Best way to _SPEED UP_ Outlook2003 ? (e.g. More RAM, Dual processors...?)

[Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]]

No virus, No problems - It Just Works

Until it doesn't. And it doesn't, plenty of times. Mac users are so
deluded.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, SEOwebMarket.com asked:

| ship wrote:
|| - Outlook2003
|| - WinXP Pro (SP2)
|
| Get a Mac.
|
| No virus, No problems - It Just Works.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

"which opinion is correct"
LOL

I can assure you you've got some facts wrong. For instance rules processing
occurs at server level even in Cached Mode so there can't be a performance
hit from there. The only real performance hit is when you set up the initial
cache while you have a large mailbox. And even then the true performance hit
is at server level.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
Once again, we can agree to disagree.

Cached mode will choke Outlook performance as the local cache is
synchronized. If you rarely receive any mail, or rarely make any changes to
your folder structure, I guess it won't be an issue, but if you have a
complex file structure with lots of incoming messages and rule processing,
you will see a performance hit.

For anyone wondering which opinion is correct, just try turning cached mode
on and off for yourself to see the difference.

 

[Diane Poremsky]

set junk email to high for starters.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

 

[Dab]

The one that is right of course!

--
Dab

Cut off: yourhead to respond

"which opinion is correct"
LOL

I can assure you you've got some facts wrong. For instance rules
processing
occurs at server level even in Cached Mode so there can't be a performance
hit from there. The only real performance hit is when you set up the
initial
cache while you have a large mailbox. And even then the true performance
hit
is at server level.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
Once again, we can agree to disagree.

Cached mode will choke Outlook performance as the local cache is
synchronized. If you rarely receive any mail, or rarely make any changes
to
your folder structure, I guess it won't be an issue, but if you have a
complex file structure with lots of incoming messages and rule processing,
you will see a performance hit.

For anyone wondering which opinion is correct, just try turning cached
mode
on and off for yourself to see the difference.

--
Dab

Cut off: yourhead to respond

I'd disagree with this, in general. Cached Exchange mode enhances the
*apparent* performance of the User Interface because it can comminicate
with the Exchange server at a different rate that the user manipulates
messages. Messages in the cache already don't need to be otained from the
server so performance is improved. However, the OP didn't name his type
of account, so Cached Exchange mode may not even be applicable.

 

[ship]

Dab

This sounds promising - please tell me more!
How exactly do I turn "cached mode" on and off?

(Cached mode of Outlook2003 or WindowsXP, btw?)

With thanks


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[ship]

Here's a thought, if it hasn't been suggested yet.

To my knowledge Outlook is basically a database file, similar to Access
in some respects. After a while, databases need to be "compacted" to
free up wasted space and to improve speed.
First delete all spam and old garbage messages - basically a cleanup.
Then, in Outlook 2003, select:

File-->Data File Management-->Settings-->Compat Now

This will basically compact/compress the Outlook.pst file.
Don't know if this helps, but worth a try.

Yep of course - no, I tried all that


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[ship]

OP here...

I just want to make clarify an IMPORTANT point.

I dont necessarily need Outlook to run faster in itself.
- I simply need to be able to use my PC WHILST the damned
thing is doing its downloads!

Do any of you guys have dual-core processors?
And does it significantly help?!

Or maybe there is some setting somewhere deep
within WindowsXP that can stop any one application
from grabbing too much of whatever type 'resource' it is
(not processor we're told, but we're not told what else
is crippling the machine...)

With thanks


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[Brian Tillman]

This sounds promising - please tell me more!
How exactly do I turn "cached mode" on and off?

Tools>E-mail Accounts>Next. Select your Exchange account and click Change.
Check or uncheck the box labeled "Use Cached Exchange Mode".

 

[ship]

Tools>E-mail Accounts>Next. Select your Exchange account and click Change.
Check or uncheck the box labeled "Use Cached Exchange Mode".

Hi Bill

But I'm using POP3 and not msExchange !

Either way there is no option that I can see
within the directory structure that you talk about
that talks about Caching...


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[Dab]

Hi Ship:

You only have the caching option if you're connected to an Exchange server.

 

[ship]

You only have the caching option if you're connected to an Exchange server.

Thanks drat I feared as much.

Ship

 

[ship]

Say I've had an idea...!

Suppose I keep TWO .PST files always open:
- One with the last (say) 7 days in it
- One with all the stuff I really need over (say) the last 6 months
(about 1GB!).

So if I keep the .PST file that I DOWNLOAD into really, really small,
*maybe* Outlook(2003) wont get so 'confused' and do it somewhat
quicker!

I could then regularly run an archiving function to archive
everthing over a few days old.

OR do you think that this wont work - because it will have to
load the whole (??) of "last 6 month" file - i.e. 1GB and that would
then slow up Outlook...!

Any thoughts?

Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[Brian Tillman]

But I'm using POP3 and not msExchange !

Well then of course you can't use Cached Exchange Mode. From its very name
you can tell it requires Exchange.

 

[Brian Tillman]

OR do you think that this wont work - because it will have to
load the whole (??) of "last 6 month" file - i.e. 1GB and that would
then slow up Outlook...!

I'd be really surprised if Outlook loads the whole PST into memory, so even
if the 1GB PST is the only PST, I doubt it would slow Outlook 2003
significantly if it;s a Unicode PST.

 

[ship]

I'd be really surprised if Outlook loads the whole PST into memory, so even
if the 1GB PST is the only PST, I doubt it would slow Outlook 2003
significantly if it;s a Unicode PST.

I have 2GB of RAM and Windows certainly does NOT load the whole
think into RAM. Interestingly it now appear that my poor hard disk is
taking quite a hammering (I hadnt realised - mainly because it's the
first HD that I've ever had that is almost absolutely silent!)

It's strange how windows is needing to write QUITE so much to
disk when I can see from the "Local Area Connection" / TCP/IP
icons (which are intermittently glowing icons bottom right on the
screen),
that there is almost nothing being downloaded - just a very slow
trickle.

Strange I wonder if it's downloading so slowly because the PST
is still corrupted in some way and whether all that writing to disk
is a side effect of said corruption...

Ship
Shiperton Henethe