* a faster Gnus?
@ 2000-04-29 21:09 Jack Vinson
2000-04-29 22:26 ` Johan Kullstam
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jack Vinson @ 2000-04-29 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hey Guys,
Someone made a comment a week or two ago that, essentially, Gnus was quite
slow compared to things like MS Outlook or Netscape's messenger. The
person was talking about picking up mail (POP mail in my case), and thought
it seemed like Gnus was a turtle to these others being the hare.
One thing, as far as mail goes, is that Gnus grabs the entire set of mail
at once before displaying it to the user. With these other programs, they
seem to grab one at a time - displaying the new messages before all of them
are downloaded. This may lead to some of the apparent speed.
There are plenty of great things about Gnus, and I would like to continue
using it, but if it is going to be so significantly slower, why bother?
Any thoughts?
--
JackVinson@Yahoo.com
Bart: I will not torment the emotionally frail.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: a faster Gnus?
2000-04-29 21:09 a faster Gnus? Jack Vinson
@ 2000-04-29 22:26 ` Johan Kullstam
2000-04-30 14:47 ` Stainless Steel Rat
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Johan Kullstam @ 2000-04-29 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jack Vinson <JackVinson@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Someone made a comment a week or two ago that, essentially, Gnus was quite
> slow compared to things like MS Outlook or Netscape's messenger. The
> person was talking about picking up mail (POP mail in my case), and thought
> it seemed like Gnus was a turtle to these others being the hare.
>
> One thing, as far as mail goes, is that Gnus grabs the entire set of mail
> at once before displaying it to the user. With these other programs, they
> seem to grab one at a time - displaying the new messages before all of them
> are downloaded. This may lead to some of the apparent speed.
>
> There are plenty of great things about Gnus, and I would like to continue
> using it, but if it is going to be so significantly slower, why
> bother?
speed of reading your pop3 server is only important if you get *tons*
of email. anyone receiving a ton of email will appreciate gnus
splitting methods and all around news treatment of mail.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kullstam@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: a faster Gnus?
2000-04-29 21:09 a faster Gnus? Jack Vinson
2000-04-29 22:26 ` Johan Kullstam
@ 2000-04-30 14:47 ` Stainless Steel Rat
2000-04-30 15:19 ` Anders Melchiorsen
2000-05-01 1:52 ` Brian May
3 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stainless Steel Rat @ 2000-04-30 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
* Jack Vinson <JackVinson@yahoo.com> on Sat, 29 Apr 2000
| Any thoughts?
Yeah.
OX is compiled C++.
Gnus and pop3.el are Emacs-Lisp, and there is absoutely nothing in pop3.el
to eliminate bottlenecks.
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: a faster Gnus?
2000-04-29 21:09 a faster Gnus? Jack Vinson
2000-04-29 22:26 ` Johan Kullstam
2000-04-30 14:47 ` Stainless Steel Rat
@ 2000-04-30 15:19 ` Anders Melchiorsen
2000-05-01 1:52 ` Brian May
3 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Anders Melchiorsen @ 2000-04-30 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
Jack Vinson <JackVinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Someone made a comment a week or two ago that, essentially, Gnus was
> quite slow compared to things like MS Outlook or Netscape's
> messenger. The person was talking about picking up mail (POP mail
> in my case), and thought it seemed like Gnus was a turtle to these
> others being the hare.
If it is only the matter of picking up mail, how does fetchmail
compare to these other programs?
-And
--
Gåsen gav et gæstebud
for grisene til jul.
Grisene fik gåsehud
da gåsen gav dem sul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: a faster Gnus?
2000-04-29 21:09 a faster Gnus? Jack Vinson
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2000-04-30 15:19 ` Anders Melchiorsen
@ 2000-05-01 1:52 ` Brian May
[not found] ` <wtnaeiabukc.fsf@licia.dtek.chalmers.se>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian May @ 2000-05-01 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
>>>>> "Jack" == Jack Vinson <JackVinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Jack> There are plenty of great things about Gnus, and I would
Jack> like to continue using it, but if it is going to be so
Jack> significantly slower, why bother?
I find Gnus to be rather slow when displaying complicated mail (eg a
20 page fax, mime encoded, sent via mail takes ages to display via
Gnus; not only that, but I can't do anything with xemacs until it has
finished).
Normally, speed is not a problem though. Not that I use pop though...
(of course, it was slower on my 486...)
--
Brian May <bmay@csse.monash.edu.au>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-05-04 2:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-04-29 21:09 a faster Gnus? Jack Vinson
2000-04-29 22:26 ` Johan Kullstam
2000-04-30 14:47 ` Stainless Steel Rat
2000-04-30 15:19 ` Anders Melchiorsen
2000-05-01 1:52 ` Brian May
[not found] ` <wtnaeiabukc.fsf@licia.dtek.chalmers.se>
2000-05-03 9:47 ` Roman Belenov
2000-05-03 11:15 ` Daniel Pittman
2000-05-04 2:55 ` William M. Perry
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).