[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Release update

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Release update
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:17:55 -0800

> > With my own setup, it takes on average 15-20 seconds for the initial
> > frame to appear, and another 10 seconds for my two-frame setup to
> > finish. emacs -Q takes 15-20 seconds on average for the frame to
> > appear. The command I use is this: runemacs.exe -Q 
> --debug-init. This
> > is on a 1-year-old laptop with 2G RAM and pretty good processors.
> Do you still experience the slowness with the one from:
> http://code.google.com/p/emacs-for-windows/?

Yes, unfortunately. 18 sec for emacs -Q.

But, as I said, the time is variable. Testing only emacs -Q:
First time: 18 sec. 
Second time, < 1 sec. 
Third time, 16 sec. 
Fourth time, < 1 sec. 
Fifth time, < 1 sec. 
Sixth time, 15 sec. 
Seventh time, 15 sec. 
Eighth time, 1 sec.
Ninth time, 16 sec.
Tenth time, 1 sec

That's exactly the behavior I see in Lennart's vanilla builds. It either takes
quite a long time or it comes up immediately. I was thinking that it usually
takes a long time, but trying now several times in a row, it looks like it's
about 50-50. Same thing for Lennart's build.

I'm not running anything else at the moment, besides a mail client and Web
browser, and during this test no mail went in or out (and no mail polling
AFAICT), and I didn't use the browser (static Web page).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]