- About Outlook's archiving capabilities...

[Forsky]

I am trying to take a load off Outlook (Office XP) by archiving old items,
but I'm new to the process.

Every folder I archive seems to generate its own "Archive" folder in the
Folder List... so essentially, all it did was move the old contents from one
folder to another.

My question is, am I really helping Outlook at all by doing this? The whole
point of archiving was to give it fewer messages to load at bootup. But it's
still loading them in the Archive Folders, isn't it?

What happens if I delete the Archive Folders? Am I helping Outlook's
performance at all? And do I risk not being able to retrieve the contents of
my PSTs?

And finally, when you choose to archive into an existing PST, does it
overwrite the PST or does it simply add more and more content to it?

My Outlook takes forever to load now... but I also have thousands of emails
in there. I'm trying to Archive all the old stuff once now, then have
auto-archive do this monthly.

 

[Forsky]

Hello?

 

[SgtRich]

I am trying to take a load off Outlook (Office XP) by archiving old items,
but I'm new to the process.

Good idea. We were all new to this, at one time.

Every folder I archive seems to generate its own "Archive" folder in the
Folder List... so essentially, all it did was move the old contents from one
folder to another.

Correct, so far.

My question is, am I really helping Outlook at all by doing this? The whole
point of archiving was to give it fewer messages to load at bootup. But it's
still loading them in the Archive Folders, isn't it?

Yes, to both questions.

What happens if I delete the Archive Folders? Am I helping Outlook's
performance at all? And do I risk not being able to retrieve the contents of
my PSTs?

Don't delete your newly created archived folders! When you're archiving your
messages, you're actually putting them into another .pst file, called
archive.pst, by default. The name of the .pst file can be changed, of
course.

And finally, when you choose to archive into an existing PST, does it
overwrite the PST or does it simply add more and more content to it?

As I said, you're actually creating another .pst file. After you've archived
all of the messages that you want to archive, look at your folder list.
You'll see a group of folders under Archive. Right click on the Archive
folder, that contains all of your newly archived folders and choose to close
the file. Now, your archived messages can be opened any time that you need
them but they are out of your primary message store. That's the idea behind
archiving.

My Outlook takes forever to load now... but I also have thousands of emails
in there. I'm trying to Archive all the old stuff once now, then have
auto-archive do this monthly.

Great idea.

Hope this helps!
--
<<<SgtRich>>>

Email Client: Microsoft Outlook 2003
News Client (Text): Forté Agent 2.0 www.forteinc.com
News Client (Binaries): News Rover 9.2 www.newsrover.com

 

[Forsky]

Yes, to both questions.

How am I helping Outlook perform if it was loading 10,000 emails BEFORE I
archived them, and it's still loading 10,000 emails AFTER I archived them,
only that they are in another tree on the Outlook menu (called Archived
Folder)?

Don't delete your newly created archived folders! When you're archiving your
messages, you're actually putting them into another .pst file, called
archive.pst, by default. The name of the .pst file can be changed, of
course.

But what remains unclear is... can I delete the Archived Folder in my
Outlook menu without affecting the pst file which is physically located on a
separate drive? (I don't WANT Outlook to be loading 10,000 emails each time
I open it!)

Again, I fail to see the logic in archiving if Outlook is going to create a
folder that links to the pst file, and thus end up loading the same amount
of emails it did prior to the archiving.

As I said, you're actually creating another .pst file. After you've archived
all of the messages that you want to archive, look at your folder list.
You'll see a group of folders under Archive. Right click on the Archive
folder, that contains all of your newly archived folders and choose to close
the file. Now, your archived messages can be opened any time that you need
them but they are out of your primary message store. That's the idea behind
archiving.

Right, but the question remains unanswered : if I archive to an EXISTING
pst, are the original contents of that pst replaced, or simply added-on to?
Right now, I have 7 inbox folders, and planned on archiving each month to a
new PST. That would mean 7 new archive.pst files each month, in a
clearly-identified monthly folders tree (year, month).

More problematic is that since Outlook creates a new Archive Folder each
time you create a new PST file, this creates 7 new folders in the Outlook
menu each month. 70 folders after 10 months. The idea was to clean things
up, not clutter them further.

So essentially my 2 original questions remain :

1. How am I improving performance in Outlook if everytime I archive a
folder, rather than delete the archived items that were zipped up in the PST
file, it actually moves them to a new folder in the Outlook menu?

2. If I point to an existing PST when archiving a NEW folder, what happens
to the existing contents of that PST?

Thanks!

 

[Brian Tillman]

How am I helping Outlook perform if it was loading 10,000 emails
BEFORE I archived them, and it's still loading 10,000 emails AFTER I
archived them, only that they are in another tree on the Outlook menu
(called Archived Folder)?

Because each PST is smaller, therefore more efficient. Outlook doesn't have
to do as much work in manipulating the contents of two smaller PSTs as it
would if the PST were twice as large and contained twice as many messages.

But what remains unclear is... can I delete the Archived Folder in my
Outlook menu without affecting the pst file which is physically
located on a separate drive? (I don't WANT Outlook to be loading
10,000 emails each time I open it!)

You can elect to not display the archive PST in the Folder View.

Again, I fail to see the logic in archiving if Outlook is going to
create a folder that links to the pst file, and thus end up loading
the same amount of emails it did prior to the archiving.

It may be accessing the same number of messages, but the overhead for doing
so is less. And it's not "loading" anything, except, perhaps, the overhead
structures of the PSTs, which it uses to locate and display the messages and
folders in the PSTs.

Right, but the question remains unanswered : if I archive to an
EXISTING pst, are the original contents of that pst replaced, or
simply added-on to?

Archived messages are simply moved from the active PST to the corresponding
folder in the archive PST, just like you had dragged the message from one to
the other. Thus, archiving is a cumulative action.

Right now, I have 7 inbox folders, and planned on
archiving each month to a new PST. That would mean 7 new archive.pst
files each month, in a clearly-identified monthly folders tree (year,
month).

Outlook uses only one archive PST, until you change it. I don't know where
you get the idea it will create a new one every time you create a new PST.

1. How am I improving performance in Outlook if everytime I archive a
folder, rather than delete the archived items that were zipped up in
the PST file, it actually moves them to a new folder in the Outlook
menu?

Because Outlook has less overhead, it can perform better. Also, you don't
have to display the archive PST in the Folder View.

2. If I point to an existing PST when archiving a NEW folder, what
happens to the existing contents of that PST?

It remains. The new folder gets added to the archive PST. It doesn't
overwrite anything, no more than you receiving a new message overwrites the
contents of your Inbox. So, if you use a version of Outlook prior to
Outlook 2003, you'll have to watch the size of your archive PST so that it
doesn't exceed 1.82 Gb or it will get corrupted. You'll have to make new
archive PSTs periodically to avoid that.

 

[Forsky]

Because each PST is smaller, therefore more efficient. Outlook doesn't have
to do as much work in manipulating the contents of two smaller PSTs as it
would if the PST were twice as large and contained twice as many messages.

But with all due respect, as you took the time to try to help me and it is
greatly appreciated... this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Elsewhere in your reply, you write :

Outlook uses only one archive PST, until you change it. I don't know where
you get the idea it will create a new one every time you create a new PST.

This contradicts your earlier statement that "each PST is smaller, therefore
more efficient." How can you state in one sentence that "each PST"
(therefore implying that there will be more than one) is smaller, then later
state that there is only one PST?

Here's the thing : I don't want Outlook loading ANYTHING at bootup that
isn't of this month. Period. I don't care how little you claim it affects
performance, 10,000 - 25,000 - or 50,000 emails (many of them with
attachments) is going to slow you down. I don't want Outlook to know these
archives EXIST until I tell it to load them.

Additionally, a singular PST file is just one huge gigantic ball of stuff...
if I need to look up an old email at some point, I need to open this
gigantic ball of stuff and start digging. I would much rather archive
monthly, and label each PST file accordingly... so that when the time comes
to look up an email from January 1997, I can do so quickly and
efficiently... without loading a decade's worth of mail and having to sift
through it.

Am I making a bit more sense now, when I talk about multiple PST files, and
not wanting Outlook to have inherent Archive Folders? The whole point of
archiving is having Outlook have FEWER active emails to manage... just
moving them to another branch on the Outlook hierarchy tree doesn't unload
anything.

Unless you tell me they remain in compressed form until called upon, which
nobody has yet to do in this discussion thus far.

That being said, once again, I'm grateful for the 2 people who tried
answering my questions, but by both of your answers, I am beginning to think
that maybe Outlook isn't for me -- and a client that will allow me to
archive in multiple files and only load those emails when I tell it to, is.

Can Outlook do what I'm asking or not? If it can't, then it just can't. It's
no one's fault but Microsoft's.

 

[SgtRich]

How am I helping Outlook perform if it was loading 10,000 emails BEFORE I
archived them, and it's still loading 10,000 emails AFTER I archived them,
only that they are in another tree on the Outlook menu (called Archived
Folder)?

After you archive your messages, close the archive folders unless you need
to reference something. Therefore, you will NOT be loading 10,000 messages.

But what remains unclear is... can I delete the Archived Folder in my
Outlook menu without affecting the pst file which is physically located on a
separate drive? (I don't WANT Outlook to be loading 10,000 emails each time
I open it!)

You're CLOSING the archived folders, not deleting them. When you need
something from an archived folder, you just open that .pst file and your
messages are there, however, they are NOT being loaded every time you open
Outlook if you always close your archived folders.
--
<<<SgtRich>>>

Email Client: Microsoft Outlook 2003
News Client (Text): Forté Agent 2.0 www.forteinc.com
News Client (Binaries): News Rover 9.2 www.newsrover.com

 

[Forsky]

What do you mean by CLOSING the archive folder?

When I CLOSE (right-click, close) one of those folders, it is deleted. I
can't bring it back (unless I import, I assume).

Confusing, isn't it?

 

[Brian Tillman]

This contradicts your earlier statement that "each PST is smaller,
therefore more efficient." How can you state in one sentence that
"each PST" (therefore implying that there will be more than one) is
smaller, then later state that there is only one PST?

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say only one PST. I said only one
archive PST. You can have 50 PSTs if you want. However, if archiving is
enabled, Outlook will dump messages to only one of them. You can specify
which one, but if you use default values, its name will be "archive.pst".

Here's the thing : I don't want Outlook loading ANYTHING at bootup
that isn't of this month. Period. I don't care how little you claim
it affects performance, 10,000 - 25,000 - or 50,000 emails (many of
them with attachments) is going to slow you down. I don't want
Outlook to know these archives EXIST until I tell it to load them.

Fine. Don't open them then. What's the big deal? And again, it doesn't
"load" anything.

Additionally, a singular PST file is just one huge gigantic ball of
stuff... if I need to look up an old email at some point, I need to
open this gigantic ball of stuff and start digging.

That's what the Find function is for.

I would much
rather archive monthly, and label each PST file accordingly... so
that when the time comes to look up an email from January 1997, I can
do so quickly and efficiently... without loading a decade's worth of
mail and having to sift through it.

So, go ahead. What's stopping you from organizing your messages this way?

Am I making a bit more sense now, when I talk about multiple PST
files, and not wanting Outlook to have inherent Archive Folders?

The term "archiving", when used in an Outlook context, has a specific
meaning. It means Outlook is using the modified date associated with an
item and moving it from your default delivery location to an Outlook-managed
PST file designated as the archive PST. It has nothing to do with you
moving messages to PSTs in order to organize things the way you want them to
be. Perhaps that's the confusion here. You're not using the word "archive"
in it's Outlook context.

Unless you tell me they remain in compressed form until called upon,
which nobody has yet to do in this discussion thus far.

PSTs are never "compressed", in the sense that zip or rar or arc or gz files
are compressed.

That being said, once again, I'm grateful for the 2 people who tried
answering my questions, but by both of your answers, I am beginning
to think that maybe Outlook isn't for me -- and a client that will
allow me to archive in multiple files and only load those emails when
I tell it to, is.

Outlook can do that, as far as I'm concerned. There is one person here who
has a PST for each month for the last three years. Usually, they can't be
seen in the Outlook Folder View because he doesn't have them opened. If he
wants to refer to any messages in any of them, he opens the PST where he
believed the message resides, thereby adding it to the Outlook Folder View,
uses Find to locate the message, gets the information he wants from it, then
closes the PST again, removing it from the Folder View (and from Outlook's
"consciousness"). How does this differ from what you want to do?

 

[Brian Tillman]

When I CLOSE (right-click, close) one of those folders, it is
deleted.

No, it's not. It still resides on your hard drive. The only thing that
happens is you remove it from Outlook's Folder View and Outlook doesn't
reference it any more.

I can't bring it back (unless I import, I assume).

Wrong. To reopen a PST, click FIle>Open>Outlook Data File and browse to the
PST. Select it and click OK. It's now open and will reappear in your
Folder View.

Confusing, isn't it?

Only to you.

 

[Forsky]

Only to you.

Was that necessary?

 

[Brian Tillman]

Was that necessary?

Necessary? Probably not. Truthful? Sure. Several people have tried to
explain to you how your idea of how Outlook works isn't accurate and so far
it would seem they've failed.