KDE 4.8.1 showstopper - for me at least

[Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 24/03/12 00:47, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin at iinet.net.au>
>>  wrote:
>
>
> [pruned]
>
>
>
>>> I have been using Thunderbird since it was first known as a component of
>>> Netscape. I have never found it to be slow.
>>>
>>> So I am wondering why you consider it to be "slow" - a term which, as
>>> mentioned here, appears to be a relative term :-) . Why do you think that
>>> it
>>> is slow?
>>
>> Sure, I have a mail filter configured, and I get ~500 mails a day and
>> that filter have to parse them, while Thunderbird get the mails, apply
>> the filter, and move the messages to another folder, it doesn't
>> respond..
>
>
> I am not sure what you are saying here - "it doesn't respond".

Just that: it doesn't respond... it is "stuck".  I have 5 imap mail
accounts configured there, and 500 emails to filter on one of these
(~750 received) is enough to keep Thunderbird busy (as in: it will not
let me type the password for the other account) for quite some time,
until it finish filtering the mails (or just allows for *very slow*
typing, showing two characters very 10 seconds or so).

>
> I get around 300 e-mail each day and as they are downloaded from my ISP the
> instantly go into the various folders specified by the message filter. They
> don't first go into a holding area from which they are then moved by the
> filter - as they arrive they are immediately sent to the appropriate folder.

good it work so great for you, for me: it is *really* slow, maybe
because I configured it to download all messages locally, and I'm
using 5 IMAP mail accounts.

>
> And the only thing which holds me up sometimes is when someone sends me a
> massive attachment to an e-mail (and I wish that they would stop doing this,
> but friends are friends...... :-) ). Or when my ISP is having a hassle and
> sends me the mail very slowly because of the glitch in 'his' sysem.

But thunderbird will respond under that circumstances, this happens
mainly on the first startup in the morning (because it have to filter
a lot of messages), after that: I don't even note it is there (but
hey: I got a 4 core AMD A8, with 16GB RAM).

>
>
>
>>  and it can take up to 3 minutes (usually ~1 minute, but can
>> be more).... kmail is faster doing this (and doesn't becomes
>> unresponsive).
>
>
> "unresponsive" again. What do you mean by this, please?

That it won't respond to keypresses or mouse clicks (it is asking me
for the password for the other account, and I type, and it doesn't
show the characters after some time, ie: really slow, I consider it
stuck).

>
>
>
>>>>  but due that kmail now have
>>>> this annoying issue that it just "disconnects" and doesn't get new
>>>> emails after a while (after 1~3 hours, unpredictable), and I have to
>>>> close it and re-open to get it going again, I guess I have no way out
>>>> but to go back to thunderbird (evolution is not in good shape right
>>>> now either).
>>>>
>>>>> "Why keep doing it if it hurts?"
>>>>
>>>> well, thunderbird hurts too, only not on so important areas
>>>
>>> So it only hurts only on those unimportant points, right? :-) .
>>>
>>> Again, could you please mention what these points are where TB "hurts".
>>
>> Slowness, that's the most important to me...
>
>
>
> I think that here I have to ask the question: how fast is your broadband
> connection? and which *version* of Thunderbird are you referring to?

10Mbps right now, it used to be 1Mbps, and TB 11.0.  On both
connections the response time is pretty much the same (looking at
gkrellm's bw graph, I can clearly see that bandwidth is not an issue
here).

>
> The other question is: are you comparing Thunderbird with your Kmail on the
> SAME computer or is one installed on one machine and the other on another,
> different computer?

Of course I'm comparing on the same computer! do you think I'm a newbe
or what? (just fyi, I have been around computing world for 23 years
now.

>
>
>
>> Another is the fact that it does illogical things while dealing with
>> attachments, I hasn't really tested this with kmail yet (just forgot
>> to do it, but I will), because this problem was reported by a customer
>> who have very slow Internet links, and uses Windows, I verified this
>> on Linux TB too:
>>
>> 1. It will either: completely download all attachments, or download no
>> attachments at all (no "maximum download" that works, like k9 mail
>> (android)).
>> 2. If you can make it to *not* download the attachments initially, and
>> you open an attachment, it will download the attachment from the imap
>> server, but if you want to open the same attachment again later: it
>> will download it again!!!! (I don't want to save disk, I want to save
>> bandwidth)....no good.

Please, bear in mind this is not a problem for *me*, it was a problem
for one of my customers, see, I just configure TB to fully download
all messages, and I'm happy, after all: my Internet connection is fast
enough, but they have some offices with 256kbps connections, and 10
people there, so, if they were to send a 2MB attachment to each of
these 10 persons, they would download it 10 times!, so, I tried to
make TB *not* download the full message (had to disable junk checks,
and a lot of other things that I can't remember right now), and ok: it
stopped download the attachment, but now then: it would download "on
request", and never store it locally... which is not smart, in my
opinion: if you already downloaded a static content (mail attachment),
it should be stored on local cache: well, TB doesn't do that.

>
>
> I have to admit that you have me kinda confused right here :-) .
>
> Are we talking here about some Windows rubbish or Thunderbird in Linux? Or
> are you talking here about Thunderbird in both Windows and Linux?

Thunderbird on BOTH Windows AND Linux.  As a matter of fact, I had a
thread on TB forums about it: no solution was possible.... it is
amazing that a mobile mail app can have more logical than TB :( .

>
> There is a setting in TB which tells the ISP's server to either keep
> everything or delete it when it is downloaded. What is this set to in TB?

That's for pop, try imap.  And, about pop: there was an option to just
download headers, but then, I had to download the full message to read
it (including attachments, and 70% of the time the person didn't need
to open the attachment).

>
> Just out of interest, I was on dial-up for many years and it was during this
> time that I started using Thunderbird in its original 'form' called
> Netscape. Never in that time I had hassles with what you are describing. I
> suspect that your friend has some problems with the system installation
> and/or the ISP. (Just as an aside, I was with one "big player" of an ISP
> here in Australia and I had nothing but *trouble* with
> connections/disconnections - and this was on broadband! So I changed ISPs
> and now am enjoying myself (and have been for 4 years).

Yeah, my too: I also started using it as part of Netscape (Netscape
Communicator suite, iirc), a loong time ago.

>
>
>
>
>>>> .... at
>>>> least it will get new emails.
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to me a very good reason then to use it, right? :-D
>>
>> Right, that's why I'm going back to it for now.
>
>
> That's the spirit! :-) . Never give up :-) .
>
>
> BC
>

Ildefonso.