Re: Mulberry-discuss Digest, Vol 86, Issue 8

>> Thunderbird does some very tricky things with background sync, but
>> they're ultimately too clever and as a user with large mailboxes, I
>> still suffer through extended lock-outs while working.
>
> Yes, much of TB's single-threadedness can be anywhere form just annoying
> to downright infuriating, but as long as you know what is going on, you
> can generally deal with it in most cases...
>
>> Further, T-bird still has some problematic memory leaks and memory
>> consumption. Currently on my system Firefox is using 622MB, Tbird 423
>> MB, and Mulberry... 17.5 MB. Yes, that's correct: Mulberry is using
>> 4% as much memory as Tbird. System uptime is about 12 hours. Both
>> programs have been running since restart.
>
> No argument here either, and that is very impressive (Mulberry's memory
> usage)...
>
> No program is perfect (sad to say)...


Another quantitative measure of the difference is CPU time.  While the 
measurements are relative only to each other, both clients are connected to 
the same server and TB has used 1:43:33 of total CPU time while Mulberry 
has used 0:02:47 - thunderbird has used 107x the CPU that mulberry has to 
accomplish the same task (as reported by Process Hacker on my computer, 
YMMV).

So when people complain about Tbird being "slower" or other allusions to 
performance issues, 20x the memory and 107x the CPU usage is probably a 
contributor to that assessment, especially on older hardware.