On 3/28/01 6:34 AM, "Gregory Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28/3/01 7:51 PM, Timothy Bates wrote:
>
>> We probably need to distinguish between 'rage hogging the processor, and
>> being slow. When you are trying to switch to an OS-X process, the
>> responsiveness of the system to your request is determined by the
>> "niceness" you give to classic. In order to make classic feel snappy, the
>> default nice for this unitary process is, I suspect, quite low.
>
> ooops sorry I should have been specific but this happened in 9.1 and not
> Classic. maybe everyone could give it a try, choose a folder with abt 150
> messages and select all to open all at once... each message took a while to
> open and I couldn't do anything else for a while but watch.
>
Is there something about this you find surprising? If you're in the habit
of opening 150 messages at once and you would also like it to be as quick as
opening one message at a time like most people, then you probably need 150
times as much memory as he default. But simply giving yourself 3 or 4 or 5
times might do the trick so you don't notice the difference much. Raise
Entourage's memory to 25 or 30 MB if this seriously matters to you. (That's
a guess - I haven't tried 150 messages at once myself.) Or experiment, and
let us know how much memory is needed to make you happy when you try to open
150. As long as you realize that it won't be quite the same if you then try
to open 250 messages at once another time.
--
Paul Berkowitz
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
