On 29/3/01 9:40 AM, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
> You don't have to be a computer expert - just use common sense. Every
> application needs a certain amount of memory just to open and run, without
> any user-initiated specific task at all. All the applications you mention
> will require different amounts of memory to run. Entourage is an incredibly
> complex application with all its many PIM and email features and
> interconnections in the database. If you "love Entourage for the slew of
> features it has", then stop complaining. They all require memory. Just one
> of those features, for example, is the "links" features that automatically
> links new incoming messages to the contact in your Address Book represented
> by the sender of the message. For all I know, opening a message involves
> accessing these links.
Before I complained (or presented this issue as I like to say it), I had
increased the memory partition of Entourage by a few hundred to see whether
memory allocation was an issue. However this was not so as Entourage doesn't
seem to be using the increase in memory allocation when I did my test of
opening copious amounts of messages from the 'About This Mac' window. I
think someone from the Entourage team mentioned here before about giving too
much memory to the app won't make too big a difference.
As a consumer of paid software, I would like to think that I have some right
to complain about the performance of the email client that I bought. The
Entourage team here seemed to be concerned about user feedback on their work
so I thought voicing my opinion would shape the way Entourage is being
updated. I understand that Entourage is a pretty complex app and just wanted
to know whether this was an issue that the Entourage team was looking into
and would fix.
> And it must take a _lot_ more memory to open a message which is part of a
> complex Messages file, linked to a complex database file, than it does to
> open a simple independent message in one of those other email apps you
> mention. Undoubtedly code has to be processed just to extract it from the
> Messages file. So there's no reason at all why it shouldn't take a lot more
> memory for Entourage to try doing this on 150 messages at once than in an
> app that just has to open 150 separate message files.
thanks for explaining this. it helps that this kind of thing be explained so
that users like me would understand the speed issue.
> If you don't care
> about Entourage's extra features and are bothered by the amount of memory
> you have to give it to do something as unlikely as opening 150 messages at
> once (not the highest priority, I'm sure, when optimizing Entourage), then
> probably you should go back to using one of those other apps.
*ouch* it's not a priority but it would be nice to know that speeding up
Enoturage in doing so (this linked database thingy) would be great. And not
recommending me to return to other email clients when I'm already pretty
proficient in using it and have invested much time, interest and energy in
making Entourage work for me. pls understand that I brought up this issue in
the most objective way that I could... have been on enough mailing lists to
know that going on a rant won't help one much.
thanks!
greg ^_^
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
