ol03 .pst size twice personal folder size after compacting.

[jeffrey]

the .pst is 11.5 mb. Total personal folders size is 5.6 mb.
i have compacted several times. deleted items folder is empty.
how can i get the .pst file size down to where it seems it ought to be?

 

[Brian Tillman]

the .pst is 11.5 mb. Total personal folders size is 5.6 mb.
i have compacted several times. deleted items folder is empty.
how can i get the .pst file size down to where it seems it ought to
be?

Why worry about it? 11 Mb is suite small for a PST.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Why worry about it? 11 Mb is suite small for a PST.

That should be "11 Mb is quite small for a PST".

 

[Brian Tillman]

thanks for the response. but, an answer would be nice.

Well, then, my guess is that there is a degree of overhead in the PST which
adds to the space it takes on disk, but since it's not contained in messages
(it's there for presentation and manipulation purposes), the "Folder Size"
button doesn't show it.

 

[jeffrey]

from looking at past posts about this issue, a little more than the stated
folder size is normal. twice stated folders size doesn't seem to be. My
experience with Outlook is that it is designed with large coorporations in
mind, with IT depts and consultants available to modify it and keep it
operating and where storage space is simply no consideration. i used to use
ACT. the same ACT data, after moving to Outlook suddenly took up 3 times the
amount of storage space. perhaps it is simply another example of sloppy
programming.

 

[Brian Tillman]

from looking at past posts about this issue, a little more than the
stated folder size is normal. twice stated folders size doesn't seem
to be.

One of my PSTs is 1,617,920 bytes bigger on disk than Outlook's properties
page reports. A brand-new, empty PST is 265K bytes, so there is overhead.
In this latter case, the on-disk size is infinitely larger than the reported
folder size of zero. It just doesn't surprise me that a tiny PST of 11 Mb
might have five or six Mb of overhead.

My experience with Outlook is that it is designed with large
coorporations in mind, with IT depts and consultants available to
modify it and keep it operating and where storage space is simply no
consideration.

I'd be surprised if many home users would find 11 Mb much of a burden when
so many home machines now come with tens of gigabytes of disk space. And
what makes you think corporation IT departments aren't just as concerned
about wasted disk space as you might be?