> -----Original Message----- > From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:38 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Jim Davis > <hofli...@depressedpress.com> wrote: > > I'd bet that the problem isn't in the database (Outlook actually uses > the > > very capable SQL Server engine I believe), it's the interface. > > Okay - so we disagree about the reason, but if either of us is right, > it's a problem that can be resolved with pretty basic changes to the > program.
Not at all - these are not "basic changes" - these are core, fundamental changes. At least as far as I see it. There are certain conventions that are being followed (not "Outlook conventions" but "OS conventions") that don't scale past certain points well. This is a fundamental problem for many use cases - general file/folder management, searching, etc. Changing it would take specific (and new) processes for Outlook that modify these standards. So the problem remains: how much do you spend to address a problem that only affects a small (very small) minority of your users? Do you make changes that might assist those users but change the conventions for others? Do you risk stability for the majority by modifying core features for a minority? I'm not saying that MS CAN'T do anything - I'm challenging the idea that because they haven't they must be a "bad company". These are the kind of basic decisions that every company goes through (yes, even Google). They're exacerbated by compatibility concerns, customer requests, etc so may be more complex for established, large install-base applications, but they're basic nonetheless. They're not going to turn Outlook into an application that pleases everybody or is suited to everybody - they'd be crazy to try. > > I still consider Outlook absolutely best of breed, personally > (especially > > after being forced to use Notes for the past three years). > > We disagree here. Being "least shitty full featured desktop email > program" doesn't make is best of anything in my book. Then we disagree. But it still sounds like your problem is common to all desktop email programs, not just Outlook. > > There's definitely work to be done here - but the fact of the matter > is that > > this problem (massive amounts of mail) is definitely a "1 percenter" > > You better not let anyone see you wearing that patch unless you really > know what you are talking about. :) I have no idea what this means? ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:294839 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
