You're welcome! :-)
The slowness of opening attachments is probably caused by your virus
scanner. Many of them integrate with both Outlook and other Office
applications and often end up scanning an attachment 3 or more time because
of that before opening it (receiving, saving from Outlook, saving on hard
disk, reading when opening and reading in an Office application). Aside from
the scanning, loading those add-ins will slow down the startup of those
applications as well. Simply disable all those integration options; the
on-access scanner is sufficient.
See
http://www.msoutlook.info/question/20
--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers
-----
"Midwest Muskie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:81C4B1B8-0637-45F7-917B-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Roady. We have not been rolling out SP2 yet, but it looks like it
> is
> something we should be doing. It sounds like SP2 also improves the
> opening
> of attachments as well. I've been puzzled by how long it takes to open an
> attachment when using cached mode. Hopefully, SP2 will bring
> improvements.
>
> Thanks again for your comments!
>
> Mike
>
> "Roady [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> In general the indexes are updated. Still, reading and loading the index
>> for
>> the first time during an Outlook session into memory could take some
>> time.
>> There is indeed a relation between the amount of items in a folder and
>> its
>> loading time. Service Pack 2 for Outlook 2007 introduces some new indexes
>> which are much faster than before which significantly reduces loading
>> time
>> of folders with loads of items in them.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
>> Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
>> http://www.howto-outlook.com/
>> Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
>>
>> http://www.msoutlook.info/
>> Real World Questions, Real World Answers
>>
>> -----
>>
>> "Midwest Muskie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> message
>> news:E0C41AB4-1093-491A-9E3C-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Thanks for your quick reply, Roady!
>> >
>> > Are the indexes rebuilt or just updated when the user opens Outlook?
>> > Are
>> > they cached on the Exchange server? Have you seen any data on number
>> > of
>> > items in a folder and performance?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > "Roady [MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> All depends on your version and patch level of Outlook.
>> >> Indexes are stored within the ost-file when CEM is enabled. Without
>> >> it,
>> >> it
>> >> relies on the server side indexes which could be faster (depends on
>> >> your
>> >> server and connection) but adds more load on the server and requires a
>> >> round-trip every time you access the folder which makes it slower
>> >> again.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
>> >> Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
>> >> http://www.howto-outlook.com/
>> >> Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
>> >>
>> >> http://www.msoutlook.info/
>> >> Real World Questions, Real World Answers
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >>
>> >> "Midwest Muskie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:03230435-2410-49AB-8FDD-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> > We have users with very large (number of messages) Inbox and Sent
>> >> > Items
>> >> > folders. I am trying to determine what is impacting the performance
>> >> > of
>> >> > these
>> >> > folders. I realize that the more messages in a folder the more time
>> >> > it
>> >> > takes
>> >> > to process the headers prior to displaying the list of messages.
>> >> > After
>> >> > the
>> >> > list is created, are the results cached somewhere? If so, where
>> >> > (server
>> >> > or
>> >> > client), and for how long? I opened a mailbox with 20,000 messages
>> >> > in
>> >> > the
>> >> > Inbox, and it took 20 minutes the first time I opened it. Two days
>> >> > later
>> >> > I
>> >> > opened the same mailbox and it opened quite quickly (seconds rather
>> >> > than
>> >> > minutes). A 1,000 message folder took about 1 minute the first
>> >> > time,
>> >> > and
>> >> > very quickly the next time.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, any thoughts on the performance difference using Cached mode
>> >> > versus
>> >> > a
>> >> > direct connection to the Exchange server?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for any thoughts you may have!
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Similar Threads
