...and at the same time they reduced the complixity for the end user and the
developers of Outlook add-ins.
--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
-----
Patrick Schmid said:
Because it is a slug when I am also using Revit, which is by line of
business app. Outlook is a just a sometimes use app that is now so bloated
that I can't afford to keep it open. At least when I could use a tight
native
editor instead of the Word bloatware editor I could minimize the issue.
Unfortunately Microsoft thinks their apps are the center of my universe,
and
they are not. Major bummer.
I agree that the Word editor of 2003 was a slug, but the one from 2007
really should not be. As I said, it is basically a built-in Outlook
editor just with more functionality.
How does the behavior you are describing manifest itself? And when does
it happen?
Are you saying that Outlook just uses too much memory in general? If
that's your complaint, then I doubt that the editor switch really did
anything much to increase Outlook's memory footprint. They just replaced
one built-in editor with another. The main reason they did that was
because it didn't make much sense for them to develop two editors at the
same time. So they decided to save development resources, went to one
editor and invested the development resources into other features.