Archive, Understanding (Outlook 2003)

[KGlennC]

Single user, Outlook 2003 (SP3)

Please confirm my understanding of the Archive process...

1. Archive will reduce the size of the mailbox.pst file - Yes or No.
My current mailbox is 700Kb. I have many e-mails with attachments that I
must save (both received and sent); potential exists that I may have to
produce evidence of what was received or sent. Plus, I want to keep a history
of customer e-mails received or sent.

2. Can archive at any time - Yes or No.
I understand I do a manual archive at any point in time desired. I will need
to make sure I organize my "current" folders before the manual archive.

3. Can view archived e-mails at any time after Archive - Yes or No.
I need the ability to view older e-mails saved for legal or customer
relationship reasons.

4. Use of Archive will (or, may?) enhance speed of Outlook 2003 - Yes or No.
Currently, my use of Outlook 2003 can be very sloooow (preview, delete).
I've tried removing a ton of old e-mails, redicuing pst file from 900Kb to
660Kb; I've tried compaction; I've tried "repaid pst". Speed is better
(sometimes), but not that much (sporadic; sometimes takes 5 seconds to
preview or delete an e-mail). [I've also tried Safe mode - no difference.]

Thanks.

 

[Vince Averello [MVP - Outlook]]

1 - Yes, Outlook should compact the PST on the fly and recover the white
space left from archiving eventually
2 - Yes, File menu > Archive
3 - Yes, File menu > Open > Outlook Data File. Open the archive PST and look
through the folders for the archived messages
4 - Yes, it might increase the speed since smaller PSTs seem to perform
better than larger ones

 

[DL]

Just an observation, 660 - 900kb doesnt seem a particularly large pst file
to me, that would cause performance issues. You have run both scanpst.exe,
the repair tool, on this data file, and your hd manufacturers disk checking
utility? (A problomatic hd can cause these type of issues)

 

[KGlennC]

I ran the scanpst.exe, but the performance issue did not improve. I have not
tried a diskchecking utility, but will.

The "delay" is previewing or deleting e-mails is inconsistent and annoying..
sometimes taking as long as 5-6 seconds. Ouch.

The "delay" really became evident in mid-July 2008. The laptop HD (upgrade)
was installed in February 2008, looong before the problem. Nothing comes to
mind as to any special software or other event... however, I don't seem to
recall or determine when I installed XP SP3... Hmmmm?

Just an observation, 660 - 900kb doesnt seem a particularly large pst file
to me, that would cause performance issues. You have run both scanpst.exe,
the repair tool, on this data file, and your hd manufacturers disk checking
utility? (A problomatic hd can cause these type of issues)

Single user, Outlook 2003 (SP3)

Please confirm my understanding of the Archive process...

1. Archive will reduce the size of the mailbox.pst file - Yes or No.
My current mailbox is 700Kb. I have many e-mails with attachments that I
must save (both received and sent); potential exists that I may have to
produce evidence of what was received or sent. Plus, I want to keep a
history
of customer e-mails received or sent.

2. Can archive at any time - Yes or No.
I understand I do a manual archive at any point in time desired. I will
need
to make sure I organize my "current" folders before the manual archive.

3. Can view archived e-mails at any time after Archive - Yes or No.
I need the ability to view older e-mails saved for legal or customer
relationship reasons.

4. Use of Archive will (or, may?) enhance speed of Outlook 2003 - Yes or
No.
Currently, my use of Outlook 2003 can be very sloooow (preview, delete).
I've tried removing a ton of old e-mails, redicuing pst file from 900Kb to
660Kb; I've tried compaction; I've tried "repaid pst". Speed is better
(sometimes), but not that much (sporadic; sometimes takes 5 seconds to
preview or delete an e-mail). [I've also tried Safe mode - no difference.]

Thanks.

 

[DL]

When I experienced such a performance issue (OL2007 with 7 pst files
attached) it transpired that it was a hd issue
sp3 has given no problems

I ran the scanpst.exe, but the performance issue did not improve. I have
not
tried a diskchecking utility, but will.

The "delay" is previewing or deleting e-mails is inconsistent and
annoying..
sometimes taking as long as 5-6 seconds. Ouch.

The "delay" really became evident in mid-July 2008. The laptop HD
(upgrade)
was installed in February 2008, looong before the problem. Nothing comes
to
mind as to any special software or other event... however, I don't seem to
recall or determine when I installed XP SP3... Hmmmm?

Just an observation, 660 - 900kb doesnt seem a particularly large pst
file
to me, that would cause performance issues. You have run both
scanpst.exe,
the repair tool, on this data file, and your hd manufacturers disk
checking
utility? (A problomatic hd can cause these type of issues)

Single user, Outlook 2003 (SP3)

Please confirm my understanding of the Archive process...

1. Archive will reduce the size of the mailbox.pst file - Yes or No.
My current mailbox is 700Kb. I have many e-mails with attachments that
I
must save (both received and sent); potential exists that I may have to
produce evidence of what was received or sent. Plus, I want to keep a
history
of customer e-mails received or sent.

2. Can archive at any time - Yes or No.
I understand I do a manual archive at any point in time desired. I will
need
to make sure I organize my "current" folders before the manual archive.

3. Can view archived e-mails at any time after Archive - Yes or No.
I need the ability to view older e-mails saved for legal or customer
relationship reasons.

4. Use of Archive will (or, may?) enhance speed of Outlook 2003 - Yes
or
No.
Currently, my use of Outlook 2003 can be very sloooow (preview,
delete).
I've tried removing a ton of old e-mails, redicuing pst file from 900Kb
to
660Kb; I've tried compaction; I've tried "repaid pst". Speed is better
(sometimes), but not that much (sporadic; sometimes takes 5 seconds to
preview or delete an e-mail). [I've also tried Safe mode - no
difference.]

Thanks.