![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Guest | Absolutely staggering 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? |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Absolutely staggering Please visit the "Discussions in Windows Mail Newsgroup" and repost your question there: http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com...4-d4dd8dadff28 -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Danny" wrote: 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? |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Absolutely staggering "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:CE49C851-3960-47F4-914C-9FB9FE14BE69@microsoft.com... > Please visit the "Discussions in Windows Mail Newsgroup" > and repost your question there: > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com...4-d4dd8dadff28 > Thank you for the reply, I will. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Absolutely staggering A good response to avoid the obvious....YES. "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:CE49C851-3960-47F4-914C-9FB9FE14BE69@microsoft.com... > Please visit the "Discussions in Windows Mail Newsgroup" > and repost your question there: > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com...4-d4dd8dadff28 > > -- > Carey Frisch > Microsoft MVP > Windows Shell/User > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Danny" wrote: > > 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? > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Absolutely staggering "Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message news:6wfqh.60517$UC.11357@newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > 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? 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, MS-MVP OE/WM http://www.fjsmjs.com Answer in newsgroup. Don't send mail. |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Absolutely staggering | Vista mail | |||
| chkdsk absolutely will not run | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| When is rebooting absolutely necessary ? | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| Absolutely NOTHING has worked! | Vista installation & setup | |||
| Absolutely mad at microsoft... | Vista General | |||