Hi and thanks

Getting an old dog to learn new tricks is one of the most difficult tasks I
have encountered so far
And I'm getting close to the sixties

Rex


a écrit dans le message de news:
...
rthompson wrote:
Hi there

And thank you for the advice

I will try to get him to do this

But .............. :-)))


I will let you know how things get on

Good luck - one of the biggest parts of the
job is getting user's expectations in line
with technical capabilities.

You might be able to use the faster response
from his email program when he sorts emails
or searches them as a selling point - when it
only has to search 12 to 24 months' worth
it will be lightning fast compared to searching
eight years' worth. And there's nothing stopping
him from keeping everything over a year old in
one honking big archive file that stays open
in his folder list, the auto-archive can move
things there for him and since he'll probably
never seek anything in there he'll have it
accessible while still having fast response
from his usual PST.

--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

Hi
Thank you for the reply

Would this not cause Outlook to be slow again?


Rex


"Brian Tillman" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
rthompson wrote:

YES I agree that seems to be the way to go, but..........#

Unfortunateley it means that he will have to open and close things
manually, and this is what he refuses

No at all. You can have all the PSTs open at the same time.
--
Brian Tillman

Pre OL 2003 pst has an absolute size limitation of 2gb, however probs can
occur from 1.6gb.
You would likely be better off following Brians advice to split the pst into
multiple pst's

"rthompson" wrote in message
...
Hi and sorry for replying late

Operating system is XP version 2002 service pack 2
And the pst is getting close to 1 GB

Thanks for taking the time to help me out

Rex


"DL" address@invalid a écrit dans le message de news:
...
You havent answered the question;
Version of OL
Size of pst?
The way forward depends on the response.

"rthompson" wrote in message
...
Hi

And thank you for answering

YES I agree that is the way to go
But unfortunately that is exactly what he does not want to do

What he wants is a miracle solution

And that is what I cannot find

But thanks for the reply and I will try to convince him

Bye for now

Rex


"Brian Tillman" a écrit dans le message de
news:
...
rthompson wrote:

On one of our computers, when we open Outlook it takes for ages to
open This is (apparently) mainly due to the VERY large pst file (8
years of Emails with attachements etc)

How large is the PST and what version of Outlook?

Unfortunately he insists on having access to all of his emails once
in a while even those two, three or more years old
And as he is the managing director I have to accept it

Has anybody got an idea?

Divide the PST into multiple PSTs. Organize items in those PSTs in
anty
way the director is comfortable. For example, move all messages
received
in 2004 to a PST named "2004" and move all mesasges received in 2005
to
a
PST named "2005". If that ordering doesn't work, use another.
Create
a
PST for each sender, for example, and move all messages from the same
person to a PST dedicated to messages from that person. You can
organize
things in whatever way the director wants to work.
--
Brian Tillman

Hi and thanks for the advice

It seems like to best way to go

Rex



"DL" address@invalid a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Pre OL 2003 pst has an absolute size limitation of 2gb, however probs can
occur from 1.6gb.
You would likely be better off following Brians advice to split the pst
into
multiple pst's

"rthompson" wrote in message
...
Hi and sorry for replying late

Operating system is XP version 2002 service pack 2
And the pst is getting close to 1 GB

Thanks for taking the time to help me out

Rex


"DL" address@invalid a écrit dans le message de news:
...
You havent answered the question;
Version of OL
Size of pst?
The way forward depends on the response.

"rthompson" wrote in message
...
Hi

And thank you for answering

YES I agree that is the way to go
But unfortunately that is exactly what he does not want to do

What he wants is a miracle solution

And that is what I cannot find

But thanks for the reply and I will try to convince him

Bye for now

Rex


"Brian Tillman" a écrit dans le message de
news:
...
rthompson wrote:

On one of our computers, when we open Outlook it takes for ages to
open This is (apparently) mainly due to the VERY large pst file (8
years of Emails with attachements etc)

How large is the PST and what version of Outlook?

Unfortunately he insists on having access to all of his emails once
in a while even those two, three or more years old
And as he is the managing director I have to accept it

Has anybody got an idea?

Divide the PST into multiple PSTs. Organize items in those PSTs in
anty
way the director is comfortable. For example, move all messages
received
in 2004 to a PST named "2004" and move all mesasges received in 2005
to
a
PST named "2005". If that ordering doesn't work, use another.
Create
a
PST for each sender, for example, and move all messages from the
same
person to a PST dedicated to messages from that person. You can
organize
things in whatever way the director wants to work.
--
Brian Tillman

Someone told me that OL 2003 and later have this size limit too, unless "you do something special",
although he didn't say what.


"DL" address@invalid wrote in message ...
Pre OL 2003 pst has an absolute size limitation of 2gb, however probs can occur from 1.6gb. You
would likely be better off following Brians advice to split the pst into multiple pst's

rthompson wrote:

Would this not cause Outlook to be slow again?

It shouldn't, since each PST is much smaller, ideally. Outlook has no
trouble handling multiple PSTs.
--
Brian Tillman

Jay nospam wrote:

Someone told me that OL 2003 and later have this size limit too,
unless "you do something special", although he didn't say what.

Nope. Unicode PSTs, the format Outlook 2003 uses natively, has a minimum
upper limit of 20GB, but that limit is controlled by a registry setting, so
it can get larger than that. The theoretical uppper limit is, I believe,
32TB
--
Brian Tillman

Hi


Correct me if I'm wrong

I could under one single Email address open different pst files

And in each I would have just a few specific sub directories

So from a main outlook session I could save the incoming mails to various
other pst files???

If my understanding is correct let me know and I will run a few tests and
get back to you later


Rex


"Brian Tillman" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
rthompson wrote:

Would this not cause Outlook to be slow again?

It shouldn't, since each PST is much smaller, ideally. Outlook has no
trouble handling multiple PSTs.
--
Brian Tillman

Crikey

What can kind of super machine is to handle that kind of file???



"Brian Tillman" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Jay nospam wrote:

Someone told me that OL 2003 and later have this size limit too,
unless "you do something special", although he didn't say what.

Nope. Unicode PSTs, the format Outlook 2003 uses natively, has a minimum
upper limit of 20GB, but that limit is controlled by a registry setting,
so it can get larger than that. The theoretical uppper limit is, I
believe, 32TB
--
Brian Tillman

rthompson wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong

I could under one single Email address open different pst files

This is correct and the mail address has nothing to do with it.

And in each I would have just a few specific sub directories

Or not. You don't need folders if it's a separate PST, but nothing stops
you from having them so that you can further organize your data within the
PST.

So from a main outlook session I could save the incoming mails to
various other pst files???

If that's what you want to do. You were talking about older messages,
however, not newly-received ones. You can have incoming messages moved by
rule to other folders, either in the default PST or in any others opened in
the mail profile, if you wish or you can move them later manually or by a
manually-run rule if you intend periodically to move things subject to the
same conditions.
--
Brian Tillman