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?

Please watch "Windows Mail demoed" for an explanation:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116711

--
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?

"Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message
news:Jagqh.52157$KT2.48988@newsfe2-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.

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
newsB22EA26-5BB8-4DCF-9C54-03AB746F50AC@microsoft.com...
> "Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message
> news:Jagqh.52157$KT2.48988@newsfe2-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.

Not for me. I used the same individual DBX files for 8 years without a
single problem.

> The present storage is much more robust and much less apt
> to lose messages.

As mentioned, a moot point in my case.

> 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).
>

Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that OE
was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:878011EC-1E9F-4F13-AE0E-9DFCD59C264F@microsoft.com...
> Please watch "Windows Mail demoed" for an explanation:
> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116711
>

Thanks, doing so.

"Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message news:IUpqh.62215$z01.19841@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" <franksaunders@mvps.org> wrote in message
> newsB22EA26-5BB8-4DCF-9C54-03AB746F50AC@microsoft.com...
>> "Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message
>> news:Jagqh.52157$KT2.48988@newsfe2-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.
>
> Not for me. I used the same individual DBX files for 8 years without a
> single problem.
>
>> The present storage is much more robust and much less apt
>> to lose messages.
>
> As mentioned, a moot point in my case.
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that OE
> was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.

I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.

IMO, the neglect is intentional. It is an effort to drive users to
Windows Live Mail Desktop or Windows Live Mail, both of which
equal ad revenue for Microsoft.


-Michael

"Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message
news:9Wpqh.62216$z01.55150@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:878011EC-1E9F-4F13-AE0E-9DFCD59C264F@microsoft.com...
>> Please watch "Windows Mail demoed" for an explanation:
>> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116711
>>
>
> Thanks, doing so.

Scratch that, I'm not watching an hour of 5 uber-dorks talking BS to a
portable cam.

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uT37ig%23NHHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that
>> OE was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.
>
> I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
> performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
> improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
> I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.

Buggy beta is spot on. I have also just discovered they've dispensed with
the address book in favour of a button bringing up 'contacts'.
This program is a shambles, frankly. And I defragged my drive and found it
didn't help speed Mail up.

You should both spend some time in the Outlook Express newsgroups. The mail
store in OE was the cause of many problems. The mail store in Windows Mail
is more robust and also a more standard way of storing email and newsgroup
posts. It definitely has teething problems but there is more room for future
development with Windows Mail than with OE. It will be easier for 3rd party
developers to work with the email store and it is easier to recover
individual emails from a corrupted store. As Windows mail is updated it
should improve. I do agree that at present it is slower than OE, especially
if you use it as a newsreader and like to keep thousands of posts. I'm
prepared to live with this for now as I know the potential is there for WM
to be better than OE was.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message
news:2otqh.65314$n36.12964@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:uT37ig%23NHHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that
>>> OE was faulty. For me it was not, in any way, shape or form.
>>
>> I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
>> performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
>> improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
>> I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.
>
> Buggy beta is spot on. I have also just discovered they've dispensed with
> the address book in favour of a button bringing up 'contacts'.
> This program is a shambles, frankly. And I defragged my drive and found it
> didn't help speed Mail up.

I don't need to spend any time in the OE newsgroups to know
dang well that OE has worked just fine throughout the years for me.
It wasn't a perfect product, but not much is. One thing is for sure,
Windows Mail is a disappointment to me.... I hope it does not continue
to stay that way.

-Michael


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:u9BxuKAOHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You should both spend some time in the Outlook Express newsgroups. The mail store in OE was
> the cause of many problems. The mail store in Windows Mail is more robust and also a more
> standard way of storing email and newsgroup posts. It definitely has teething problems but
> there is more room for future development with Windows Mail than with OE. It will be easier
> for 3rd party developers to work with the email store and it is easier to recover individual
> emails from a corrupted store. As Windows mail is updated it should improve. I do agree that
> at present it is slower than OE, especially if you use it as a newsreader and like to keep
> thousands of posts. I'm prepared to live with this for now as I know the potential is there
> for WM to be better than OE was.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>
>
> "Danny" <me@there.com> wrote in message news:2otqh.65314$n36.12964@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> news:uT37ig%23NHHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate the reply, but it seems to be formulated from the basis that OE was faulty. For
>>>> me it was not, in any way, shape or form.
>>>
>>> I agree. While I have used Outlook for years as my email client, OE has
>>> performed very well for handling newsgroups. I don't see or "feel" any
>>> improvement in WinMail. In fact, it seems very much like a buggy beta.
>>> I have been quite disappointed with the performance of Windows Mail.
>>
>> Buggy beta is spot on. I have also just discovered they've dispensed with the address book
>> in favour of a button bringing up 'contacts'.
>> This program is a shambles, frankly. And I defragged my drive and found it didn't help speed
>> Mail up.
>