I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish. I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS. Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware! I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this. Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program. Do any of you use Macs? Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
I use it, and no problem with slowness. Mail version 8.2 (2104), on a mid-2015 MacBook Pro, OS X Yosemite version 10.10.5. 3496 emails in my inbox. My problem is with Safari (v 10.1.2) being so old it won’t open some newer web pages; upgrading means new OS because it’s bundled, and new OS is fearsome to me. :-( — Mike
On May 31, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Consider switching web browsers? --Michael "Hi I'm a software engineer working on Chrome" Kleber On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:57 PM Mike Beeler <mikebeeler2@gmail.com> wrote:
I use it, and no problem with slowness.
Mail version 8.2 (2104), on a mid-2015 MacBook Pro, OS X Yosemite version 10.10.5. 3496 emails in my inbox. My problem is with Safari (v 10.1.2) being so old it won’t open some newer web pages; upgrading means new OS because it’s bundled, and new OS is fearsome to me. :-(
— Mike
On May 31, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
Hello, The same thing happens with other applications in Mac OS, Itunes compared to Winamp, winamp is very fast, simple and can hold more than 500000 pieces of music. Just try the same with Itunes with 10000 tunes. Best Regards Ps : I use linux and windows too. simon plouffe Le lun. 1 juin 2020 à 01:52, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> a écrit :
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Even my DOS machine from the 1990s was faster at handling email than the super computer I'm writing this on. Unnecessary complexity artificially raises the value of small accomplishments. Nice mention of Winamp, good memories :). On 5/31/20 22:03, Simon Plouffe wrote:
Hello, The same thing happens with other applications in Mac OS, Itunes compared to Winamp, winamp is very fast, simple and can hold more than 500000 pieces of music. Just try the same with Itunes with 10000 tunes. Best Regards Ps : I use linux and windows too. simon plouffe
Le lun. 1 juin 2020 à 01:52, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> a écrit :
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
SP: "Itunes compared to Winamp, winamp is very fast, simple and can hold more than 500000 pieces of music. Just try the same with Itunes with 10000 tunes." I'm reluctant to add to this off-topic thread but I can't let this one go. I've been using Mac computers since the mid-1990s and iTunes since 2000. I started by converting my collection of CDs (~14000 songs) and added the then-free-and-easy music that was available on the internet. By 2010, I had amassed a sizable collection: http://chesswanks.com/mzk/albums.pdf The numbers are at the top of the first page. Not much since then (I'm at just over 98000 songs, including some 18000 I have never played). I don't recall the last time I had an issue with iTunes in OSX. Perhaps it's because I've always been generous with the RAM on my machines.
Re: email performance, you may look into folder size. It seems many email clients these days like to load the entire index of folders into memory, and that the complexity associated with that has been kept linear or worse. For that reason, it may help to periodically move older emails to archive folders that a) don't change anymore (note how doing this will *substantially* cut down the size of your time machine backups), and b) presumably you don't open often and so the email client isn't tempted to load all the index into memory again. These tips help when using Thunderbird. HTH... On 5/31/20 10:42, Henry Baker wrote:
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I use Thunderbird client with more than 30 years of mail archives : no problem. best regards, Simon Plouffe Le lun. 1 juin 2020 à 07:35, Andres Valloud <ten@smallinteger.com> a écrit :
Re: email performance, you may look into folder size. It seems many email clients these days like to load the entire index of folders into memory, and that the complexity associated with that has been kept linear or worse. For that reason, it may help to periodically move older emails to archive folders that a) don't change anymore (note how doing this will *substantially* cut down the size of your time machine backups), and b) presumably you don't open often and so the email client isn't tempted to load all the index into memory again. These tips help when using Thunderbird. HTH...
On 5/31/20 10:42, Henry Baker wrote:
I realize that this is off-topic, so feel free to delete this if you wish.
I personally use Linux & Windows, but my wife uses MacOS.
Over the past 2 years, the MacOS "Mail" program has become impossibly slow -- all the while use the same hardware!
I can't believe that Mac users would put up with this.
Note that everything else works fine; it's just the Mail program.
Do any of you use Macs?
Do you find the Mac Mail program intolerably slow?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
First do what is suggested below. Then try to find find something like "compact folders" in the menu and do that right away! In addition when your mails are via IMAP and hold on a server, the server may be a bottleneck. Also don't poll for new messages excessively, every 5 minutes should be enough. You can always manually request new messages in the (rare, I guess) cases when you expect to receive a new message "right now". Best regards, jj P.S.: After about three decades of not using Windows I now use a borrowed Win10 Machine (for "Teams" for remote teaching). What a bloddy horror this O/S and software is! * Andres Valloud <ten@smallinteger.com> [Jun 01. 2020 15:12]:
Re: email performance, you may look into folder size. It seems many email clients these days like to load the entire index of folders into memory, and that the complexity associated with that has been kept linear or worse. For that reason, it may help to periodically move older emails to archive folders that a) don't change anymore (note how doing this will *substantially* cut down the size of your time machine backups), and b) presumably you don't open often and so the email client isn't tempted to load all the index into memory again. These tips help when using Thunderbird. HTH...
On 5/31/20 10:42, Henry Baker wrote:
[...]
There's even an option to compact automatically if it's worth it. On 6/1/20 06:39, Joerg Arndt wrote:
First do what is suggested below.
Then try to find find something like "compact folders" in the menu and do that right away!
In addition when your mails are via IMAP and hold on a server, the server may be a bottleneck.
Also don't poll for new messages excessively, every 5 minutes should be enough. You can always manually request new messages in the (rare, I guess) cases when you expect to receive a new message "right now".
Best regards, jj
P.S.: After about three decades of not using Windows I now use a borrowed Win10 Machine (for "Teams" for remote teaching). What a bloddy horror this O/S and software is!
* Andres Valloud <ten@smallinteger.com> [Jun 01. 2020 15:12]:
Re: email performance, you may look into folder size. It seems many email clients these days like to load the entire index of folders into memory, and that the complexity associated with that has been kept linear or worse. For that reason, it may help to periodically move older emails to archive folders that a) don't change anymore (note how doing this will *substantially* cut down the size of your time machine backups), and b) presumably you don't open often and so the email client isn't tempted to load all the index into memory again. These tips help when using Thunderbird. HTH...
On 5/31/20 10:42, Henry Baker wrote:
[...]
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Hmmm... I haven't found any options labelled 'compact', although there are some called 'rebuild'. --- After playing around with the MacOS 'Mail' app for a while on my wife's Mac, here are my current speculations: * It appears that the 'Mail' program continuously tries to interpret html mail -- including any embedded Javascript -- presumably to check for spam and/or perform indexing * MacOS Javascript is incredibly slow -- e.g., Apple's own Safari browser * It used to be possible to disable indexing in 'Mail', but now with Time Machine, this appears to be no longer possible. It may be possible to disable *both* Time Machine and indexing, but at the cost of no backup for 'Mail' at all! * My wife was keeping lots of deleted mail in the 'Trash' folder, but for some reason, these emails were being continuously re-interpreted -- including their html/javascript code -- so 'Mail' slowed to a San Andreas Fault pace. I was able to speed up 'Mail' to some extent by *keeping the 'Trash' folder always empty*, and utilizing another folder 'myoldtrash' instead. Thus, whatever special treatment 'Trash' was getting no longer stands in the way of performance. Unfortunately, keeping 'Trash' completely empty takes a lot of additional effort to constantly check its contents, and to immediately decide whether to delete it forever or move it to 'myoldtrash'. I'd love to figure out how to disable Spotlight indexing w/o disabling Time Machine; the problem may be that this MacOS is using the latest 'Catalina', so all of the old advice (after Googling) about how this might be done no longer applies. At 12:15 PM 6/1/2020, Andres Valloud wrote:
There's even an option to compact automatically if it's worth it.
On 6/1/20 06:39, Joerg Arndt wrote:
First do what is suggested below. Then try to find find something like "compact folders" in the menu and do that right away! In addition when your mails are via IMAP and hold on a server, the server may be a bottleneck. Also don't poll for new messages excessively, every 5 minutes should be enough. You can always manually request new messages in the (rare, I guess) cases when you expect to receive a new message "right now". Best regards, jj P.S.: After about three decades of not using Windows I now use a borrowed Win10 Machine (for "Teams" for remote teaching). What a bloddy horror this O/S and software is! * Andres Valloud <ten@smallinteger.com> [Jun 01. 2020 15:12]:
Re: email performance, you may look into folder size. It seems many email clients these days like to load the entire index of folders into memory, and that the complexity associated with that has been kept linear or worse. For that reason, it may help to periodically move older emails to archive folders that a) don't change anymore (note how doing this will *substantially* cut down the size of your time machine backups), and b) presumably you don't open often and so the email client isn't tempted to load all the index into memory again. These tips help when using Thunderbird. HTH...
On 5/31/20 10:42, Henry Baker wrote:
[...]
participants (7)
-
Andres Valloud -
Hans Havermann -
Henry Baker -
Joerg Arndt -
Michael Kleber -
Mike Beeler -
Simon Plouffe