new Tasks in Outlook2007 6x bigger than in Outlook2003 ?WHY

B

Bert_Bert

Try to create a new task in Outlook 2003. 1kB in size
Try to create a new task in Outlook 2007. 7kb in size

could someone emxplain me WHY. It is a big annoyance, since for 5000 items
you need theoretically instead of 5MB 35MB that is a BIG difference.

Is it rememberingg now my Grandfather's dog's name or whay the hell is it so
big with a new version ?

Or, is there some way how to get it back small ?
 
G

Gordon

Bert_Bert said:
Try to create a new task in Outlook 2003. 1kB in size
Try to create a new task in Outlook 2007. 7kb in size

could someone emxplain me WHY. It is a big annoyance, since for 5000 items
you need theoretically instead of 5MB 35MB that is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

if you are REALLY pushed to find 35MB then you really need a bigger
HDD.....35 MB is NOTHING these days.....
 
B

Bert_Bert

Unicode.

In my case it is not Unicode.
I have Outlook 2003 with new PST that already has Unicode support.

I also is not one-offed items since 1kB - 7kB difference is on the ordinary
Tasks that have no special forma ssociated.

It is not PST matter since as I transfer 7kB task to Outlook 2003, it is
still 7kB and as I transfer 1 kB message to Outlook 2007 it stays 1kB.

The difference is in what version the message was created and the question
is WHY, maybe it is connected with the fact that the default editor is
Microsoft Word.

I think this because as I edit the Message body, the size Jumps from 1k to
7k immy, compared to the fact that I edit just one user defined field, the
size stays.

Well, someone might think 7 times more data is no problem nowadays, but I
don thonk so. This means 7 times more traffic e.g. when syncing over GPRS, it
means my Exchange limit provided by company will be too small, it means you
have to backup 7 times bigger data, it means you have to wait 7 times more to
copy PST, it means a lot of trouble.

Is there a way how to turn it off and use the old good Rich text formatting
? I know it is not supported, but please at least some hack :)

I don think it is the right way to develop such a robust and so far good
software to cripple basic and for years working and good functionality.
 
Top