> On which machine? (cpu, mainboard, amount of free RAM,
> operating system...) If it's new/rather new machine, such
> result is far below expectations - I get 20 sec on old P120
> with 32MB RAM and Win95.
Pentium M 2,13 GHz - 533 MHz FSB, 1 GB ram, WinXP Pro, so I guess the
machine should perform good.
> > Is there a way
> > to make the decoding work faster? I have about the same
> testresult on
> > the beta and the older version of MimeDec.
> There's many ways to make it faster. First, do not use
> TMemoryStream as decoded attachment storage *unless* you set
> it's size so TMemoryStream won't need to reallocate his
> memory. Second, you should use larger input buffer (not that
> 4kbyte one), or change decoding logic so you could use
> memory- mapped file. Third, do not use OnPartLine to store
> data - set DestStream and leave OnPartLine unassigned (you'll
> save one jump into and out of the handler, possibly dirtying
> less processor's L1/L2 cache).
> Fourth, use TMemoryStream (or some kind of
> TBufferedWriteStream) as decoded data storage (but remember
> about the first note above).
> Fifth - discard these fancy progressbars (and progressbar
> updating code) ;)
I use TMemoryStream. I don't use any progressbars, but I use the old version
MimeDec. And I don't use MimeDec directly, I use it through MimeDecEx from
usermade page, It could be there that I should use the improvements you
If you think it's a bad idea to use the MimeDecEx from usermade page, could
you provide a working example of how to use the new beta of MimeDec?
To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket
Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be