Re: Slowdown on Emacs 24.3 (Windows)

The symptoms you describe sound like a network delay.  That kind of
behavior is very common in Windows apps that are waiting for some kind of
network response.  I wouldn't expect it from emacs unless you have some
customization that is trying to look up a DNS name or maybe there's a
buffer trying to do a "tramp" operation.



On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Elizabeth Wootten <
[email protected]> wrote:

> > From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: 27 August 2013 17:34
> >
> > > > Does this happen with "emacs -Q"?
> > >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion - I should have thought of that. Sadly, it
> > > behaves exactly the same with the -Q option.
> >
> > This means the change is probably in your system.  Can you describe what
> > happens during those 15 minutes?  E.g., do you see the Emacs window open,
> or
> > do you see nothing at all?
>
> As soon as I run the .exe, the console host and emacs processes appear in
> the task manager, but other than that nothing visibly happens. After a few
> minutes, a window shows up with window furniture, but is blank and
> unresponsive - even the Windows 'x' to close it does nothing. After some
> more minutes, the emacs splashscreen is displayed, and after some more
> minutes it becomes responsive.
>
> This morning, after a reboot, emacs was the first thing I ran and it
> behaved
> completely normally - started up, allowed me to open and edit a file,
> closed. No noticeable delays at all. It started up again immediately on a
> second attempt, but then didn't respond to commands for several minutes
> (when it did, I closed it).
>
> I've just made my third attempt, and was about 6 minutes between starting
> the .exe and seeing a blank window. It's now been another five or so, and
> it's still blank. (By "blank" I mean it has the normal Windows furniture,
> the emacs File/Edit/Options/etc menus, and then a large white space. The
> usual bar towards the bottom indicating the current buffer, line number,
> etc
> isn't present.)
>
> Thanks,
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
>