Can 2 versions of OL (IMO) be installed on one PC?

[Jgo]

Hi,

I have had OL2000 in IMO mode installed on my standalone desktop PC (Dell
2.26 GHZ, 1 GHZ Ram) running under XP Home SP2, for years, and it works
fine.

I would like to know if I can install OL2003 (also to be configured as IMO)
on the same PC, and be able to run both, if not at the same time, at least
one at a time.

I would not use OL2000 to send or receive e-mail anymore, just want to keep
and its PST for quick reference, like an archive, without actually archiving
the PST). With both versions installed, I can start, from now on, to use
OL2003 but keep OL2000 perfectly functional for awhile. I would even try to
migrate my folder structure and toolbars over to OL2003. But I don't wish
to be able to read my current PST with OL2003. I welcome your thoughts.
jay

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

No. You can install only one version of Outlook per machine (and Outlook 2003 has no IMO mode -- no modes at all). Why don't you want to use Outlook 2003 to read your old PST?

 

[Vince Averello [MVP-Outlook]]

I don't think two version of Outlook can co-exist. Also, the modes of
Outlook (Internet Mail Only & Corporate/Workgroup) died with OL2000 if my
memory serves me correctly, so OL2003 doesn't really have an IMO mode.

 

[DL]

No, only one install of OL
Since your ol2k pst can be read in ol2003, why would you not want ol2003 to
open/read the old pst?

 

[Jgo]

Thanks Sue, Vince and DL.

Scratch my idea; I must really be in the dark, not realizing IMO went out
a long time ago.

My PST file is over 1/2 Gig and I want to start over, hence my idea of
transitioning to OL2003, begin with a petit data file, but keep the same
folder structure and toolbars. I'm sure I configure OL2003 to be able to
read my existing PST file, but am not sure if it has to be part of the new
PST (or its "equivalent") data file in OL2003, which would weigh against
snappy loading, etc. and put me closer to corruption problems based on sheer
size alone.

Even if my .6 GB worth of OL2000 data could be keep separate from my new
data file with OL2003, I'm trying to avoid a cumbersome transition by having
to go back and forth between my archive file (OL2000 PST) and a new petit
OL 2003 data file, as I will be referring back to earlier correspondence
with many people, for several months. That was my basic reason for not
wanting to disturb OL2000 at all, but I realize now that's not feasible,
unless I want to have 2 PC's and have a different version of OL on each of
them, and have them networked. TIA. Jay

No. You can install only one version of Outlook per machine (and Outlook
2003 has no IMO mode -- no modes at all). Why don't you want to use Outlook
2003 to read your old PST?

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

You can open as many .pst files as you like (well, maybe not an unlimited number) with the File | Open | Outlook Data File command.

 

[DL]

An OL2003 format pst can have a theoretically unlimited size.
I'm a dinosaur, still use OL2K I have some 4 pst's open, causes no
performance hit

 

[Jgo]

Sue and DL,

Thanks for your posts. I guess I don't understand how the data (PST) files
(primary and archive) are handled when OL is open. For example, if my
existing PST file is 1/2 GB, and I open OL2000, is that entire PST file in
RAM, or just part of it and the rest on my swap file, or where it otherwise
resides when the program is not open?

Further, if I had one or more archived PST files open and available to use
within any OL2000 session (giving me the flexibility I was looking for when
I originally asked if I could have two versions of OL installed on the same
PC), by using the File | Open | Outlook Data File command (irrespective of
whether I'm using OL2000 or OL2003), which data files would be added to my
Folder List, at the bottom, then I presume the contents of the archived PST
file(s) are also held in RAM or on the swap drive, or otherwise where
located when OL is not running, in the same fashion as how my first PST
file is handled when OL2000 is running.

My issue is the speed at which my OL2000 (or OL 2003 if I upgrade) will
operate, given the cumulative "overhead" of having 2 or more PST's open, the
combined size of which dwarfs my available RAM. Instinctively, it would
seem that the larger the PST file gets, and the greater the cumulative size
of multiple PST files running and thus instantly available for access during
an OL session, the slower the program will run.

DL, a fellow dinosaur <g>, you said you have no performance hit for 4 pst's
open, so perhaps I have no understanding of where the PST's "reside"
(memory-wise) while OL is open. Of course you didn't mention what the total
size was for all 4 of your PST files combined.

Any light shed on my primitive understanding of the memory and load dynamics
involved with running multiple (and big) PST files would be much
appreciated. jay


You can open as many .pst files as you like (well, maybe not an unlimited
number) with the File | Open | Outlook Data File command.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Thanks for your posts. I guess I don't understand how the data (PST)
files (primary and archive) are handled when OL is open. For
example, if my existing PST file is 1/2 GB, and I open OL2000, is
that entire PST file in RAM, or just part of it and the rest on my
swap file, or where it otherwise resides when the program is not open?

What's held in RAM are some buffers and data structures that assist Outlook
in performing I/O to the PST. The PST itself is not held in RAM or in the
paging file.

Further, if I had one or more archived PST files open and available
to use within any OL2000 session (giving me the flexibility I was
looking for when I originally asked if I could have two versions of
OL installed on the same PC), by using the File | Open | Outlook Data
File command (irrespective of whether I'm using OL2000 or OL2003),

For Outlook 2000, the sequence is File>Open>Personal Folders File.
"Personal Folders File" changed to "Outlook Data File" with Outlook 2002.

which data files would be added to my Folder List, at the bottom,
then I presume the contents of the archived PST file(s) are also held
in RAM or on the swap drive, or otherwise where located when OL is
not running, in the same fashion as how my first PST file is handled
when OL2000 is running.

Again, no PST is held in RAM (your system's physical memory, which is
distinct from your hard drive).

My issue is the speed at which my OL2000 (or OL 2003 if I upgrade)
will operate, given the cumulative "overhead" of having 2 or more
PST's open, the combined size of which dwarfs my available RAM.

Again, PSTs aren't loaded into RAM. A number of I/O buffers and a few data
scructures are.

Instinctively, it would seem that the larger the PST file gets, and
the greater the cumulative size of multiple PST files running and
thus instantly available for access during an OL session, the slower
the program will run.

Your instincts are misguided.

 

[Jgo]

Vince,

Thanx for confirming my 2 OL programs idea is a bad one and that my post
OL2000 "modes" reference is moot (gone like Passenger Pigeon). Will
probably upgrade to OL2003 to get the increased security and feature
benefits, and will try and run 2 or more PST files without a big perf. hit.
Trying to learn more about how OL works, memory-wise. jay

 

[Jgo]

Brian,

Thanks for the technical skinny on how OL's PST file works vis-a-vis where
it resides when OL is running (and the menu terminology nuance re opening a
PST file in diff. versions of OL).

I had a feeling my instincts were wrong when Sue and DL essentially said
big, multiple PST's are not a problem for OL, inferring there was no perf.
penalty. Your post nailed down the lid on the coffin containing my wrong
gut feeling.

You've given me good news; now I'm ready to transition to 2003, and start a
new PST file without worrying about going back and forth between my old file
and the new file. Jay