A Week With Pro 2010

[Corky G]

I was very impressed with the ease of the upgrade installation. The layout and graphics are very good.

After using it for a week, I think I will revert to version 6. 2010 is very slow in loading, and I like to do quick mail checks in 3 accounts. Maybe I have been using MW too long. Version 6 is much more efficient for me.

[Sidewinder]

I was very impressed with the ease of the upgrade installation. The layout and graphics are very good.

After using it for a week, I think I will revert to version 6. 2010 is very slow in loading, and I like to do quick mail checks in 3 accounts. Maybe I have been using MW too long. Version 6 is much more efficient for me.

The loading optimization is still on the to do list. They are looking at what modules can be preloaded etc. to shorten the TTL. Also the current versions have a lot of code included for logging to aid in fixing any errors. I leave mine minimized to the system tray and have it set to check mail every 10 minutes and it works just fine. The memory footprint is dynamic so it should not impact your other functions unless you are running a really small ram in an old system.

[Corky G]

Thanks, Sidewinder. I'll be patient.

I read in the FAQs, etc., that text can be zoomed, etc., but I can't find the control to do that. I would also like to change font - am vision impaired and prefer a boldface. Otherwise I have to use a magnifying glass.

Cheers!

[stan_qaz]

The zoom functions are on the quick display (top right) menu, click the icons and a zoom slider will open up. Once you zoom up to the larger sizes post back and tell Firetrust how it is working for you, they might be able to fiddle the zoom levels a bit if you need still larger sizes.

There are several fonts to choose from for the general display under Settings tab, General Settings, Application - nothing fancy and no bold fonts though.

[Sidewinder]

Thanks, Sidewinder. I'll be patient.

I read in the FAQs, etc., that text can be zoomed, etc., but I can't find the control to do that. I would also like to change font - am vision impaired and prefer a boldface. Otherwise I have to use a magnifying glass.

Cheers!

Here:

MWP Zoom.png (162.89 KiB) Viewed 10251 times

[Corky G]

Got it! The display is now perfect - better than earlier versions.

I appreciate the help.

[dmwmpd]

I agree with Corky - the new version isn't ready - I will go back to version 6.

New version slow to load, and even slower to review each email. I get a lot of spam, and want to scroll through the list to check for false negatives. Version 6 is instant, version 2010 isn't worth my money.

Don

[michaelkenward]

My guess is that a lot depends on .NET from Microsoft.

Anything that uses it is slow.

They just put out an update.

Will it make any difference? I doubt it.

[nobodyspecial]

My guess is that a lot depends on .NET from Microsoft.

Anything that uses it is slow.

They just put out an update.

Will it make any difference? I doubt it.

Some "learned" and "wise" folks on this forum, like our friend above, keep blaming the .net framework for MWP's woes - I beg to differ. Let's examine his/her post line by line...

"Anything that uses it is slow" - rubbish - what do you base that sweeping statement on? - it sounds great to none techies. But I am a professional certified .net c# developer - and I can tell you that most well developed, tested, and finished apps that use the .net framework are not slow.

"They just put out an update." - yes, Microsoft has a professional, on-going program of continuous .net framework development - the latest release includes some excellent updates - especially to the Entity Framework and MVC pieces.

"Will it make any difference? I doubt it" - this seems to be an answer to your previous rhetorical statement, with the implication that the "update" was done because the previous release was flawed in some way. Cobblers.

If you are going to post stuff on this forum that has a pop at the framework MWP uses - with the implication that the framework is flawed in some way - have the professionalism to back it up with facts.

My experience of MWP is that it is not the finished product and has been released too soon. It's beta at best and users are doing the actual testing.

Sidewinder also stated in this thread "Also the current versions have a lot of code included for logging to aid in fixing any errors." - really? - released software with a lot of debugging and logging code still active?

My point is - stop blaming the .net framework - that is not the problem. Reading the rest of the posts on this forum proves it.

Rant over.

[stan_qaz]

nobodyspecial, Well again I have to chip in and suggest you think a bit more on the fault of .Net and speed.

"Anything that uses it is slow" - rubbish - what do you base that sweeping statement on? - it sounds great to none techies. But I am a professional certified .net c# developer - and I can tell you that most well developed, tested, and finished apps that use the .net framework are not slow.

Try this simple experiment:

Boot Windows, Start MW time it from your click to the time the window is open and active. About 30 seconds for me.

Exit MW, wait for both MW processes to exit.

Start MW again time it from your click to the time the window is open and active. About 8 seconds for me.

Look into the difference in the two attempts to start MW and see just what is happening faster the second time or what is not having to be done the second time MW loads.

I would never claim that the FireTrust folks are the sharpest programmers out there, heck they are using .Net what more needs said on that... :-) But again they aren't completely clueless folks either.

Sidewinder also stated in this thread "Also the current versions have a lot of code included for logging to aid in fixing any errors." - really? - released software with a lot of debugging and logging code still active?

OK, I'll bite. Without lots of logging code how would you suggest that MW find and fix interactions between the various versions of Windows, the many flavors and versions of mail servers and their interactions with Windows security products? I spent hours trying to track down a problem accessing one of my mail servers back in the early betas, they added a bit of logging to what they had in place and it turned up the answer, my mail server is broken - offering up options that it does not really support and then choking when you try to use them. Without the logging all I could have done is tried to get them a test account on the server, with logging it was a simple click and send logs and "poof" the next version worked on my stupid server and any others that have a similar misconfiguration.

[nobodyspecial]

Bite all you want mate.

The time difference between first and subsequent .net program loads is Windows loading the .net virtual machine. This is similar to Java.

But you missed the point of my post. Blaming .net for every MWP sin is daft.

He said: "Also the current versions have a lot of code included for logging"

You said: "they added a bit of logging to what they had in place"

I only questioned the amount of logging code in the released software - you seem to disagree with him on the amount.

[michaelkenward]

But you missed the point of my post. Blaming .net for every MWP sin is daft.

I agree. That would be daft. But no one here has suggested that. Nor has anyone blamed .NET for all the slowness of MW2010.

It is undeniable that .NET is involved in the way MW2010 works. And, as others have shown, it influences the initial startup speed. Many complaints about slowness do not differentiate between the first use of the day and later uses.

In my comment I was also careful to point out that I was referring to the use of .NET beyond MW2010. Another package that I use all the time, far more complex than MW2010, also uses .NET. The people who write the thing have said that .NET is a factor in the speed at which that software works. They too are working on ways to make it go faster.

If you think about it logically, when something sits between an application and its users, there are bound to be some knock on effects. What those are, and whether they are any different from the normal interactions between the old version of MW and the operating system, is open to discussion and experimentation. But to reject the idea that they don't happen seem to me to be perverse.

You seem to be very good at reading what you want into what other people write. My comment about the update of .NET was to do with the fact that I doubt very much if the update will have done anything to change the speed at which things like MW2010 operate. Speed was, after all, what we were talking about. What it does elsewhere is for experts like you to understand and appreciate.