
Google Confirms Gmail Speed Issue, Says It’s Now Fixed - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/05/gmail-speed/
======
eddieplan9
It is interesting to see GMail advocates saving a few seconds a day by using
this and that features of GMail, while itself getting slower and slower over
the time. I find myself stupid to wait 10 seconds just to load up GMail to
quickly look up something. Why I am wasting these 10 seconds loading up a
webapp when 99.9% of the time I am using my own computer?

You say running a desktop email client with GMail IMAP? The fact is I got
tired of GMail's way of doing IMAP. I cannot remember how many times I try to
make the `delete` key to actually trash an email in Mail.app. It's an even
bigger mistake with its Push Email on iPhone. So half-baked IMAP and half-
baked Exchange.

Finally, I could not stand it any more and moved over to MobileMe and cannot
be happier. I still use the same GMail address and simply have GMail forward
everything to my MobileMe account. This way, I get to keep my email address
and take advantage of GMail's nice spam filter. I know GMail has IMAP and can
do Push email and this and that, and after you configure this and that, it
will work; but I am not a fancy person and just want to read, delete and send
email, from my three Macs, an very old iPhone and an iPad. My days of messing
around with kernel modules are over, and I guess I am old enough to start
enjoying the almost-zero-configuration of MobileMe on all my computing
devices.

~~~
michaelhart
Gmail loads within 1-3 seconds for me. Not only that, I VERY, VERY rarely
close my browser, not even once a day if I can help it. So my mail is always
available for me. Priority Inbox is amazing, as well.

In regards to iPhone: Simply get an Android phone. Flawless Gmail/GoogleApps
integration; native support for colored labels, calendar, etc. I wouldn't clal
it half-baked IMAP, more of, half-baked clients that don't support Gmail
properly. Remember that traditional email uses folders; Gmail uses labels.
They are FAR superior in every way. If a client doesn't support it, find a new
client.

And I've never used MobileMe, but why add another point of failure to email?
It's something that is typically very important to people, even more so
probably the people who visit Hacker News.

~~~
TobyS95
"Simply get an Android phone".. In your reply replace Gmail with Exchange and
Android phone with Outlook and we would bring out the pitchforks decrying
vendor lock-in. Exchange works fine for my work email, IMAP works fine for my
Yahoo account and somehow it is the client's fault it doesn't "support Gmail
properly". Of course, this data is equally meaningless as yours as the sample
size is 1.

~~~
michaelhart
When you change the way IMAP works for the better (a feature), then yes, the
client should support it. If it doesn't, it's not a fault of the service, it's
a fault of the client.

I mean, have you ever used labels? I mean, REALLY used labels?

------
alexknight
I don't seem to have any reliability issues, however, it's probably because
I'm a Google Apps premier user. If I'm not mistaken those accounts have higher
uptime and reliability.

------
foobarbazetc
This issue may be fixed, but Gmail's slowness is definitely not fixed. And
affects way more than 2% of people on Gmail.

~~~
mquander
Like Michael, neither have I ever experienced any speed issues, although I
don't sort or filter things. Gmail loads in less than a second, and opening an
email appears effectively instantaneous.

~~~
michaelhart
On the topic of filters: I have over 200. It's more reliable than spam
filtering (in the sense that I know I wont ever get an email from them again,
and I don't have to worry about if that link is going to put my email on some
"verified" to-spam list). So I doubt filters have anything to do with it ;)
That's all handled on Google's backend.

On a side note, I do recall a few theories that were related to account age.
Accounts opened around the same time seemed to be affected (as I read,
anyway). This is a possible situation, however, it's almost impossible to know
for sure.

------
jsz0
Not so much so. Still takes me about 10 seconds to login via the web on a fast
connection. I rarely use the web interface so I don't really care but I can
see how this is an issue for some people. Google Notifier is probably the best
solution for now.

~~~
jasonjei
I think it further proves the point that when you are no longer the underdog,
it is hard for you to compete, stay fast and nimble, and stay innovative. Buzz
and other Google-initiated (not acquisitions) forays into competing products
have been disappointments. AdWords is no longer easy to use from the customer
standpoint (and by the way, you searchers and AdWords supported email users
are not the customers--you are part of the product being sold), that we have
had to hire a full time guy to manage our AdWords campaigns and utilize
outside AdWords consultant services.

I won't say Google has lost its touch, but even its searches are not producing
good results for esoteric queries.

------
SkyMarshal
For me at least, they fixed it by reverting to the backup HTML version:

[http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=44c9d...](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=44c9d99f2a541b58&hl=en)

In a nutshell, using FF 3.6.12 on Ubuntu 10.04 x64, with _all_ addons
disabled, gmail will only load the backup HTML-only version. No ajaxy
goodness. Even if I manually select the standard interface, it refuses to use
it and references the browser upgrade recommendation page.

Anyone have any idea what the problem could be?

~~~
ck2
Go to _about:config_ and search for _dom.storage.enabled_

Toggle it on/off/on (and back to whatever you have it set to)

Then regular mode will work again (may need to refresh page)

Gmail hosed something, relying on local storage in Firefox?

------
jessriedel
I think "reach out to" as a weird, touchy-feely synonym for "contact" is my
least favorite business buzzword. I can't take anyone who says it seriously. I
immediately assume they are full of shit.

~~~
_delirium
I hadn't realized until really recently that it had accumulated this buzzwordy
usage, so I used to assume the person writing just wasn't very good at English
and had misunderstood the connotations of the phrase.

Unless I've been completely wrong about its meaning for years, "reach out to"
implies more of a process, rather than simply asking a question. If you say
you plan to "reach out to the city's troubled youth", people would assume you
meant something more than just asking some troubled youth a few questions.

In this case, I don't see what's wrong with saying: we asked Google why Gmail
has been slow, and this was their response. "Reached out ... with the
following statement" feels sorta like an oxymoron.

~~~
jessriedel
>If you say you plan to "reach out to the city's troubled youth", people would
assume you meant something more than just asking some troubled youth a few
questions.

I agree. That's an example of its original usage which was meaningful, though
vague.

------
joakin
Ok, some of you dont like Gmail, but i guess lots of people would be happy to
hear and try a good alternative, with same features or more (custom filters,
labels, powerful search, beautiful clever spam filter, accessible from any
computer, phone sync, contacts manager, chat, etc).

Really, I cant see me working with another email provider, and being enclosed
to one is not usually a good choice, it would be nice to try other
alternatives

------
Sujan
Ehm, sadly: No.

