On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 4:06:51 PM, Maksym wrote:
> 1) People usually say of The Bat! as being very fast. With our
> setup here (~80 folders with both corporate and my personal mail,
> some of them having 5000+ messages per folder), it is _slower_
> (?!!) than Outlook Express 5.5. It is especially slow when
> entering big folders, re-sorting, compressing, etc. (No advices
> like "Make your folders smaller", please. We need our big mail
> archives organized this way, and we need a mailer capable of
> handling them.)
I also came from OE (5.0), and I'm pretty sure TB is faster than
OE5, in general or when handling large folders. I also have a few
archive folder of that size or bigger. While they are certainly
slower than my regular folders, I don't feel it slower than OE, if
memory serves.
> 2) All that said, The Bat! seems to have a smaller memory
> footprint than OE. Does it mean that the developers have
> _purposely_ chosen lower memory utilization vs. speed?
No.
> Is it planned to have any options/switches/whatever,
Don't know.
> which would allow me, for example, to have The Bat! working faster
> at the expense of TB! eating all of my virtual memory?
Virtual memory? Virtual memory takes a chunk of your HD space and
use it as memory (for swapping). Giving more virtual memory to TB
(or any application, for that matter) won't make it faster, I'm
afraid.
> 2) It produces access violations quite often (several times a
> day), in various situations (but usually when working in big
> folders). (I use it under Windows 2000 Professional SP1 on Pentium
> 233MMX with 64 MB of RAM).
As Jamie pointed out, 64 MB RAM is a little marginal for Win2k to
work efficiently. I have a slightly slower CPU (200 MHz PPro, no
MMX), but with 96 MB RAM, I believe my machine run smoother than
yours, in general. At such low end level, 32 MB makes a huge
difference.
I do run into access violations, but very rarely (slightly more
often when using Win98). I'm not sure it's because you have too
little RAM or there're other factors at play.
> 3) When deleting a folder, the top folder in the folder tree
> becomes highlited. Wouldn't it be more logical for The Bat! to
> highlight the parent folder of the deleted one instead (that's
> what I liked in OE)? It's a bit borrowing when you delete a
> sub-folder of a folder at the very _bottom_ of the folder tree,
> and - ooops! - you are at the very _top_ of it...
Agreed.
> 5) I had some old mail in a _broken_ OE folder. I used DBXtract by
> Stephen L. Cochran (a great program, BTW) to extract all those
> messages to .EML (=.MSG) files, and then imported them into The
> Bat! through the command line. Well, some messages (quite a lot of
> them, in fact) , with broken RFC822 headers, appear as empty.
> However, if I export them into a Unix-style mailbox from within
> The Bat!, and then import that Unix-style mailbox back into The
> Bat!, messages appear moreless OK (with bodies which make sense,
> etc). Can any kind (and knoledgeable) soul out there explain this
> sort of behaviour?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know all the possibilities,
especially before seeing what those messages are like. One
possibility though, is the original .eml files are in unix file
format, meaning they terminate each line with a linefeed (OAh) only.
They were probably stored in OE without converting them into DOS
format (that terminates each line with a carriage return and a
linefeed (0D0Ah).
When you imported them as .msg files, TB didn't do the conversion,
either, assuming they're from a DOS/Win system, and the whole
message would appear to be one long line (which would be the first
line of the header), so you saw nothing in the message body.
When exported as Unix-mailbox format, nothing is changed except TB
would add an additional "From" line to the top of the message
required for the mbox format. Upon re-importing, TB is expecting a
file that might have come from a *nix system, so it checks and
convert LF into CRLF, making it "normal".
> Anyway, The Bat! seems to be a very promising program. However,
> whether I'll pay for it and continue using it, will depend on its
> stability and speed.
At my end, both are excellent, even though I'm using beta version
most of the time.
--
Best regards,
Ming-Li
The Bat! 1.48 Beta/8 | Win2k SP1
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
