Absolutely staggering

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danny
  • Start date Start date
D

Danny

And in fact I'm rather lost for words by it.

With Outlook Express on XP, the email inbox, like all other folders, was
stored as a single chunk DBX file. It was not accessed when one opened OE
unless they had specifically chosen to do so.

Put simply, this meant OE opened extremely quickly as it only opened the
shell of the program, and did not retrieve its guts unless the user went
there of their own volition.

However, moving forward to Windows Mail and I can't quite believe the
backwards steps MS have taken here. Not only have they, in their wisdom,
converted the former DBX into an individual array of each message
individually saved as an eml file, but they have also (apparently) made
Windows Mail access this collection by default on opening the app (I can see
no option to avoid this), and for those who have thousands of messages, made
Windows Mail incredibly slow as a result.

I am really hoping I am missing something massive here, because it seems
astonishing to me that MS felt this was a better and more efficient way to
manage the email stores and email app than how OE did it.

Can someone shed light on this?
 
Please watch "Windows Mail demoed" for an explanation:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116711

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

And in fact I'm rather lost for words by it.

With Outlook Express on XP, the email inbox, like all other folders, was
stored as a single chunk DBX file. It was not accessed when one opened OE
unless they had specifically chosen to do so.

Put simply, this meant OE opened extremely quickly as it only opened the
shell of the program, and did not retrieve its guts unless the user went
there of their own volition.

However, moving forward to Windows Mail and I can't quite believe the
backwards steps MS have taken here. Not only have they, in their wisdom,
converted the former DBX into an individual array of each message
individually saved as an eml file, but they have also (apparently) made
Windows Mail access this collection by default on opening the app (I can see
no option to avoid this), and for those who have thousands of messages, made
Windows Mail incredibly slow as a result.

I am really hoping I am missing something massive here, because it seems
astonishing to me that MS felt this was a better and more efficient way to
manage the email stores and email app than how OE did it.

Can someone shed light on this?
 
Danny said:
And in fact I'm rather lost for words by it.

With Outlook Express on XP, the email inbox, like all other folders, was
stored as a single chunk DBX file. It was not accessed when one opened OE
unless they had specifically chosen to do so.

Put simply, this meant OE opened extremely quickly as it only opened the
shell of the program, and did not retrieve its guts unless the user went
there of their own volition.

However, moving forward to Windows Mail and I can't quite believe the
backwards steps MS have taken here. Not only have they, in their wisdom,
converted the former DBX into an individual array of each message
individually saved as an eml file, but they have also (apparently) made
Windows Mail access this collection by default on opening the app (I can
see
no option to avoid this), and for those who have thousands of messages,
made
Windows Mail incredibly slow as a result.

I am really hoping I am missing something massive here, because it seems
astonishing to me that MS felt this was a better and more efficient way to
manage the email stores and email app than how OE did it.

Can someone shed light on this?
Click to expand...

The DBX storage format was extremely fragile and prone to loss of the entire
messages store. The present storage is much more robust and much less apt
to lose messages. I find Windows Mail opening just about as quickly as
Outlook Express but, as with OE, it's a good idea not to use the Inbox to
archive your messages but to move them to other folders as you read them (or
use rules to move them as they come in).
 
Frank Saunders said:
The DBX storage format was extremely fragile and prone to loss of the
entire
messages store.
Click to expand...

Not for me. I used the same individual DBX files for 8 years without a
single problem.
The present storage is much more robust and much less apt
to lose messages.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, a moot point in my case.
I find Windows Mail opening just about as quickly as
Outlook Express but, as with OE, it's a good idea not to use the Inbox to
archive your messages but to move them to other folders as you read them
(or
use rules to move them as they come in).
Click to expand...

Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that OE
was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.
 
Danny said:
Not for me. I used the same individual DBX files for 8 years without a
single problem.


As mentioned, a moot point in my case.


Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that OE
was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.

IMO, the neglect is intentional. It is an effort to drive users to
Windows Live Mail Desktop or Windows Live Mail, both of which
equal ad revenue for Microsoft.


-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.
Click to expand...

Buggy beta is spot on. I have also just discovered they've dispensed with
the address book in favour of a button bringing up 'contacts'.
This program is a shambles, frankly. And I defragged my drive and found it
didn't help speed Mail up.
 
You should both spend some time in the Outlook Express newsgroups. The mail
store in OE was the cause of many problems. The mail store in Windows Mail
is more robust and also a more standard way of storing email and newsgroup
posts. It definitely has teething problems but there is more room for future
development with Windows Mail than with OE. It will be easier for 3rd party
developers to work with the email store and it is easier to recover
individual emails from a corrupted store. As Windows mail is updated it
should improve. I do agree that at present it is slower than OE, especially
if you use it as a newsreader and like to keep thousands of posts. I'm
prepared to live with this for now as I know the potential is there for WM
to be better than OE was.
 
I don't need to spend any time in the OE newsgroups to know
dang well that OE has worked just fine throughout the years for me.
It wasn't a perfect product, but not much is. One thing is for sure,
Windows Mail is a disappointment to me.... I hope it does not continue
to stay that way.

-Michael
 
Those folks are the actual Windows Mail development team members
who plainly explain why Windows Mail is a vast improvement over OE
and the rationale for making the redesign.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| Scratch that, I'm not watching an hour of 5 uber-dorks talking BS to a
| portable cam.
 
There are major problems with OE's message store. You and Danny are among
the lucky who have never had problems with OE (although I see Danny seems to
have almost lost 3 years of messages). For the two of you who didn't have
problems, there are thousands who did and continue to have problems with OE.
Try searching Google for "Lost Messages" to give you an example of how
extensive a problem this is to current OE users.

The decision to go to individual eml files was heavily debated and it was
made to prevent the loss of data that occured when all the messages were in
one file. For example, some poorly written antivirus programs think they
find a virus in a dbx file perhaps from one message, and the antivirus
software writes zeroes throughout the dbx file in order to remove the virus.
Very nice - no more virus. Never mind that it removes every message from
the user's inbox. That's just one example. Now with the eml files they are
readily portable between applications (OE or Winmail or WLMD) and OS's as
they conform to RFC specifications as eml files.

Any performance problems you are seeing are probably more related to the
database itself and its organization or lack thereof, rather than the file
format.

steve
 
Steve, I didn't mean to imply I never had problems with OE,
just none that weren't easily remedied. I'm a back-up freak,
not much phases me. I want performance, not some bogged
down program that struggles if you have more than a couple of
newsgroups with a few messages- okay, a bit of an exaggeration.
But, WinMail absolutely blows as newsgroup handler if you participate
in several groups and like to download a lot of posts. For me, OE
didn't struggle nearly as bad with this.

I have never used OE as my main email client, so, I really can't
relate that part of it.

Steve, you are a trooper, but, you know dang well that WinMail has
some issues- it most definitely does not have much polish to it. I believe
you also recognize that Microsoft would love nothing more for folks to
move to WLMD or Windows Live. I firmly believe, while not directly the
developers' fault, but Microsoft has sucked talent and funds away from
the Windows Mail team in favor of those ad revenue generating email
options. It is the *real* reason why Hotmail support is not included in
WinMail.

Take care,

Michael
 
I would tend to agree with you except I don't think it was the reason
Hotmail is not in WinMail.

At any rate the performance issues are due to the database structure and
handling and not due to the message store with individual eml or nws files.
You can see how poor the NG performance is and not even download the
messages, but only the headers, which clearly indicates that its not due to
the messages themselves.

The database structure is new, so maybe they can drag themselves away from
WLMDB to work on WinMail.

steve
 
Come on now. Hotmail access was taken out of all email
clients except WLMD and for those that pay for it.

Persuade users to move to WLMD in order to
get their Hotmail (carrot stick). WLMD equals
ad revenue.

-Michael
 
I don't work for Microsoft, so I can't comment on those issues. You
certainly claim to know more about them than I, even though I have talked to
people at Microsoft about that specific issue, so I will defer to you on
that issue.

I've never used Hotmail and never will.

steve
 
Steve, I am aware you don't work for Microsoft- I've seen you
around for a long time, been reading your posts for years.

Take care,

Michael
 
The new mail store and the search box are the main improvements in Windows
Mail. But the lack of Hotmail support and several new bugs and annoyances
more than counter the advances, in my opinion.

ss.
 
You are Definately 'missing' the BigPicture of what is going on relating
to 'new' OperatingSystems from MicroSoft.

You are leaving out the one 'party' who is much more interested, the
government and 'all' its sub-agencies.
The 'bigPicture' isnt about the product, its about the 'signs' that will be
seen/noted at the coming of the end of the age.

Even programmers are nothing more than people who know nothing about
the inner workings of an internal combustion engine.. and they also dont
know how to fit a 'clothes-dryer' to a wall using a drill and plugs.
Everyone is good at something, but not everyone knows everthing.

The internet is about 'Gathering Information'...... even a dweeb can see
that.
Its all about where all the 'information' goes.
Bill 'bowed-out' of micro recently, and cited his reasons, , do any here
think he was a 'little co-erced'. (the fbi and etc can be somewhat
intimi-
dating sometimes.. and the use of a firearm is fully available to them.)

Seriously, I dont get half you people here.

Yes, Vista is 'Fulla-Bugs'. Yes, its sole purpose is to 'gather
information',
and people who rush out to buy it are their own worse enemies.
There is Nothing the average Joe cant do on Win98..... and the average
joe is only interested in doing 'simple' things.
Buuuut, Vista/XP doesnt want 'joe' to know that it is on a 'fact-finding'
mission............ hell, I'm prolly being logged for simply typing
this.

On ozzie telly this morning, a guy was shown who was called the ::::
"gadget-guy", and it was his job to 'promote' Vista.
He went between 3 computers and screens, and the only topic he came up
with for all three camera shots was this;;;
:The mums and dads will be able to better organise their photos and
favourite music:
What a Croc!!!!!!!

He even had two American Microsoft Reps flanking him on either side as
he moved from computer to computer............
Not ONE of any of them talked 'turkey' regarding how much memory may
be required, or 'will my current cpu handle it' and etc etc.
NOPE, they were only interested in telling us stooooooopid aussies how
much better we can organise the family portraits and how much easier it
will be to find your favourite Neil Sedaka album.....

What a Croc!

Hey Feds, clock me as an 'anti vista', sorry (NOT) if I opened some
peoples awareness.
Oh, and heres the real 'deal-sealer', ....... YOU, the public have to
actually PAY to be monitored 24/7........
How sorry I feel for joe.

Smart move Bill, getting out to 'pursue' other interests. But both of us
know, it was get out, or dont breathe.

Ian H

oh well.

Ian H
 
Back
Top