Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Change Mail's sort order to remove folder opening delay' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Change Mail's sort order to remove folder opening delay
Authored by: cclifton on Dec 23, '04 11:14:44AM

This might be a perception issue. Here's what I observe on a folder with 2000+ messages on my dual-1GHz G4:

If the mailbox is sorted oldest to newest, upon opening the folder Mail.app scrolls to the last page in the message list view. This means that the message list view keeps changing until the full message list is populated. On the other hand, if the mailbox is sorted newest to oldest, upon opening the folder Mail.app stays at the top of the message list view. Thus, there are no display updates while the message list is populated (except for some quick messages in the status bar).

---
Curt



[ Reply to This | # ]
Change Mail's sort order to remove folder opening delay
Authored by: wkoffel on Dec 26, '04 11:39:19AM

I think cclifton nailed it on this one.

When you change to a folder, especially in my case when using an IMAP server, Mail needs to sync your local mail cache with the remote server, and then build indexes of the mail (indexing happens even on non-remote accounts, I assume). The slower the machine, the longer all this will take.

There is a status bar above the message pane showing the progress, at least for downloading messages and caching attachments. During this process, the message list will "shift" around as Mail fills in items. If you sort earliest to latest, the shifting will happen out of view, giving the illusion that everything is snappier.

I make it a habit to click through all my stored folders maybe once a week when I'm just surfing the web to help Mail cache the messages that I've moved into those folders, so when I really need to dive into the folders to find mail, the process is more responsive.



[ Reply to This | # ]