 to 5 watts of power). SNIP You should updte your sig... Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP ..as your sig shows non alienware performers As alienware is now dell, alienware lost it's umph anyway. Dell gimps their hardware. Unless they stopped gimping everything? Maybe they got better. Gamers I know build their own. Yes some people list all of their machines in their sigs. Although I have 30+ machines, so my sigs would be super long. So my sig only changes depending on which machine I am currently on. It also helps me if one machine isn't posting correctly. As I can see instantly which machine I posted it on. Yes I know Dell owns Alienware, although Dell as far as I can tell, lets them do what they have been doing. And yes, Dell and some other major players also make superb game machines too. But they also have non-game machines too. Alienware only makes game machines and that is all. Yes, most desktop games roll their own machines. Nothing wrong with that at all. Except it makes the machine very unique and could cause lots of compatibility problems that one must iron out. But that is part of the fun, isn't it? My first laptop I purchased back in '84. I really liked laptops for portability. Although desktops were always more powerful, so I had those too. Although I retired my last desktop in about '05 and I only run laptops and tablets now. And almost nobody has a gaming laptop except Alienware. Okay some, but not many. And okay, Alienware laptops which they call them as desktop replacements doesn't get much battery life or anything. But they are indeed portable. Build your own laptop game machine? Yes you can indeed. Far tougher than building a desktop game machine, but it still could be done. So I rather buy one which already did all of the R&D. ;-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:28:52 -0800, OldGuy wrote:
Win 7 Pro all updates Then why are you crossposting this to an XP and W8 newsgroup? PC = Intel Quad 3GHz 8GRAM, 500MB free C: You only have 500 MiB of free space on your C: drive? (?) I found this through a quick search: | A stand-alone installation of Windows 7 SP1 requires 1.8 GB of free | space (for 32-bit (x86)) and 3.3 GB (64-bit (x64)). Customers that will | deploy Windows 7 SP1 through Windows Update (WU) will need 1.5 GB of | free disk space for the 32-bit (x86) version of the upgrade and 2.6 GB | for 64-bit (x64). -- s|b |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2/16/2014 2:00 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/02/2014 7:38 AM, BillW50 wrote: On 2/15/2014 9:15 PM, OldGuy wrote: I tried Thunderbird and it is very slow. Thunderbird programmers do not seem to know how to code to release for user actions. It locks itself up until it finishes what it wants to do. Not good programming. I cannot seem to stop what is happening or do other simple tasks until TBird finishes. You noticed that too, eh? Yeah that is very annoying about TB for me. Funny some people claim they do not see it. I admit if you have more processor power than you know what to do with, the slowness is less noticeable. I also heard if you use IMAP email (I do), TB spends much of its time updating indexes. This in turn tends to really slow down TB a lot. This is what I've been arguing a week or two ago. Thunderbird is terrible in terms of resource usage as is Firefox. With an i5 and higher, I assume that there is no problem. However, there shouldn't be a problem with an i3 like what is on my laptop. The fact that it's so sluggish says a lot about the quality of programmers working on the project. Yes Thunderbird has always been this way. I suspect TB uses very little threads which makes things worse. Later versions seem to have made things even worse. As I used TB since v1.5 and that one was much better. Each version later it just gets slower and slower. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Juan Wei wrote:
Paul has written on 2/16/2014 3:18 PM: It's the kind of tool, where some user tuning may be required. The server has a maximum number of connections, and the client can be set to use less than that. And if you set the connections low enough, a more efficient serialization may occur for you. The latest TB versions are too asynchronous, and shoot themselves in the foot. These can be found in the Configuration Editor. In Firefox, this would be about:config, but in Thunderbird, there is a button to click to open the Editor. This is like a Registry, but uses a separate file. mail.server.server2.max_cached_connections 2 mail.server.server4.max_cached_connections 2 mail.imap.max_cached_connections 10 --- Not used by me mail.server.server2.hostname nntp.aioe.org mail.server.server4.hostname news.eternal-september.org # Tuning parameters not present in old versions. # idle_limit set to 300000 by default. Presumably 5 minutes, # but who can be sure. This means if the .msf isn't used # for five minutes, it'll be closed, and a future attempt # to use it will open it again. It means TB will be as slow # as it is at startup, if this is set too low. In older # versions, the unused databases would remain open, and # memory usage could be high. This might be a more useful # tuning, if you have an add-on that abuses databases. mail.db.idle_limit mail.db.max_open Paul What settings do you recommend? I recommend having a look in there, just to satisfy your own curiosity. Try a value of 1 for example, for max_cached_connections, and see how it behaves. Then try 2. Rinse and repeat. Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-16, BillW50 wrote:
On 2/16/2014 2:16 PM, Paladin wrote: On 2014-02-16, BillW50 SNIP Yes some people list all of their machines in their sigs. Although I have 30+ machines, so my sigs would be super long. So my sig only changes depending on which machine I am currently on. It also helps me if one machine isn't posting correctly. As I can see instantly which machine I posted it on. Yes I know Dell owns Alienware, although Dell as far as I can tell, lets them do what they have been doing. And yes, Dell and some other major players also make superb game machines too. But they also have non-game machines too. Alienware only makes game machines and that is all. Yes, most desktop games roll their own machines. Nothing wrong with that at all. Except it makes the machine very unique and could cause lots of compatibility problems that one must iron out. But that is part of the fun, isn't it? My first laptop I purchased back in '84. I really liked laptops for portability. Although desktops were always more powerful, so I had those too. Although I retired my last desktop in about '05 and I only run laptops and tablets now. And almost nobody has a gaming laptop except Alienware. Okay some, but not many. And okay, Alienware laptops which they call them as desktop replacements doesn't get much battery life or anything. But they are indeed portable. Build your own laptop game machine? Yes you can indeed. Far tougher than building a desktop game machine, but it still could be done. So I rather buy one which already did all of the R&D. ;-) I have no doubt you know what you are doing. I was just pulling your leg I've never had a gaming laptop, as throwing them is to easy. -- Many people are desperately looking for some wise advice which will recommend that they do what they want to do. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
OldGuy formulated the question :
Win 7 Pro all updates TB latest version PC = Intel Quad 3GHz 8GRAM, 500MB free C: It is because I have so many eMails with 150K attachements that are downloading. TB programmers need to release more code time to the system (allowing TB to multitask) during such downloads. Maybe TB only uses a few threads?? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Oops 500GB Disk free. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
s|b presented the following explanation :
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:28:52 -0800, OldGuy wrote: Then why are you crossposting this to an XP and W8 newsgroup? You only have 500 MiB of free space on your C: drive? (?) I found this through a quick search: Because I want to use a common app on my Win XP, Win 7 and my Win 8.1 installations! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Juan Wei was thinking very hard :
OldGuy has written on 2/16/2014 1:28 PM: How many of these do you get each day? Did you file a request? Approx one every two minutes. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
OldGuy has written on 2/16/2014 4:40 PM:
Juan Wei was thinking very hard : OldGuy has written on 2/16/2014 1:28 PM: How many of these do you get each day? Did you file a request? Approx one every two minutes. To where? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 16/02/2014 4:02 PM, Paladin wrote:
Build your own laptop game machine? Yes you can indeed. Far tougher than building a desktop game machine, but it still could be done. So I rather buy one which already did all of the R&D. ;-) I have no doubt you know what you are doing. I was just pulling your leg I've never had a gaming laptop, as throwing them is to easy. Building a gaming laptop is a bad idea. I've been looking around at them for a while since my current laptop is aging but I can't help but notice that only the very best laptop GPU gets the same performance as my desktop's GTX 660 Ti. You need a GTX 780M to get much of the same performance as the 660 Ti but a laptop with that chip will cost you about $1,800, minimum. Keep gaming on the desktop. -- Silver Slimer Embrace mediocrity. Install GNU/Linux. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-16, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC), generic name wrote: On 2014-02-16, mechanic wrote: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:15:24 -0800, OldGuy wrote: So what free eMail apps are any good? PC-Alpine. Has anything been done to improve its setup for multiple email-ids? Alpine supports multiple imap accounts, each with user name etc. Read through the relevant pages on ii.com. like http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/imap/isps/#table . Also you could ask on comp.mail.pine Thanks. I used to use Alpine but with pop3 mail accounts where I had to do something or other to get the mail into the same(?) inbox. Don't recall but it was easy with the linux version but the windows version required some manipulations. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
On 2014-02-16 4:37 PM, OldGuy wrote:
OldGuy formulated the question : Win 7 Pro all updates TB latest version PC = Intel Quad 3GHz 8GRAM, 500MB free C: It is because I have so many eMails with 150K attachements that are downloading. TB programmers need to release more code time to the system (allowing TB to multitask) during such downloads. Maybe TB only uses a few threads?? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Oops 500GB Disk free. 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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
Adam Kubias has written on 2/18/2014 5:33 PM:
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. I have a worse one: i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz with 8.00 GB RAM and I rarely see "Not Responding"! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|