Why is mail search much slower in ios 6

I find the search function for enterprise mail is running 5-10 times slower when I upgraded to ios 6. I have Iphone 4

Similar Messages

Outlook search much slower after Yosemite upgrade

Since I upgraded to OS 10.10, my Outlook mail searches are much slower. I believe Outlook uses Spotlight for this search functionality. Has anyone else had this experience? Thanks!

I'm having exactly the same problem, currently rebuilding the main spotlight index (System Preferences > Spotlight > Privacy - add them remove the install HDD). I'll report back if that helps but from what I'm seeing as it rebuilds, it's the same issue you are having, it will return results from really old identities but nothing recent.

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

TS4000 Why are cross-device reminder updates so much slower in iOS 7?

It used to be that Reminders entered on an iPad at home would show up on my iPhone almost right away; I could be in the grocery store and get dynamic updates to the shopping list. Now ... I'm lucky if a reminder from one device shows up on another without restarting the device. Sometimes it happens, so I know my settings aren't messed up, but it's slow and unreliable.
Hey, Apple --- that stinks. It was way better before.

Good evening.I'm very sure indeed that Telstra doesn't need me to defend them BUT ..... I did that exact work every day for several years, and I'll answer your question. The various networks have different philosophies on testing and releasing software.It also depends on how thoroughly various networks conduct their testing, and their philosophy of allowing a certain degree of software bugs or software issues to be released, and patched later. In relation to Telstra, they are the dominant network operator in Australia, and in fact one of the 5 best operators in the world. The last thing they need is a product not to fulfill their criteria, with the resultant backlash. When testing is thoroughly done, it is almost inevitable that some issues will be found, and that requires negotiation with the manufacturers, and then it's up to the manufacturers to fix those issues and re-release the software. Then the testing is re-done and sometimes it is again not approved by the operators. That simply takes time. Different networks have different philosphies as to what is acceptable to release. Also, the same generic software can display issues that often requires customisation to a degree for different networks.I hope this explains the situation to you. It is extremely complex as phones have now become a multitude of devices all in one.

Why is my search 1000% slower after re-saving a PDF? (Acrobat 9 Pro Extended)

I purchased and downloaded the PDF version of "Javascript: the Definitive Guide" (Flanagan, David, O'Reilly Press, 5th Ed., 2006).
When I first started using the PDF, searches would yield results instantaneously. After making some notations and highlighting some text, I saved the PDF.
Now searches are ridiculously slow.
Luckily, I had a backup copy of the PDF in another folder. I re-opened the original and tried my save again: voila! Same instananeous results.
I thought maybe there had been an embedded index in the PDF, and that re-saving the PDF somehow corrupted or removed it. However, in the original version of the PDF, I can't find anything that indicates why searching is so much faster.
Any ideas?

Also, look at your Search preferences. For example, try Ctrl + K > Search > Fast Find
George

I have IE & Firefox on both my laptop and desktop. Why is Firefox so much slower than IE7? Firefox seems to take forever to load pages!

I have a HP laptop & Dell desktop with IE7 and Firefox. I use Firefox more as I like it better than IE, yet the pages in Firefox load so slow. I thought the new version of Firefox was so much faster, but it seems to drag along and take forever to load pages. Why is this??
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== 6/17/2010

Please ask your question on a forum for the Flash Player

Why is PE12 so much slower than PE11?

I have been using PE11 on a quick machine with 8GB of RAM without any issues. Thought I'd 'Upgrade' to PE12 and everything is (literally) 10 times slower. I have to render everything before I can ply it in the timeline (never had to render in 11) and the rendering can be as slow as one frame a second. Obviously this is unworkable when I import 20mins of video and it's 40,000 frames to render. If I import the same info into PE11 it doesn't even need rendering. I can drag along the blue arrow and see it all move as fast as I like with the stuttered audio going along with it. In PE12 I need to move the arrow to a given point - stop it - and wait about 5 seconds to see the frame that is there and then it might play after about 5 seconds.
It's driving me mad and I just can't fathom it. Same machine - same file - same request of the software, but drastically different results.
I want to get my money back on PE12 as it was a waste of time - but don't know if that is possible.
Anyone else experiencing performance issues with 12?
Looking on the Internet in general it seems many many people have this issue (one chap had 32Gb RAM and experienced the same problems). Must be down to the software.
Cheers

Hi ATR - and thanks for the comprehensive comments. I am also running Windows 8.1 64 bit.
Appreciate the advice on getting a refund for the software - I may well use that if I can't find out why things are so slow.
I will try to answer your questions below...
I bought this laptop new a couple of weeks ago, so not much opportunity for things to get too clogged up yet - having said that, one of the programs that always goes on any of my PC's is Ccleaner so that was installed right away (and has been regularly run).
I actually tried the Adobe support chat 3 times last night - but each time I was onward connected to tech support and after pleasantries, they dissapeared each time. So I gave up on that.
Yes - I have 11 and 12 on this same machine. In fact I've been experimenting this afternoon with using each program in isolation and also together - loading snips of video and rendering / saving / exporting to DVD. I am burning a DVD now with 11 which is the only one I have the patience for at the moment. I'll try burning the same clip from 12 when this is done.
Then there are the typical questions...
a. What project preset?
b. What are the properties of what is going on that Timeline?
c. Even with your present computer environment, how much multitasking is going on?
d. Latest version of QuickTime installed?
e. Run As Admininstrator and User Account with Administrative Privileges?
f. Video card/graphics card driver version up to date according to the web site of the manufacturer of the video card/graphics card?
a. Not sure about the project preset (am new to Elements) but I guess they are default - I did notice when I went to 'adjust' and 'Smartfix' there was a green icon in it - so I clicked reset to get rid of that - thought that might have had a bearing on the slow speeds.
b. not sure of details here either - I have basically used a USB to phono convertor to transfer a load of Video8 footage off my camera with the default settting (MPEG). I've been capturing for about 30mins at a time and then putting 2 or 3 of the 30min sections into the timeline (but have also now played with far smaller (2 to 5 minute) sections of captured video to compare and contrast on speeds for various processes with more manageable chunks of video. Thus far I am leaving the video as is - I.e.apart from introducing a transition affect between sections, I have no narration or effects or soundtrack - just the raw MPEG video (and sound) on video1 and audio1
c. Multitasking apps / programs - I do have a few things running, but nothing serious - I will get rid of all else that's running when carrying out some more tests - good point, thanks.
d. Erm - not sure about QT - will have a look and update this evening if necessary
e. Yes - running as admin - although I possibly wasn't before... Do I have to right-click the icon to invoke this every time? I tested after running as admin and it made no difference
f. Like QT - I will check the video card software - being a new machine I did have it do quite a few updates when I got it home (including 8 to 8.1 upgrade).
I have now captured about 30 hours of Video8 from the late 80's onto the laptop and need to move on to my next video camera, the VHS-C beast which has early footage of the kids etc. It feels good to know I'm finally getting this stuff digitised, but I won't be able to cope with editing and burning it on DVD at the speed PrE12 is going...
Thanks again for the time in coming back to me. I shall address the QT and video card drivers issues tonight and see how I go.
Fundamentally, I just cannot see why I have such a pronounced difference in performance between the two versions - seems very odd.
Cheers,
Tom.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Setup: Sager laptop NP8760 - CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7 820QM, 2648 MHz (20 x 132)
8GB ram running win 7 64 bit
I've found that trying to use the CS6 (cloud) version of Adobe bridge is not really possible unless you don't mind having 4-8 second pauses for nearly any use. Right clicking for any reason is guaranteed to cause a good 5 second wait to see the right click menu. The first click on any menu bar item also gauranteed to cause a 5-8 second wait. Repeatedly (happens whenever focus leaves bridge, no matter how momentary)
Of course if you are intent on working with your images you can't really put up with that much delay.
I end up using CS5 bridge with CS6 photoshop or any of the other CS6 tools, but some things are then impossible to do from bridge, to me the worst one is not being able to send selections of images thru the photoshop image processor. I have to start CS6 bridge and put up with its incredible contrariness to do that job.
Something that was done to bridge between CS5 and CS6 seems to be the likely place to look for the solution to this problem, but while I can read the lsted changes I don't know enough to be able to tell which might be responsible or what I can do about it.
My hardware is nothing breath taking but should be well adequate to run Bridge... especially when I've carefully turned off any other application that I am using.
I've noticed lots of talk here of redoing cache and moving cache etc. My cache is on a different disk than the program and I've purged it a time or two to make sure that wasn't the problem.
I've made no customizations to bridge so it should be installed all vanilla.

I have the same issue. Customer chat has not been able to resolve.
: CS6 Unresponsive.
2 second lag after clicking on any menu item.
4-8 second lag after right clicking on any image.
3 second lag while selecting images with arrow keys.
2 second lag selecting multiple images
My system is high performance:
. 12 Core 3.3Ghz Xeon Processors
. 24GB RAM
. Primary drive is 8 SSDs in a RAID0 configuration
. Dual nVidia Quadro FX5400
. OS: Win7 x64
CS5 and CS5.5 were very “snappy” in responsiveness on this system. CS6 Bridge works fine on my laptop, perfectly responsive.
Once Camera RAW or Photoshop are open, no issue working in these tools, so, the issue is bridge.
Here’s my debugging steps which have not worked to fix the issue:
Installed the latest camera RAW plug in from Nikon. Nikon D800 RAW .NEF files work in windows explorer and in CS5.5.
Installed all windows updates
Installed the lastest nvidia FX5800 card drivers
Uninstalled all Adobe products (reader, media player, etc.)
Uninstalled all plugs ins (HDR, noise, etc.)
Checked there are no fonts on the system (no TTF files)
Uninstalled Office 2013 to make sure there were no system font issues.
Uninstalled all Nikon software except the RAW plug in.
Deleted C:\Program Files\Adobe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe
Searched for any Adobe reference in c:\Users\<my_username>\ (example AppData), and deleted it.
Cleaned the registry of any reference to Adobe or any dll related to Adobe or an Adobe plug in.
Rebooted multiple times.
Re-installed CS6 Master Collection. At this point it did not recognize my raw photos (.NEF from a Nikon D800).
Installed all Adobe Updates.
The updates fixed the camera raw issue
Ran FontTest.jsx – all fonts passed, none failed.
Tried Preferences:
Advanced -> Use Software Rendering : CPU utilization went up, but, no impact on the lag
Startup Scripts : Disabled all but Photoshop CS6
Increased Cache Size, Compacted Cache, Purged Cache, Different Cache organizations, etc.
bob

Why is my iMac much slower after installing Mavericks. Windows open slowly and Apps load slowly.

Everything seems to be taking much longer. I have a late-2012 iMac with 32 GB of RAM that was blazing fast until I "upgraded" to Mavericks. Now everyithing is slow. Does it use more system resources? I would think that with that much RAM I would have plenty of headroom for the OS. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Here's my suggestion:
Fixing a Mavericks Installation Problem
How to manage a failed OS X Mavericks installation | MacFixIt - CNET Reviews.
1. Intel-based Macs: Resetting the System Management Controller (SMC).
2. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions - Lion/Mountain Lion/Mavericks
Re-download and reinstall Mavericks.
Boot to the Recovery HD: Restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the COMMAND and R keys until the menu screen appears. Alternatively, restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the OPTION key until the boot manager screen appears. Select the Recovery HD and click on the downward pointing arrow button.
Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions: Upon startup select Disk Utility from the main menu. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions as follows.
When the recovery menu appears select Disk Utility. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list. In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive. If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the main menu.
Reinstall Lion/Mountain Lion/Mavericks: Select Reinstall Lion/Mountain Lion/Mavericks and click on the Continue button.
Note: You will need an active Internet connection. I suggest using Ethernet if possible because it is three times faster than wireless.

Why is animation so much slower in 2.2 than 2.1?

I have a pretty gnarly translate/scale animation running on my Mac in jdk 7u7 or jdk 7u10. Javafx 2.2.x doesn't seem to be able to handle it. The animation is choppy and slow. I had the exact same animation in 2.1/jdk 6 on the same computer and it was smooth and fast.
Any reason for this? Is there any way I can tell if GPU is being used?
Thanks!

I wonder how this performs when you use the setup Java 7 update 5 + JavaFX 2.1 (so only upgrade the JDK, not JavaFX). If only to rule out that the problem actually originates from the JDK update and not JavaFX specifically.

Why is Intel so much slower than AMD??

We have run into a problem with a few of our clients running Intel Pentium 4 (no hyperthreading) processors. Our web application under tomcat runs 20 - 30% slower on Intel (benchmarks scores are available). Our shop uses AMD Athlon processors and we have no performance problems at all.
We have had client come to our shop to verify that the application is indeed faster here and they always say that it is significantly faster.
We have developed benchmarks for certain parts of our system (formula calculation, and page rendering) and run themmon and AMD 2500+ and and Intel P4 2.4 Ghz . According to all industry standard (SiSoft Sandra, etc) benchmarks we have come across, these machine should perform roughly the same, with the AMD performing slightly (5-10%) above the Intel.
Has anyone come across this problem before?? Are there certain operations or combinations of operations in Java that are significantly slower on the Intel??
We are seeing this on both the Client and Server VMs. All machines are running JDK 1.4.2_04 on Windows XP SP 1.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040608\ACQBIZ200406080001BIZWIRE_USPR_____BW6209.htm&symbol=amd&selected=amd&kind=&mode=basics&formtype=&mkttype=&pathname=&page=news

Why is mail running so slow

Have the latest IMAC, running Mountain Lion, did migration from an almost identical mac, 2-years older, the mail program and filling out form boxes on web pages is a friggin nightmare, is aplle working on a solution? I see al ot of similar complaints.

I'm not sure if the Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist the only problem is, but the com.apple.mail.plist is obsolete since Mountain Lion.
If you want to go sure, not to harm you OS, follow the steps:
STEP 1
Quit AppleMail. We will backup the com.apple.mail.plist. Open a Terminal. Same procedure as before, in Finder press SHIFT + CMD + U and you will be moved to /Applications/Uitlities. You see the Terminal app. Double-click it and a window will appear, in which you can type manually commands. After it starts, copy and paste following commands. After each line press ENTER. The 2 command lines always start with the command cp.
mkdir $HOME/bkkup-mail-plist
cp Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist $HOME/bkkup-mail-plist/user-com.apple.mail.plist
cp /Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist $HOME/bkkup-mail-plist/system-com.apple.mail.plist
STEP 2
In the steps before we create a backup-directory in your $HOME, named bkkup-mail-plist and copied the plist-files in this directory. One file which is system-wide used and the other used for your own preferneces.
In the next step we will remove this files. You will be requested with your password to delete one of this files, so type your password, which you use to login. Again, after each line press ENTER:
sudo rm /Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist
rm Library/Preferences/com.apple.mail.plist
That's all. Because of your message, that the system-task for Mail is driven by a daemon (sandboxd), it could be you need to restart. Post if this solved your problem.

Why There Is Too Much Crashing In iOS 6???

When i updated to iOS 6, i noticed a number of apps crashing like App Store, iTunes Store & More. Is that because of this version that i am using? Or will it be solved next version release?

I have the same problem. I can't open anything without it crashing seconds later.

Why is KTorrent so much slower?

Good afternoon,
I was using KTorrent for quite a while and the downloads were partly very quick, but partly very lousy, concerning the rates. I once tried to open up the same torrent under µtorrent 1.6.0 (later 1.6.1), using WINE. The rates were partly 5 or 6 times as high (they grew from 4.5 kb or so to 50-70kb), with the same upload limitation.
So - how come? I notice a lot of seeders refusing sharing their files to people who use KTorrent as I was blocked very often. Can I avoid that in any way, as I would rather like to use KTorrent over µtorrent - KDE native over WINE emulated.
Thanks in advance
regards,
cg

How did you noticed that you were blocked?
(I refer now to the german translation of ktorrent)
"Abgewiesen" = "Ja" doesnt mean that you are blocked, it just means that the other peer is too busy right now and your client shall try it later...
KTorrent is very fast here... Do you use upnp or do you have set the ports manually? I have forwarded the bittorrent ports from my router to my computers ip and entered them in ktorrent, and since then ktorrent flies...

Why is mail search much slower in ios 6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for