Is there any point in archiving Outlook for someone with Outlook 2003 and
lots of extra disk room? The only advantage I can think of is excluding
archive.pst from frequent backups, doing one occasionally only. Is it correct
that archiving has no benefit for Outlook sofware operations?

Archiving still has a place. Without it my mailbox would be a couple of
terabytes.

Outlook performs better when mailbox sizes are reasonable, whether on
Exchange or using personal folders.


"Tom461" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CD0268A5-BD0F-4772-A195-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is there any point in archiving Outlook for someone with Outlook 2003 and
> lots of extra disk room? The only advantage I can think of is excluding
> archive.pst from frequent backups, doing one occasionally only. Is it
> correct
> that archiving has no benefit for Outlook sofware operations?

Most Exchange users' mailboxes are limited, so therefore they need to
archive on a regular basis.

Tom461 wrote:
> Is there any point in archiving Outlook for someone with Outlook 2003 and
> lots of extra disk room? The only advantage I can think of is excluding
> archive.pst from frequent backups, doing one occasionally only. Is it correct
> that archiving has no benefit for Outlook sofware operations?

Tom461 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Is there any point in archiving Outlook for someone with Outlook 2003
> and lots of extra disk room? The only advantage I can think of is
> excluding archive.pst from frequent backups, doing one occasionally
> only. Is it correct that archiving has no benefit for Outlook sofware
> operations?

I'll disagree somewhat with William. Archiving (i.e., removing older items
and moving them to a separate PST) has less of a place with Outlook
2003/2007 than it did prior to that, in my opinion. Using multiple PST,
however, has not lost its utility. I tend to organize my information by
criteria other than age, but I still use multiple PSTs to do so.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]