On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
> Not at all - these are not "basic changes" - these are core, fundamental
> changes. At least as far as I see it.
Okay. We disagree. That's cool.
>> You better not let anyone see you wearing that patch unless you really
>> know what you are
> -Original Message-
> From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:38 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Jim Davis
> wrote:
> > I'd
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
> I'd bet that the problem isn't in the database (Outlook actually uses the
> very capable SQL Server engine I believe), it's the interface.
Okay - so we disagree about the reason, but if either of us is right,
it's a problem that can be resolved
> -Original Message-
> From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 12:31 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Jim Davis
> wrote:
> > Hones
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
> Honestly this seems pretty much par for the course - I'm not aware of any
> email program that specifically handles huge message caches really well (the
> online ones are fastest - lots more horse-power on the server and they tend
> to manage t
I'll be using google to handle all the email which is currently handling 2.7
gigs of my email with apparent ease.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Yes but how do you know that you won't get the same file size issue with
> those other programs?
> Maybe they should have just base
Yes but how do you know that you won't get the same file size issue with
those other programs?
Maybe they should have just based outlook on MySQL to handle the database
:-)
2009/4/11 Erika L. Walker
> That's what I am going to be doing.
>
~~
That's what I am going to be doing.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>
> But if you don't plan on using Outlook anymore
> doesn't sound like that's worth it - just import into what you do want to
> use and be done with it.
>
>
~
> -Original Message-
> From: Erika L. Walker [mailto:elwal...@ruwebby.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions
>
>
> One more time for the hard of reading ... ;)
>
> Not ALL of my pst&#
ahhh. yes. well. This is precisely the reason I wont be going back to it, no
matter how much I really wanted to, and tried to last year. I cant stand the
waste of time waiting for it to stop being pissy. :)
Anyway ... seems I figured out a few ways to get all my old archives into
google.
Schweet
No, I said that there is a marked speed difference between pst files
below 2GB, and pst file above 2GB.
if any single pst file gets above 1.8GB for me, then even opening a
folder, and having it list the messages in the folder, could take 20
minutes of the _whole_ machine hanging, and the disk spi
Another option is to open the PST files in Outlook and then export them:
http://www.genusa.com/utils/pmseu.htm
This is a super nifty utility that allows you to export all of your messages
from a PST file to flat files. Lots of options, works really well.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Erika L
Now wait a jelly bean second. You just got done saying you didnt have any
issues with it?
"Might just be my configuration, but if I keep the pst files under 2GB,
then outlook flies for me. "
/me scratches head ...
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
>
> I _hate_ outlook. I
This is the inadvertently funniest post I have read in weeks. Me
defending Outlook? That is painfully funny. Ouch, my ribs hurt.
I _hate_ outlook. I would rather read email in pine again than use
Outlook. I probably send 20 emails per week doing nothing but bitching
about it. I also have to resta
Thanks for this. I really need it. I have a ton of PST files
archived that I need to access.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Erika L. Walker wrote:
>
> Here we go ...
>
> http://www.benshoemate.com/2007/11/09/how-to-upload-all-your-old-archived-email-to-gmail-from-outlook-lotus-notes-and-unix
Here we go ...
http://www.benshoemate.com/2007/11/09/how-to-upload-all-your-old-archived-email-to-gmail-from-outlook-lotus-notes-and-unix-pine/
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
d
oh blah. you're so freaking helpful.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Scott Raley wrote:
>
> I got some xanax if you need one.
>
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the
I got some xanax if you need one.
-Original Message-
From: Erika L. Walker [mailto:elwal...@ruwebby.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:35 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions
One more time for the hard of reading ... ;)
Not ALL of my pst's are 2 gi
One more time for the hard of reading ... ;)
Not ALL of my pst's are 2 gigs. I have 1 at 1.9 (which I rounded to 2 gigs,
the one it gets hung up on) and another at 1.6, the rest are all under 1
gig. But I have 11 of them.
Since Outlook 2007 can handle 20 gig psts, asking it to handle a 2 gig pst
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:29 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Outlook PST's, all versions
>
> Allowable, yes.
>
> Performable, not in my experience.
>
> Once a fil
Allowable, yes.
Performable, not in my experience.
Once a file gets over 1.8GB for me, outlook bogs like it is running on a IBM XT.
Might just be my configuration, but if I keep the pst files under 2GB,
then outlook flies for me. Which is why I at this point have 11 pst
files to hold my archive
just fyi - 2007 allows 20 gig by default, but can be configurable to even
more.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Erika L. Walker wrote:
> No it isnt. Outlook 2007 allows larger pst's. It's hosing because I'm sorry
> - but the app is a resource dog.
>
> Also I didnt say mine were larger. I said I
No it isnt. Outlook 2007 allows larger pst's. It's hosing because I'm sorry
- but the app is a resource dog.
Also I didnt say mine were larger. I said I had it spread across many
.pst's. :)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> 2GB is the very upper limit on a pst file. you
2GB is the very upper limit on a pst file. you need to lean it down a
little or split it into 2.
1.8GB is about the upper limit of a pst for decent functioning.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Erika L. Walker wrote:
>
> That wont work. We're talking at least 15 gig's worth of email spread out
>
That wont work. We're talking at least 15 gig's worth of email spread out
into several PST's over the years. Outlook 2007 has been hosing up trying to
process a 2gig pst on a computer with plenty of ram.
I might try Thunderbird. I forgot that is an option and they have a plugin
to import too. Was
> -Original Message-
> From: Erika L. Walker [mailto:elwal...@ruwebby.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:30 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Outlook PST's, all versions
>
>
> So speaking of Outlook ...
>
> What's out there that can import my
So speaking of Outlook ...
What's out there that can import my old PST's? I'd like to have access to
the years of emails, as I do have some stuff in there I need, but I dont
feel like opening up the hog that is Outlook to get to it all.
I've got some in outlook 2000 and some in 2007.
Does an an
27 matches
Mail list logo
