RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Ellis, John P.]

5 Cylinder
Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
ECU Controlled
122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
2200kg (ish in weight)
 

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and 
> 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel 
> (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> 
> /loves fuel bill.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
> [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf 
> Of Ben Scott
> Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
> >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than 
> >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola 
> Jr wrote:
> > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've 
> > never seen savings at 55.
> 
>   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced 
> the confusion.
> 
>   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but I 
> know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> 
> I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs 
> changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get between
> 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when 
> it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> 
>   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's 
> going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up 
> to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the 
> engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH 
> but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close to 
> redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  This is on 
> the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some models that's 
> considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> 
>   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher 
> speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> 
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> 
> 
> **
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
> the system manager.
> 
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by 
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> 
> www.clearswift.com
> **
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Ellis, John P.]

Fuel over here is around
100.9p/litre for unleaded (regular)
102.9p/litre for diesel (regular)

I spotted diesel at 111.9p/litre (reg)

LPG iirc 45p/litre

-Original Message-
From: Rob Hagman [mailto:r...@hagman.demon.nl] On Behalf Of 
li...@hagman.demon.nl
Sent: 30 June 2009 07:16
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Don't know why your are complaining about your dirt cheap fuel prices

Average price for Jun 30 source:
http://www.unitedconsumers.com/link.asp?m=t&c=waartankenbanner.asp?regio=8&c
t=a&s=0

For the most common types of fuel, converted to $/US Gal. from Euro/ltr

Euro95 "Regulair" $7.76
Ultimate 98 "Super/Premium" $8.09
Diesel $5.78
LPG $3.10

Most expensive:
Texaco Super MLV $8.19

Small Diesels and LPG fueled cars are quite popular here in the Netherlands

Rob.

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au]
Verzonden: dinsdag 30 juni 2009 6:55
Aan: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Onderwerp: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Shessh - paid $AU 1.12 ltr this morning,(cheapest day of the week for petrol in 
Brisbane) there's about 3.8 ltr to the US Gal which is about $AU 4.59  US Gal. 
Taking the current exchange rate $US 1 = $AU 1.23 into consideration means I 
paid the equivalent of about $US 5.64 a gal.  

For good measure the state government is introducing a new 8c ltr state tax 
tomorrow !!!

Diesel is approx 3 - 5c a litre dearer than unleaded !!

Local Ford Fairmont Ghia 6 cyl 4 ltr sedan gets about 11.5L/100k or
2.5Gal/62 miles (26.2 mpg) around town

My math is not real great but I think you get the idea !

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2009 1:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Mini cooper _DIESEL_??

I wish the US would get it's act together for mid-size and small diesel.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:41 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel 
> (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> 
> /loves fuel bill.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
> [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf 
> Of Ben Scott
> Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
> >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than 
> >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola 
> Jr wrote:
> > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've 
> > never seen savings at 55.
> 
>   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced 
> the confusion.
> 
>   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but I 
> know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> 
> I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs 
> changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get between
> 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when 
> it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> 
>   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's 
> going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up 
> to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the 
> engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH 
> but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close to 
> redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  This is on 
> the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some models that's 
> considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> 
>   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher 
> speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> 
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the BCEC 
Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic Education 
however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from computer viruses or 
other defects. Except for responsibilities implied by law that cannot be 
excluded, Brisbane Catholic Educat

RE: OT: American automotive (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Kent, Larry CTR USA IMCOM]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Banging=smoking

-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:43 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)


   Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma!

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Tim Vander Kooi wrote:
> It looks awesome from here in Tulsa! :-)
> TVK
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:11 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Micheal Espinola
> Jr wrote:
>>> http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
>>
>> There is something very wrong with the coloring of that map.
>> Something very very wrong...
>
>  I imagine it looks fine if you live in Oklahoma.  ;-)
>
>  I assume the sharp boundaries along state lines are the result of
> taxes and other state fees impacting gas prices.
>
> -- Ben
>
>
>
>


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Exchange 2003 Public Folder problems

[Matt Plahtinsky]

Exchange 2003.  AD 2003

I recently took on a new client that is having some weird Public Folder
problems after the drive that holds the exchange DB ran out of space.   I
was able to bring exchange back fine after I cleared out some old backups
they were storing on that drive.  The problem I'm getting now is that when
users try to add appointments to a Calender on any of the public folders it
does one of two things.  1.  lets them make the change but does not keep the
change.  or 2.   gives them an access is denyed message.  If I look at the
logs I don't see any related errors.  I have double checked the permissions
and everything looks good.

To do some further trouble shooting on the permissions, I downloaded a copy
of ScriptLogic Security Explorer.  After installing when I try to run I
gives me an error pointing to and old DC and will not connect.  This go me
wondering If exchange somewhere was still pointing to on old DC .  I checked
the DNS on the NIC and In Exchange System Manager  --> Servers --> Server
name --> Properties, Directory Access Tab.  Those look right.

I seem to remember that there is one other place that exchange stores info
on DC's but can't find it.   Does anyone know if there are other places to
check?

Thanks

Matt

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.

There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are available 
often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where the emissions 
regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck market, which is 
where you find the majority of diesels here.

I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the high 
teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid 30's, and the 
performance was nearly identical. That would be the perfect for my Toyota 
Sequoia.

What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern diesels 
actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline brethren in several 
categories.

_SIGH_.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> 5 Cylinder
> Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> ECU Controlled
> 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> 2200kg (ish in weight)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and
> > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> >
> > /loves fuel bill.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf
> > Of Ben Scott
> > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> wrote:
> > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > Jr wrote:
> > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've
> > > never seen savings at 55.
> >
> >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced
> > the confusion.
> >
> >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but I
> > know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> >
> > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> between
> > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when
> > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> >
> >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up
> > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
> > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
> > but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close to
> > redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  This is on
> > the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some models that's
> > considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> >
> >   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher
> > speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> >
> **
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> > the system manager.
> >
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> >
> > www.clearswift.com
> >
> *

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

Oh, and torque approaching 2X the HP rating makes me horny.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> 5 Cylinder
> Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> ECU Controlled
> 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> 2200kg (ish in weight)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and
> > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> >
> > /loves fuel bill.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf
> > Of Ben Scott
> > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> wrote:
> > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > Jr wrote:
> > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've
> > > never seen savings at 55.
> >
> >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced
> > the confusion.
> >
> >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but I
> > know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> >
> > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> between
> > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when
> > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> >
> >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up
> > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
> > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
> > but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close to
> > redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  This is on
> > the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some models that's
> > considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> >
> >   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher
> > speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> >
> **
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> > the system manager.
> >
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> >
> > www.clearswift.com
> >
> **
> >
> >
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> 
> 
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> 
> 

RE: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

[Sobey, Richard A]

Thanks Paul. There's nothing of relevance there, just a lot of settings to do 
with MaxConnections, which isn't what I'm looking for.

Richard

From: bounce-8582041-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
[mailto:bounce-8582041-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul 
Wehner
Sent: 29 June 2009 19:33
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

Take a look at "set-transportserver"

From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:26 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

Hi all

Since I have updated our send connectors on Exchange 2007 to use our HT servers 
to route mail to our smart host, it seems to be sending through "too many"  
messages per connection. The smart host is thus delaying delivery of those 
message by up to 15 minutes as it thinks it's bulk mail (for info, it rejects 
mail after 10 messages in any single connection).

On Exchange 2003, there was a nice setting called "Maximum messages per 
connection" on the SMTP virtual server tab which now, unfortunately, seems to 
be absent.

Does anyone know


a)  How many messages per connection Exchange 2007 can submit, and if that 
value can be changed;

b)  If not, a creative solution of how to get around this, bar accepting 
the 15 minute delay, or making unwanted changes elsewhere?

Cheers

Richard

RE: Exchange 2003 Public Folder problems

[Steven M. Caesare]

Does your AD have old DC entries somewhere? Does DNS believe so as well?

 

-sc

 

From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:cbusitl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:08 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Exchange 2003 Public Folder problems

 

Exchange 2003.  AD 2003

 

I recently took on a new client that is having some weird Public Folder
problems after the drive that holds the exchange DB ran out of space.
I was able to bring exchange back fine after I cleared out some old
backups they were storing on that drive.  The problem I'm getting now is
that when users try to add appointments to a Calender on any of the
public folders it does one of two things.  1.  lets them make the change
but does not keep the change.  or 2.   gives them an access is denyed
message.  If I look at the logs I don't see any related errors.  I have
double checked the permissions and everything looks good.  

 

To do some further trouble shooting on the permissions, I downloaded a
copy of ScriptLogic Security Explorer.  After installing when I try to
run I gives me an error pointing to and old DC and will not connect.
This go me wondering If exchange somewhere was still pointing to on old
DC .  I checked the DNS on the NIC and In Exchange System Manager  -->
Servers --> Server name --> Properties, Directory Access Tab.  Those
look right.

 

I seem to remember that there is one other place that exchange stores
info on DC's but can't find it.   Does anyone know if there are other
places to check?

 

Thanks

 

Matt

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. 
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Thomas Gonzalez]

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. 
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make 
sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Ellis, John P.]

Places like www.td5alive.com can do some nice tuning and take it to around 
185bhp. Some claim better MPG as well.
Its on my list of jobs but not to 185bhp. Maybe more like 150bhp.
Land rover are now doing a TDv6 and a TDv8 in the Range Rovers. One of the 
lumps now has twin turbo :-)

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: 30 June 2009 14:41
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.

There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are available 
often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where the emissions 
regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck market, which is 
where you find the majority of diesels here.

I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the high 
teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid 30's, and the 
performance was nearly identical. That would be the perfect for my Toyota 
Sequoia.

What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern diesels 
actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline brethren in several 
categories.

_SIGH_.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> 5 Cylinder
> Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler ECU Controlled
> 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm 2200kg (ish in weight)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town 
> > and 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel 
> > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> >
> > /loves fuel bill.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On 
> > Behalf Of Ben Scott
> > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> wrote:
> > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than 
> > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola 
> > Jr wrote:
> > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've 
> > > never seen savings at 55.
> >
> >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced 
> > the confusion.
> >
> >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but 
> > I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> >
> > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs 
> > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> between
> > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when 
> > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> >
> >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's 
> > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up 
> > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the 
> > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 
> > MPH but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting 
> > close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  
> > This is on the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some 
> > models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> >
> >   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher 
> > speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> >
> 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Jay Dale]

That might cause Outlook to open slowly, especially if you have a
significant mailbox size.  Try putting it in Cached Mode, typically that
will help it open a bit quicker.

Jay

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Martin Blackstone]

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

Re: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

[Tom Kern]

Richard there is no such setting for Exchange 2007.
The value is hardcoded at 20

Thanks


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Sobey, Richard A wrote:
> Thanks Paul. There’s nothing of relevance there, just a lot of settings to
> do with MaxConnections, which isn’t what I’m looking for.
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> From: bounce-8582041-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> [mailto:bounce-8582041-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Wehner
> Sent: 29 June 2009 19:33
>
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007
>
>
>
> Take a look at “set-transportserver”
>
>
>
> From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:26 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> Since I have updated our send connectors on Exchange 2007 to use our HT
> servers to route mail to our smart host, it seems to be sending through “too
> many”  messages per connection. The smart host is thus delaying delivery of
> those message by up to 15 minutes as it thinks it’s bulk mail (for info, it
> rejects mail after 10 messages in any single connection).
>
>
>
> On Exchange 2003, there was a nice setting called “Maximum messages per
> connection” on the SMTP virtual server tab which now, unfortunately, seems
> to be absent.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know
>
>
>
> a)  How many messages per connection Exchange 2007 can submit, and if
> that value can be changed;
>
> b)  If not, a creative solution of how to get around this, bar accepting
> the 15 minute delay, or making unwanted changes elsewhere?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>

Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Orland, Kathleen]

Have you looked at the integration of the Dell Media Centre with Office? Does 
Outlook open quicker if you open it in safe mode? Start > Run > outlook.exe 
/safe

If safe mode restores Outlook to opening as you would expect it to, check your 
Add Ins. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Murray Freeman 
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 AM
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!

  Murray





--
  From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

   

  Bob Fronk

  P Please print only as needed.

   

   

   

   

  From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

   

  I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good 
suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server 2K3 running 
on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having 
significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after 
logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing 
the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like 
to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the 
very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

   

  Murray 

   

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Bob Fronk]

I have seen incredibly poor performance of Outlook 2007 on Vista 64bit on Dell 
PCs with the new Connection Manager software (needed for wireless and cellular 
connection).  The issue does not occur on XP or Windows 7.

However, your post indicates you are running Outlook 2003.  I would check your 
DNS settings and disable any Antivirus plug-ins in Outlook.


--
Bob Fronk
P Please print only as needed.





From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!


Murray



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

Bob Fronk
P Please print only as needed.




From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good 
suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server 2K3 running 
on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having 
significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after 
logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing 
the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like 
to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the 
very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Murray

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

I got more power and MPG chipping my truck.


Mmmm... compound screws. Nice.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Places like www.td5alive.com can do some nice tuning and take it to
> around 185bhp. Some claim better MPG as well.
> Its on my list of jobs but not to 185bhp. Maybe more like 150bhp.
> Land rover are now doing a TDv6 and a TDv8 in the Range Rovers. One of
> the lumps now has twin turbo :-)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: 30 June 2009 14:41
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> 
> There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck
> market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> 
> I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> 
> What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> brethren in several categories.
> 
> _SIGH_.
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > 5 Cylinder
> > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler ECU Controlled
> > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm 2200kg (ish in weight)
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> > > and 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > >
> > > /loves fuel bill.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Ben Scott
> > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > wrote:
> > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > > Jr wrote:
> > > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.
>  I've
> > > > never seen savings at 55.
> > >
> > >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my
> statement.
> > > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so
> reinforced
> > > the confusion.
> > >
> > >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but
> > > I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> > >
> > > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> > between
> > > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips
> when
> > > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> > >
> > >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it
> up
> > > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
> > > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120
> > > MPH but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting
> > > close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.
> > > This is on the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some
> > > models that's considerably beef

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Thomas Gonzalez]

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make 
sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Eric Wittersheim]

I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand Cherokee 
with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was very impressive.  The 
Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time diesel was over a dollar more a 
gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice motor.  

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM 
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.

There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are available 
often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where the emissions 
regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck market, which is 
where you find the majority of diesels here.

I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the high 
teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid 30's, and the 
performance was nearly identical. That would be the perfect for my Toyota 
Sequoia.

What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern diesels 
actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline brethren in several 
categories.

_SIGH_.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> 5 Cylinder
> Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> ECU Controlled
> 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> 2200kg (ish in weight)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and
> > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> >
> > /loves fuel bill.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf
> > Of Ben Scott
> > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> wrote:
> > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > Jr wrote:
> > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.  I've
> > > never seen savings at 55.
> >
> >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my statement.
> > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so reinforced
> > the confusion.
> >
> >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but I
> > know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> >
> > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> between
> > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips when
> > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> >
> >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it up
> > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
> > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
> > but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close to
> > redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree.  This is on
> > the 4-cylinder base engine.  They have an H6 on some models that's
> > considerably beefier, or so I've read.
> >
> >   It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher
> > speeds.  I wouldn't have expected that.
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
> >
> >
> >
> *

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...

What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl diesel, 
but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here in the states...

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was very
> impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time diesel
> was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> motor.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> 
> There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck
> market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> 
> I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> 
> What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> brethren in several categories.
> 
> _SIGH_.
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > 5 Cylinder
> > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > ECU Controlled
> > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> and
> > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > >
> > > /loves fuel bill.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Ben Scott
> > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > wrote:
> > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > > Jr wrote:
> > > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.
>  I've
> > > > never seen savings at 55.
> > >
> > >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my
> statement.
> > > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so
> reinforced
> > > the confusion.
> > >
> > >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but
> I
> > > know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> > >
> > > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> > between
> > > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips
> when
> > > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> > >
> > >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > > going to explode", but it's starting to whine a little.  I got it
> up
> > > to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
> > > engine won over and I backed off.  The speedometer goes up to 120
> MPH
> > > but I think that's being optimistic.  90 was already getting close
> to

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

I did, and no difference. 


MMF 


-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Thomas Gonzalez]

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.






This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make 
sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.

RE: RIM SUPPORT

[Stefan Jafs]

How do you keep your BES server up to date? Do you get the updates from your 
carrier?

___
Stefan Jafs

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

+1 on that method.  The problem with it is that no carrier will even begin to 
troubleshoot unless you have the device in question in your hands.

CFee



From: Mike Sullivan [mailto:neog...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT
We've never paid for RIM support. Instead, we call our carrier (Verizon) and 
have them help us and when they can't figure out the issue they implement the 
call to RIM. We've only had to do this about 4 times in 2.5 years. We have 110 
licenses (104 in use).

Maybe you can take a similar route?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Brown 
<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
We had a round of lay-off's in November, and then some more in January.  Things 
are beginning to look up, maybe, but we are a LONG way from being willing to 
shell out 6 large for that support.  We have a lead on a contractor that is 
supposedly authorized by RIM who offers support contracts.  Will let you know 
where that leads.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mousa Hamad 
mailto:mha...@zetron.com>> wrote:
You'll have to let us know how that works out.


We have 15 devices and just got the lowest support package... We are on
BPS, but interestingly they did price us based on the number of devices
we have as well... I found that odd, but just assumed that was how they
did it... I agree though, how many devices I have should be none of
their business...

Though RIM has already tried their best to alienate us with Verizon's
help by forcing Blackberry Storms down our throat, needless to say I'll
be completing the Curve for Storm switch out TODAY and my users are
already a LOT happier..


Mousa Hamad



-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith 
[mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Anyone tried www.astrasync.com ?? I'm rolling it out 
to five users next
week as a test.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeff 
Brown<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, all they REALLY support for me is ONE BES server.

 Yah, same here.  And really, I'm agreeing with you -- if RIM keeps
pissing off their customers, they'll eventually find they don't have
customers to piss off.

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~






--
Mike Sullivan
neog...@gmail.com



This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Amico 
Corpoartion company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure 
no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility 
for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: RIM SUPPORT

[Carol Fee]

Download from their web site.
 
CFee
 



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT



How do you keep your BES server up to date? Do you get the updates from
your carrier?

 

___

Stefan Jafs

 

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

 

+1 on that method.  The problem with it is that no carrier will even
begin to troubleshoot unless you have the device in question in your
hands.

 

CFee

 

 



From: Mike Sullivan [mailto:neog...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

We've never paid for RIM support. Instead, we call our carrier (Verizon)
and have them help us and when they can't figure out the issue they
implement the call to RIM. We've only had to do this about 4 times in
2.5 years. We have 110 licenses (104 in use).  

 

Maybe you can take a similar route?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Brown <2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

We had a round of lay-off's in November, and then some more in January.
Things are beginning to look up, maybe, but we are a LONG way from being
willing to shell out 6 large for that support.  We have a lead on a
contractor that is supposedly authorized by RIM who offers support
contracts.  Will let you know where that leads. 

 

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mousa Hamad  wrote:

You'll have to let us know how that works out.


We have 15 devices and just got the lowest support package... We are on
BPS, but interestingly they did price us based on the number of devices
we have as well... I found that odd, but just assumed that was how they
did it... I agree though, how many devices I have should be none of
their business...

Though RIM has already tried their best to alienate us with Verizon's
help by forcing Blackberry Storms down our throat, needless to say I'll
be completing the Curve for Storm switch out TODAY and my users are
already a LOT happier..


Mousa Hamad




-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues

Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Anyone tried www.astrasync.com ?? I'm rolling it out to five users next
week as a test.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeff Brown<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, all they REALLY support for me is ONE BES server.

 Yah, same here.  And really, I'm agreeing with you -- if RIM keeps
pissing off their customers, they'll eventually find they don't have
customers to piss off.

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

 

 




-- 
Mike Sullivan
neog...@gmail.com

 

This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although
precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this
email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Eric Wittersheim]

HP is rated at 215 I think for the GC CRD.

-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:55 AM 
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Very cool... although the estimated 18/23 mpg seems a little anemic. No HP 
rating either... although at 376 TQ, I'd guess maybe about 200... that is a 
little low for a vehicle that size with probably only a 5-spd tranny.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...
> 
> What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl
> diesel, but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here
> in the states...
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> > Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was
> very
> > impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time
> diesel
> > was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> > motor.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> >
> > There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> > available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> > the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty
> truck
> > market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> >
> > I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> > high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> > 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> > perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> >
> > What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> > diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> > brethren in several categories.
> >
> > _SIGH_.
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > 5 Cylinder
> > > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > > ECU Controlled
> > > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> > >
> > > -sc
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> > and
> > > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper
> Diesel
> > > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > > >
> > > > /loves fuel bill.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Ben Scott
> > > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG
> than
> > > > >>

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Mousa Hamad]

Interestingly enough I am having a similar issue to Murray, however ours
occurs on start up AND while Outlook is open. It will occasionally hang
several PC's on our network (not at the same time) and I can't really
pin point what the cause is. The synchronization is what causes the hang
up and svchost spikes to 99%.

I have looked online to no avail and even replaced a few PC's to rule
out software and hardware... Any ideas where I can talk to our lead
admin about looking server side? 


Mousa Hamad
 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.






This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or al

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Mousa Hamad]

And of course I failed to mention that all of our PC's are running XP
Pro SP3... Office 2003 SP3 and we are running Exchange 2003...  


Mousa Hamad
 
Zetron, Inc.
IT Department
(425) 820-6363 x624

-Original Message-
From: Mousa Hamad [mailto:mha...@zetron.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Interestingly enough I am having a similar issue to Murray, however ours
occurs on start up AND while Outlook is open. It will occasionally hang
several PC's on our network (not at the same time) and I can't really
pin point what the cause is. The synchronization is what causes the hang
up and svchost spikes to 99%.

I have looked online to no avail and even replaced a few PC's to rule
out software and hardware... Any ideas where I can talk to our lead
admin about looking server side? 


Mousa Hamad
 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although p

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Thomas Gonzalez]

Mousa, did you try outlook /safe and see if the client responded in a
timely manner? 


-Original Message-
From: Mousa Hamad [mailto:mha...@zetron.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

And of course I failed to mention that all of our PC's are running XP
Pro SP3... Office 2003 SP3 and we are running Exchange 2003...  


Mousa Hamad
 
Zetron, Inc.
IT Department
(425) 820-6363 x624

-Original Message-
From: Mousa Hamad [mailto:mha...@zetron.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Interestingly enough I am having a similar issue to Murray, however ours
occurs on start up AND while Outlook is open. It will occasionally hang
several PC's on our network (not at the same time) and I can't really
pin point what the cause is. The synchronization is what causes the hang
up and svchost spikes to 99%.

I have looked online to no avail and even replaced a few PC's to rule
out software and hardware... Any ideas where I can talk to our lead
admin about looking server side? 


Mousa Hamad
 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intende

RE: RIM SUPPORT

[David Mazzaccaro]

correct



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT



I guess you do get access to the minor updates but you do not have
access to the new v 5, correct?

 

___

Stefan Jafs

 

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

 

Download from their web site.

 

CFee

 

 



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

How do you keep your BES server up to date? Do you get the updates from
your carrier?

 

___

Stefan Jafs

 

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

 

+1 on that method.  The problem with it is that no carrier will even
begin to troubleshoot unless you have the device in question in your
hands.

 

CFee

 

 



From: Mike Sullivan [mailto:neog...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

We've never paid for RIM support. Instead, we call our carrier (Verizon)
and have them help us and when they can't figure out the issue they
implement the call to RIM. We've only had to do this about 4 times in
2.5 years. We have 110 licenses (104 in use).  

 

Maybe you can take a similar route?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Brown <2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

We had a round of lay-off's in November, and then some more in January.
Things are beginning to look up, maybe, but we are a LONG way from being
willing to shell out 6 large for that support.  We have a lead on a
contractor that is supposedly authorized by RIM who offers support
contracts.  Will let you know where that leads. 

 

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mousa Hamad  wrote:

You'll have to let us know how that works out.


We have 15 devices and just got the lowest support package... We are on
BPS, but interestingly they did price us based on the number of devices
we have as well... I found that odd, but just assumed that was how they
did it... I agree though, how many devices I have should be none of
their business...

Though RIM has already tried their best to alienate us with Verizon's
help by forcing Blackberry Storms down our throat, needless to say I'll
be completing the Curve for Storm switch out TODAY and my users are
already a LOT happier..


Mousa Hamad




-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues

Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Anyone tried www.astrasync.com ?? I'm rolling it out to five users next
week as a test.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeff Brown<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, all they REALLY support for me is ONE BES server.

 Yah, same here.  And really, I'm agreeing with you -- if RIM keeps
pissing off their customers, they'll eventually find they don't have
customers to piss off.

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

 

 




-- 
Mike Sullivan
neog...@gmail.com

 

This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although
precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this
email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although
precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this
email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage
that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.






This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: RIM SUPPORT

[Carol Fee]

+1 on that method.  The problem with it is that no carrier will even
begin to troubleshoot unless you have the device in question in your
hands.
 
CFee
 



From: Mike Sullivan [mailto:neog...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT


We've never paid for RIM support. Instead, we call our carrier (Verizon)
and have them help us and when they can't figure out the issue they
implement the call to RIM. We've only had to do this about 4 times in
2.5 years. We have 110 licenses (104 in use).  

Maybe you can take a similar route?


On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Brown <2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:


We had a round of lay-off's in November, and then some more in
January.  Things are beginning to look up, maybe, but we are a LONG way
from being willing to shell out 6 large for that support.  We have a
lead on a contractor that is supposedly authorized by RIM who offers
support contracts.  Will let you know where that leads. 


On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mousa Hamad
 wrote:


You'll have to let us know how that works out.


We have 15 devices and just got the lowest support
package... We are on
BPS, but interestingly they did price us based on the
number of devices
we have as well... I found that odd, but just assumed
that was how they
did it... I agree though, how many devices I have should
be none of
their business...

Though RIM has already tried their best to alienate us
with Verizon's
help by forcing Blackberry Storms down our throat,
needless to say I'll
be completing the Curve for Storm switch out TODAY and
my users are
already a LOT happier..


Mousa Hamad




-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith
[mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues

Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Anyone tried www.astrasync.com ?? I'm rolling it out to
five users next
week as a test.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeff
Brown<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, all they REALLY support for me is ONE BES
server.

 Yah, same here.  And really, I'm agreeing with you --
if RIM keeps
pissing off their customers, they'll eventually find
they don't have
customers to piss off.

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets
Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja
~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets
Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja
~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets
Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja
~




 




-- 
Mike Sullivan
neog...@gmail.com


 

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Eric Wittersheim]

Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/


-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM 
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...

What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl diesel, 
but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here in the states...

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was very
> impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time diesel
> was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> motor.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> 
> There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck
> market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> 
> I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> 
> What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> brethren in several categories.
> 
> _SIGH_.
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > 5 Cylinder
> > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > ECU Controlled
> > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> and
> > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > >
> > > /loves fuel bill.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Ben Scott
> > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > wrote:
> > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > > Jr wrote:
> > > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.
>  I've
> > > > never seen savings at 55.
> > >
> > >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my
> statement.
> > > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so
> reinforced
> > > the confusion.
> > >
> > >   MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH.  How much, I'm not sure, but
> I
> > > know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
> > >
> > > I do tend to drive aggressively.  I also haven't had the plugs
> > > changed in too long.  And I'm an AC junky.  So I typically get
> > between
> > > 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester.  On all-highway trips
> when
> > > it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
> > >
> > >   80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think.  Not "oh my God it's
> > > going to explode", but it's sta

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Mousa Hamad]

Did not... I will give safe mode a shot...  


Mousa Hamad
 
Zetron, Inc.
IT Department
(425) 820-6363 x624

-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:07 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Mousa, did you try outlook /safe and see if the client responded in a
timely manner? 


-Original Message-
From: Mousa Hamad [mailto:mha...@zetron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

And of course I failed to mention that all of our PC's are running XP
Pro SP3... Office 2003 SP3 and we are running Exchange 2003...  


Mousa Hamad
 
Zetron, Inc.
IT Department
(425) 820-6363 x624

-Original Message-
From: Mousa Hamad [mailto:mha...@zetron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Interestingly enough I am having a similar issue to Murray, however ours
occurs on start up AND while Outlook is open. It will occasionally hang
several PC's on our network (not at the same time) and I can't really
pin point what the cause is. The synchronization is what causes the hang
up and svchost spikes to 99%.

I have looked online to no avail and even replaced a few PC's to rule
out software and hardware... Any ideas where I can talk to our lead
admin about looking server side? 


Mousa Hamad
 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. W

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

Very cool... although the estimated 18/23 mpg seems a little anemic. No HP 
rating either... although at 376 TQ, I'd guess maybe about 200... that is a 
little low for a vehicle that size with probably only a 5-spd tranny.

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...
> 
> What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl
> diesel, but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here
> in the states...
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> > Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was
> very
> > impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time
> diesel
> > was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> > motor.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> >
> > There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> > available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> > the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty
> truck
> > market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> >
> > I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> > high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> > 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> > perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> >
> > What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> > diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> > brethren in several categories.
> >
> > _SIGH_.
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > 5 Cylinder
> > > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > > ECU Controlled
> > > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> > >
> > > -sc
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> > and
> > > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper
> Diesel
> > > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > > >
> > > > /loves fuel bill.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Ben Scott
> > > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG
> than
> > > > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > > > Jr wrote:
> > > > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.
> >  I've
> > > > > never seen savings at 55.
> > > >
> > > >   Gah, I

RE: RIM SUPPORT

[Stefan Jafs]

I guess you do get access to the minor updates but you do not have access to 
the new v 5, correct?

___
Stefan Jafs

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Download from their web site.

CFee



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT
How do you keep your BES server up to date? Do you get the updates from your 
carrier?

___
Stefan Jafs

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

+1 on that method.  The problem with it is that no carrier will even begin to 
troubleshoot unless you have the device in question in your hands.

CFee



From: Mike Sullivan [mailto:neog...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT
We've never paid for RIM support. Instead, we call our carrier (Verizon) and 
have them help us and when they can't figure out the issue they implement the 
call to RIM. We've only had to do this about 4 times in 2.5 years. We have 110 
licenses (104 in use).

Maybe you can take a similar route?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Brown 
<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
We had a round of lay-off's in November, and then some more in January.  Things 
are beginning to look up, maybe, but we are a LONG way from being willing to 
shell out 6 large for that support.  We have a lead on a contractor that is 
supposedly authorized by RIM who offers support contracts.  Will let you know 
where that leads.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Mousa Hamad 
mailto:mha...@zetron.com>> wrote:
You'll have to let us know how that works out.


We have 15 devices and just got the lowest support package... We are on
BPS, but interestingly they did price us based on the number of devices
we have as well... I found that odd, but just assumed that was how they
did it... I agree though, how many devices I have should be none of
their business...

Though RIM has already tried their best to alienate us with Verizon's
help by forcing Blackberry Storms down our throat, needless to say I'll
be completing the Curve for Storm switch out TODAY and my users are
already a LOT happier..


Mousa Hamad



-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith 
[mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: RIM SUPPORT

Anyone tried www.astrasync.com ?? I'm rolling it out 
to five users next
week as a test.


From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RIM SUPPORT

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeff 
Brown<2jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, all they REALLY support for me is ONE BES server.

 Yah, same here.  And really, I'm agreeing with you -- if RIM keeps
pissing off their customers, they'll eventually find they don't have
customers to piss off.

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~






--
Mike Sullivan
neog...@gmail.com



This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Amico 
Corpoartion company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure 
no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility 
for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Amico 
Corpoartion company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure 
no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility 
for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Don Guyer]

Real Jeeps have a 4.0 liter v6:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s252/Articul8_DWG/Rausch%20082507/photo23.jpg

:)


Don Guyer
Systems Engineer - Information Services
Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
431 W. Lancaster Avenue
Devon, PA 19333
Direct: (610) 993-3299
Fax: (610) 650-5306
don.gu...@prufoxroach.com

-Original Message-
From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/


-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM 
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...

What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl diesel, 
but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here in the states...

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was very
> impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time diesel
> was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> motor.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> 
> There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty truck
> market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> 
> I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> 
> What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> brethren in several categories.
> 
> _SIGH_.
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > 5 Cylinder
> > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > ECU Controlled
> > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> and
> > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
> > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > >
> > > /loves fuel bill.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Ben Scott
> > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scott
> > wrote:
> > > >> Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than
> > > >> doing 65 MPH in 5th gear.  :-)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
> > > Jr wrote:
> > > > I believe it.  I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+.
>  I've
> > > > never seen savings at 55.
> > >
> > >   Gah, I'm an idiot. I  reversed the intended sense in my
> statement.
> > > I was trying to be sarcastic with the "Amazingly", and so
> reinforced
> > > the confusion.
> >

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Steven M. Caesare]

You sure you don't mean the 4.0 liter _IN-LINE_ six?

:P

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Don Guyer [mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Real Jeeps have a 4.0 liter v6:
> 
> http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s252/Articul8_DWG/Rausch%20082507/ph
> oto23.jpg
> 
> :)
> 
> 
> Don Guyer
> Systems Engineer - Information Services
> Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
> 431 W. Lancaster Avenue
> Devon, PA 19333
> Direct: (610) 993-3299
> Fax: (610) 650-5306
> don.gu...@prufoxroach.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...
> 
> What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl
> diesel, but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here
> in the states...
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> > Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was
> very
> > impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time
> diesel
> > was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> > motor.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> >
> > There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> > available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> > the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty
> truck
> > market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> >
> > I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> > high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> > 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> > perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> >
> > What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> > diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> > brethren in several categories.
> >
> > _SIGH_.
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > 5 Cylinder
> > > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > > ECU Controlled
> > > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> > >
> > > -sc
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> > and
> > > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper
> Diesel
> > > > (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
> > > >
> > > > /loves fuel bill.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> > > > [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Ben Scott
> > > > Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
>

RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

[Don Guyer]

Yup, sure do!  No way I meant the mini-van motors they're putting in the newer 
Wranglers.

:)

Don Guyer
Systems Engineer - Information Services
Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
431 W. Lancaster Avenue
Devon, PA 19333
Direct: (610) 993-3299
Fax: (610) 650-5306
don.gu...@prufoxroach.com


-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)

You sure you don't mean the 4.0 liter _IN-LINE_ six?

:P

-sc

> -Original Message-
> From: Don Guyer [mailto:don.gu...@prufoxroach.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Real Jeeps have a 4.0 liter v6:
> 
> http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s252/Articul8_DWG/Rausch%20082507/ph
> oto23.jpg
> 
> :)
> 
> 
> Don Guyer
> Systems Engineer - Information Services
> Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
> 431 W. Lancaster Avenue
> Devon, PA 19333
> Direct: (610) 993-3299
> Fax: (610) 650-5306
> don.gu...@prufoxroach.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> Yes they do.  Check it out.  http://www.jeep.com/crd/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> 
> The test I read was using a Detroit diesel...
> 
> What engine for a Grand Cherokee? I knew the liberty had a small 4-cyl
> diesel, but wasn't aware that the GC had a diesel option, at least here
> in the states...
> 
> -sc
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:ewittersh...@aasmnet.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:45 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > I bet this could have been the Jeep power plants.  I drove the Grand
> > Cherokee with the diesel and the 5.7 Hemi.  The diesels torque was
> very
> > impressive.  The Hemi was the one we chose to buy.  At the time
> diesel
> > was over a dollar more a gallon than gas and the Hemi was such a nice
> > motor.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> >
> > Man, I'd love to have that plant in mid-size SUV.
> >
> > There are few attractive small diesels in the US, but those that are
> > available often don't make their way in to passenger vehicles, where
> > the emissions regulations are far more strict than the light-duty
> truck
> > market, which is where you find the majority of diesels here.
> >
> > I read about one test that replaced the 4.7L V8 (which got MPG in the
> > high teens) with a ~3.5L V6 turbo diesel. The mileage went to low/mid
> > 30's, and the performance was nearly identical. That would be the
> > perfect for my Toyota Sequoia.
> >
> > What many folks don't realize, is that other than particulate, modern
> > diesels actually have LESS harmful emissions than their gasoline
> > brethren in several categories.
> >
> > _SIGH_.
> >
> > -sc
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:49 AM
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > 5 Cylinder
> > > Direct Injection Turbo Diesel with Intercooler
> > > ECU Controlled
> > > 122 bhp (120 PS, 90 kW) at 4200 rpm
> > > 300 Nm (221 lb.ft) of torque at 1950 rpm
> > > 2200kg (ish in weight)
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com]
> > > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:52
> > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > >
> > > What's the specs on a TD5 power plant?
> > >
> > > -sc
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Can I chip in with a non American vehicle?
> > > > Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town
> > and
> > > > 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41
> > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > > > Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
> > > >
> > > > Makes me so proud o

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Thomas Gonzalez]

Murray, my guess would be that the AV maybe (possibly) scanning the
store and causing a spike that would effect the client accessing the
store. That would be my guess :)

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.






This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any v

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

Well, I tried opening Outlook in safe mode and what a difference. It
takes 17 seconds in normal mode and 8 seconds in safe mode. 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Murray, my guess would be that the AV maybe (possibly) scanning the
store and causing a spike that would effect the client accessing the
store. That would be my guess :)

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present

RE: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

[Don Andrews]

Can your smart host's configuration be modified?  or is it your ISP's
server?

 



From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:26 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007

 

Hi all

 

Since I have updated our send connectors on Exchange 2007 to use our HT
servers to route mail to our smart host, it seems to be sending through
"too many"  messages per connection. The smart host is thus delaying
delivery of those message by up to 15 minutes as it thinks it's bulk
mail (for info, it rejects mail after 10 messages in any single
connection).

 

On Exchange 2003, there was a nice setting called "Maximum messages per
connection" on the SMTP virtual server tab which now, unfortunately,
seems to be absent.

 

Does anyone know

 

a)  How many messages per connection Exchange 2007 can submit, and
if that value can be changed;

b)  If not, a creative solution of how to get around this, bar
accepting the 15 minute delay, or making unwanted changes elsewhere?

 

Cheers

 

Richard

 

 

Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Orland, Kathleen]

Disable all your Add Ins, then add them back one at a time. Test inbetween
to see which one is the culprit.


- Original Message - 
From: "Murray Freeman" 
To: "MS-Exchange Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Well, I tried opening Outlook in safe mode and what a difference. It
takes 17 seconds in normal mode and 8 seconds in safe mode.


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Murray, my guess would be that the AV maybe (possibly) scanning the
store and causing a spike that would effect the client accessing the
store. That would be my guess :)

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine.


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?)

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone.


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode.


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps!


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present
in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or
damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.







This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, d

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Bob Fronk]

How about Google search?  I know it used to cause Exchange/Outlook problems.  
Anyone have that installed on the PC?  I have seen some performance degradation 
when the "windows search" is installed, but I have declined it on WSUS, so we 
don't have it here.


Just stabbing at things for you... It really sounds like an add-in problem.  


--
Bob FronkPlease print onl���as needed.





-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Well, I tried opening Outlook in safe mode and what a difference. It
takes 17 seconds in normal mode and 8 seconds in safe mode. 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Murray, my guess would be that the AV maybe (possibly) scanning the
store and causing a spike that would effect the client accessing the
store. That would be my guess :)

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas company. Warning:
Although precautions have been taken to make sur

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Don Guyer]

Xobni?

Don Guyer
Systems Engineer - Information Services
Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
431 W. Lancaster Avenue
Devon, PA 19333
Direct: (610) 993-3299
Fax: (610) 650-5306
don.gu...@prufoxroach.com


-Original Message-
From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:25 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

How about Google search?  I know it used to cause Exchange/Outlook problems.  
Anyone have that installed on the PC?  I have seen some performance degradation 
when the "windows search" is installed, but I have declined it on WSUS, so we 
don't have it here.



Just stabbing at things for you... It really sounds like an add-in problem.  


--
Bob FronkPlease print onlas needed.





-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Well, I tried opening Outlook in safe mode and what a difference. It
takes 17 seconds in normal mode and 8 seconds in safe mode. 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Murray, my guess would be that the AV maybe (possibly) scanning the
store and causing a spike that would effect the client accessing the
store. That would be my guess :)

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We're using McAfee for A/V, but the interesting part is in the
afternoon, when I tested, Outlook opened just fine. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So if everyone is having an issue, what is the load on the server store?
What do you have on the backend (AV product that may be scanning the
store?) 

If everyone is experiencing this, I would start with the server / store
and see what is occurring before I would point on the clients. If the
store is ok, how about a switch? Bad port? 

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

It's not a single user, it's everyone. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Also, is the free / busy scheduler updating for this particular user? I
just had an issue with a user and I had to break cached mode and reset
cached mode and it started operating normally...strange but that was the
issue...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:59 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Try using it.

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

We are not using Cached Mode. 


Murray


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Cached mode?

-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Actually, it does open faster if I use all caps! 


Murray 


-Original Message-
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side
performance issue.

--
ME2



On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman
wrote:
> I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any 
> good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange 
> Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 
> Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the 
> client first thing in the morning after logging into the network.
> Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the 
> client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to 
> determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
> staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the 
> client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
> Murray
>
>





This email and an

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

Thank you for all the suggestions. I tried opening in Safe Mode and
shutting down all the Add-ins and then testing with each of our add-ins.
End result, virtually the same speed in opening Outlook. Finally, I then
logged out of our network, and then logged back in. I waited until it
appeared that the login process was complete, and immediately opened
Outlook in normal mode. It took 37 seconds. I then closed Outlook and
reopened it after waiting a few seconds. It took 8 seconds. I believe
the problem is related to the login process and not a problem with
Outlook. I'll test again tomorrow morning but I suspect the results will
be the same. Thanks again for the suggestions. 


Murray 

Re: OT: Ninja - attachment filtering

[Kurt Buff]

Because unfortunately it's built around a black list, not a white
list, and I'm not enough of a perl programmer to fix it - I agree with
your sentiment, though.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 13:00, Joe Frederick wrote:
> Why not just block *.* and only allow what you want.
>
>
> Joe Frederick, MCSE, CCNA
> QA Engineer
> Sunbelt Software
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:30 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: OT: Ninja - attachment filtering
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:48, Cameron wrote:
>> Greetings all!
>>
>> We have just purchased both Ninja and Vipre and so far have Ninja
> installed and configured (awesome tech support Stu!!) but I'm wondering
> what everyone is filtering and if I'm missing something glaring. I've
> done some google-fuing and have the following list setup already.
>>
>> If I'm missing something, please feel free to tell me! Better safe
> than sorry!
>>
>> *.ade *.adp *.ani *.app *.bas *.bat *.chm *.cla *.class *.cmd *.com
>> *.cpl *.crt *.csh *.eml *.email *.exe *.fxp *.hlp *.hta *.inf *.ini
>> *.ins *.isp *.js *.jse *.ksh *.lnk *.mda *.mdb *.mde *.mdt *.mdw *.mdz
>
>> *.msc *.msi *.msp *.mst *.ocx *.ops *.pcd *.pif *.prf *.prg *.reg
>> *.scf *.scr *.sct *.shb *.shs *.url *.vb *.vbe *.vbs *.wsc *.wsf *.wsh
>
>> *.xsl *.mp3 *.wav
>>
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Cameron
>
> This is the set I quarantine on in my Maia Mailguard gateway:
>
> {}                                        # curly braces in names
> (serve as Class ID extensions - CLSID)
> application/x-msdownload     # block these MIME types
> application/x-msdos-program
> application/hta
> message/partial                   # rfc2046 MIME types
> message/external-body
>
> .exe, .vbs, .pif, .scr, .bat, .cmd, .com, .cpl, .dll, .386, .acm, .adb,
> .ade, .adp, .adt, .app, .arc, .arj, .asp, .avi, .bas, .bat, .bin, .bz2,
> .cab, .cbt, .cdr, .cgi, .chm, .cla, .cmd, .cnv, .com, .cpio, .cpl, .crt,
> .csc, .dbx, .dev, .dll, .dl_, .drv, .dr_, .exe, .emf, .ex_, .fxp, .gms,
> .gz, .hlp, .hta, .ice, .if, .in_, .inf, .ini, .ins, .isp, .jar, .js,
> .jse, .jtd, .ldb, .lob, .mdb, .mde, .mdt, .mdw, .mdz, .mht, .mp3, .mpd,
> .mpg, .mpeg, .mpt, .msc, .msg, .msi, .msm, .mso, .msp, .mst, .nht, .nws,
> .obd, .obt, .ocx, .oft, .ole, .ops, .ovl, .pcd, .pci, .pct, .php, .pif,
> .pl, .plx, .pot, .prg, .qlb, .qpw, .rar, .reg, .scr, .sct, .sh, .sha,
> .shb, .shs, .sht, .smm, .sys, .tar, .tbb, .td0, .tga, .tlb, .tsp, .vb,
> .vba, .vbe, .vbs, .vss, .vst, .vwp, .vxd, .wab, .wbk, .wiz, .wmf, .wpc,
> .wpd, .wsc, .wsf, .wsh, .wsi, .xml, .xsl, .xtp, .z, .zip, .zoo .mim,
> .b64, .bhx, .hqx, .xxe, .uu, .uue , .lha, .cab,
>
>
> Kurt
>
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~
>
>
>
> ..
>
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~
>
>

Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Sean Martin]

What is your user environment like? You indicated the problem commonly
surfaces during the "first logon". Do you have a large number of users
logging in at or around the same time in the morning? What about mailbox
sharing behavior? Do a lot of users share their mail folders/calendars/etc.
with other users? I've heard in the past that Exchange having to
consistently rebuild "Address Book Views" (I believe that was the
terminology) can cause performance degradation at the server level,
ultimately affecting the clients. I'm working off memory here, but I seem to
recall that folder views are cached until it is viewed for the 11th time, at
which time a new view is generated.

Whatever the case may be, I'd start paying particular attention to server
performance, specifically the disks.

Just my $.02 :-)

- Sean

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Murray Freeman wrote:

> Thank you for all the suggestions. I tried opening in Safe Mode and
> shutting down all the Add-ins and then testing with each of our add-ins.
> End result, virtually the same speed in opening Outlook. Finally, I then
> logged out of our network, and then logged back in. I waited until it
> appeared that the login process was complete, and immediately opened
> Outlook in normal mode. It took 37 seconds. I then closed Outlook and
> reopened it after waiting a few seconds. It took 8 seconds. I believe
> the problem is related to the login process and not a problem with
> Outlook. I'll test again tomorrow morning but I suspect the results will
> be the same. Thanks again for the suggestions.
>
>
> Murray
>
>
>
>
>

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Maglinger, Paul]

Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Bob Fronk]

When you do close Outlook, be sure that it is really closing.  Check task 
manager for Outlook.exe.  I have seen it "close" but not end.  When you click 
it again, it opens very fast, because it was not really closed to begin with.



--
Bob Fronk
��Please print on�� as needed.






-Original Message-
From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:13 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Thank you for all the suggestions. I tried opening in Safe Mode and
shutting down all the Add-ins and then testing with each of our add-ins.
End result, virtually the same speed in opening Outlook. Finally, I then
logged out of our network, and then logged back in. I waited until it
appeared that the login process was complete, and immediately opened
Outlook in normal mode. It took 37 seconds. I then closed Outlook and
reopened it after waiting a few seconds. It took 8 seconds. I believe
the problem is related to the login process and not a problem with
Outlook. I'll test again tomorrow morning but I suspect the results will
be the same. Thanks again for the suggestions. 


Murray 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

Workstations and off line folders.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Maglinger, Paul]

Why are you running offline folders on workstations?



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Workstations and off line folders.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Murray Freeman]

I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My
interpretation of offline meant that the folders are not stored on the
Exchange Server, but are included in the Outlook folder list. We did
this to reduce the amount of space neede on the Exchange Server. We
refer to these files as offline here.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Why are you running offline folders on workstations?



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Workstations and off line folders.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Maglinger, Paul]

So you're using Personal Folders at the workstation?  How large are your
PST files?  Corrupted PST files can cause delays in Outlook opening up.



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My
interpretation of offline meant that the folders are not stored on the
Exchange Server, but are included in the Outlook folder list. We did
this to reduce the amount of space neede on the Exchange Server. We
refer to these files as offline here.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Why are you running offline folders on workstations?



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Workstations and off line folders.
 

Murray 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!
 

Murray

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING



Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Campbell, Rob]

I'd think that would be consistently slow, not just on the first invocation 
after login.


From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:00 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

So you're using Personal Folders at the workstation?  How large are your PST 
files?  Corrupted PST files can cause delays in Outlook opening up.


From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My interpretation of 
offline meant that the folders are not stored on the Exchange Server, but are 
included in the Outlook folder list. We did this to reduce the amount of space 
neede on the Exchange Server. We refer to these files as offline here.


Murray



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Why are you running offline folders on workstations?


From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Workstations and off line folders.


Murray



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?


From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!


Murray



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

Bob Fronk
P Please print only as needed.




From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good 
suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server 2K3 running 
on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having 
significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after 
logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing 
the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like 
to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the 
very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Murray

**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,   
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you  
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 
**

Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Orland, Kathleen]

If you're using Personal Folders, were they brought over from an earlier 
version of Outlook or was a PST created in Outlook 2003 and the contents of the 
older PST copied into it?

If the PST is from an earlier version of Outlook, I'm wondering about the PST 
size.

In addition, make sure Outlook is really closed. Check the task manager, 
OUTLOOK.EXE will typically run for about 10 seconds after closing it. If it 
remains open, then there is something that is holding it open (like FAX 
software, synch software for a handheld, etc.).  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Maglinger, Paul 
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:59 PM
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  So you're using Personal Folders at the workstation?  How large are your PST 
files?  Corrupted PST files can cause delays in Outlook opening up.



--
  From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My interpretation of 
offline meant that the folders are not stored on the Exchange Server, but are 
included in the Outlook folder list. We did this to reduce the amount of space 
neede on the Exchange Server. We refer to these files as offline here.

  Murray 





--
  From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Why are you running offline folders on workstations?



--
  From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Workstations and off line folders.

  Murray 





--
  From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  



--
  From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!

  Murray





--
  From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING


  Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

   

  Bob Fronk

  P Please print only as needed.

   

   

   

   

  From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
  Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

   

  I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good 
suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server 2K3 running 
on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having 
significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after 
logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing 
the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like 
to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have 
staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the 
very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

   

  Murray 

   

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Don Andrews]

Good point - a later in the day reboot or at least Windows Log Off/Log
On should verify that  

 

Any disk encryption?  

 

Is it slow if you close the personal folders (PST) before shutting down
the night before? (hmm, that didn't sound quite right)

 

Do you have hew mail delivered to the PST directly?

 



From: Orland, Kathleen [mailto:korl...@rogers.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:20 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

If you're using Personal Folders, were they brought over from an earlier
version of Outlook or was a PST created in Outlook 2003 and the contents
of the older PST copied into it?

 

If the PST is from an earlier version of Outlook, I'm wondering about
the PST size.

 

In addition, make sure Outlook is really closed. Check the task manager,
OUTLOOK.EXE will typically run for about 10 seconds after closing it. If
it remains open, then there is something that is holding it open (like
FAX software, synch software for a handheld, etc.).  

- Original Message - 

From: Maglinger, Paul   

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
  

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:59 PM

Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

So you're using Personal Folders at the workstation?  How large
are your PST files?  Corrupted PST files can cause delays in Outlook
opening up.

 





From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My
interpretation of offline meant that the folders are not stored on the
Exchange Server, but are included in the Outlook folder list. We did
this to reduce the amount of space neede on the Exchange Server. We
refer to these files as offline here.

 

Murray 

 

 





From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Why are you running offline folders on workstations?

 





From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Workstations and off line folders.

 

Murray 

 

 





From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  

 





From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!

 

Murray

 

 





From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't
find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have
Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook
2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the
client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later
in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client
loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the
cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start
times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very
same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 

RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Steven M. Caesare]

I've seen problematic .pst files cause:

 

-Outlook to hang

-Outlook to crash

-Outlook to be slow

 

Hosting said .pst files on a share makes all of the above about 10x
worse.

 

-sc

 

From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I'd think that would be consistently slow, not just on the first
invocation after login.

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:00 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

So you're using Personal Folders at the workstation?  How large are your
PST files?  Corrupted PST files can cause delays in Outlook opening up.

 



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

I think I may have misunderstood the original question. My
interpretation of offline meant that the folders are not stored on the
Exchange Server, but are included in the Outlook folder list. We did
this to reduce the amount of space neede on the Exchange Server. We
refer to these files as offline here.

 

Murray 

 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Why are you running offline folders on workstations?

 



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Workstations and off line folders.

 

Murray 

 

 



From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Laptops or workstations?  Offline folders?  

 



From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Running XP SP3 and yes, all our workstations are Dell!

 

Murray

 

 



From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:33 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

Are you running Vista 64 bit?  Is this a Dell PC?

 

Bob Fronk

P Please print only as needed.

 

 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

 

I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any
good suggestions, so I'm going to the "Source". We have Exchange Server
2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client.
Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client
first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the
day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads
very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause
of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times
here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same
time. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Murray 

 


**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and
confidential and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you  
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 

**

RE: Exchange 2007 and outlook Anyware

[Michael B. Smith]

Use www.testexchangeconnectivity.com 
and determine a more specific error.


From: Victor Rodriguez [vrodrig...@idfllc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:23 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Exchange 2007 and outlook Anyware

Hello Folks:

I have setup Outlookanyware in my Exchange 2007 server
installed RPC over HTTP and enabled in console

the issue is i am not able to connect to the server
i keep getting a error that say's  the exchange server is unavailable.
i tried to config while in the office but it setup with the internal email 
server name instead of the FQDN that i created for Owa

any ideas

Have a wonderful day

Victor Rodriguez


This e-Mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this e-Mail in error please notify the sender via returned 
e-Mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-Mail are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the 
company. Although IDF operates anti-virus programs, it does not accept 
responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed.

** Think before you print this message. **

RE: Exchange 2003 server sizing

[Michael B. Smith]

I wouldn't hesitate to put 4,000 users on a single BE server (clustered) and 
two FE servers (load-balanced).

That being said - you are asking the wrong questions, in my opinion. You need 
to determine what your performance issue is RIGHT NOW. perfmon is your friend. 
So is my book. :-)

Regards,
Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Monitoring Exchange w/OpsMgr now available http://snurl.com/45ppf
__
From: Ellis, John P. [johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:02 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Exchange 2003 server sizing

We have Exchange 2003 in place. Comprising of 4 node cluster with 3
active servers. These servers are connected to a Sun SAN for back end
storage.
We have around 4000 users. Each server has 3 or 4 stores. We also run
OWA internally and externally

What im after is a whitepaper/guide that defines how many users we
should have per server, how many OWA connections etc that we should have
before we consider the servers over worked.
Is there such a guide?

Im aiming to try and resolve/reduce the number of calls we get saying
email is running slow or Ive the popup box saying "trying to retrieve
data from server xxx" message

Any pointers to a guide would be good.

Cheers
John

---
 John Ellis   Tel (0151) 666 3208
 Senior IT OfficerFax (0151) 666 3049
 Wirral IT Services
   johnel...@wirral.gov.uk
---

**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.clearswift.com
**



~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jay Dale wrote:
>> We are not using Cached Mode.
>
> That might cause Outlook to open slowly, especially if you have a
> significant mailbox size.

  FWIW, IME, this depends on a lot on the environment.  As a general
guideline, I say:

Fast server, fast network, and/or slow clients, online is better.

Slow server, slow network, and/or fast clients, cached is better.

Slow may just mean "sufficiently heavily loaded".

  In particular, with a large mailbox (> 1 to 2 GB), OST performance
can really start to drag down overall client performance.  Exchange
and ESE can handle this a lot better.  We've found NTFS fragmentation
can be a problem with such large OSTs, and have even gone so far as to
create separate partitions just for OST files, which seemed to help.
This is all Outlook 2003; I understand 2007 has different performance
behaviors.

  YMMV, etc.

  (And yes, I just posted the same guideline in ntsysadmin.  I didn't
know this was coming, I swear.  :)  )

-- Ben

Re: Exchange 2003 server sizing

[Harry Singh]

I've always wondered how many users or concurrent mapi connections a
store is comfortably able to handle ? With a single BE in a clustered
environment -- does the 100GB per store logic still apply with 4K
users ?



On 6/30/09, Michael B. Smith  wrote:
> I wouldn't hesitate to put 4,000 users on a single BE server (clustered) and
> two FE servers (load-balanced).
>
> That being said - you are asking the wrong questions, in my opinion. You
> need to determine what your performance issue is RIGHT NOW. perfmon is your
> friend. So is my book. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
> Monitoring Exchange w/OpsMgr now available http://snurl.com/45ppf
> __
> From: Ellis, John P. [johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Exchange 2003 server sizing
>
> We have Exchange 2003 in place. Comprising of 4 node cluster with 3
> active servers. These servers are connected to a Sun SAN for back end
> storage.
> We have around 4000 users. Each server has 3 or 4 stores. We also run
> OWA internally and externally
>
> What im after is a whitepaper/guide that defines how many users we
> should have per server, how many OWA connections etc that we should have
> before we consider the servers over worked.
> Is there such a guide?
>
> Im aiming to try and resolve/reduce the number of calls we get saying
> email is running slow or Ive the popup box saying "trying to retrieve
> data from server xxx" message
>
> Any pointers to a guide would be good.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> ---
>  John Ellis   Tel (0151) 666 3208
>  Senior IT OfficerFax (0151) 666 3049
>  Wirral IT Services
>johnel...@wirral.gov.uk
> ---
>
> **
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
> **
>
>
>
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
>
>
>

Re: Exchange 2003 server sizing

[Kurt Buff]

Yeah, but how useful is the book without OpsMgr?

If it costs, our company isn't going to get it.

I'm moderately familiar with perfmon, though - at least, I can follow
the bouncing ball real well.

Kurt

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 18:10, Michael B.
Smith wrote:
> I wouldn't hesitate to put 4,000 users on a single BE server (clustered) and 
> two FE servers (load-balanced).
>
> That being said - you are asking the wrong questions, in my opinion. You need 
> to determine what your performance issue is RIGHT NOW. perfmon is your 
> friend. So is my book. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
> Monitoring Exchange w/OpsMgr now available http://snurl.com/45ppf
> __
> From: Ellis, John P. [johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Exchange 2003 server sizing
>
> We have Exchange 2003 in place. Comprising of 4 node cluster with 3
> active servers. These servers are connected to a Sun SAN for back end
> storage.
> We have around 4000 users. Each server has 3 or 4 stores. We also run
> OWA internally and externally
>
> What im after is a whitepaper/guide that defines how many users we
> should have per server, how many OWA connections etc that we should have
> before we consider the servers over worked.
> Is there such a guide?
>
> Im aiming to try and resolve/reduce the number of calls we get saying
> email is running slow or Ive the popup box saying "trying to retrieve
> data from server xxx" message
>
> Any pointers to a guide would be good.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> ---
>  John Ellis                   Tel (0151) 666 3208
>  Senior IT Officer            Fax (0151) 666 3049
>                 Wirral IT Services
>               johnel...@wirral.gov.uk
> ---
>
> **
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.clearswift.com
> **
>
>
>
> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
> ~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~
>
>
>