PST files, why have such big files? how to get rid of folders..

[XtremeMaC]

Hi there,
I don’t administer a corporate environment and have roaming profiles/pst
files, so maybe that’s the reason why I don’t get it but, why is Outlook
storing all the data into single pst files?
I want to have separate pst files to some folders that I frequently use like
from my friends and from RSS entries. Well if I do that, immediately, folders
such as deleted items, drafts, junk e-mail, outbox, sent items and search
folders appear. And as of now I haven’t been able to hide or delete those
folders. Having those folders makes the mail folders list unnecessarily long
and useless.
My reason behind using a separate pst file is to be able to decrease the
size of the main pst file and be able to compact more often and if I have to,
just backup/delete/etc on some of the pst files. And yes I know of the
auto-archive options and what not but its not what I want.
I tried thunderbird, though it seems nice, I’m very used to outlook and I
like most things about it, also I use a winmo PDA and sync my
calendar/emails/etc so I really love outlook, but I don’t get why everything
is archived into 1 single pst file, and that when we create a new pst file
we’re not able to get rid of redundant folders. Yes I know outlook express
does what I want, but its functionalities are limited..
What would one have to do to accomplish this? Or can someone point me to a
Ms kb article or something explaining the reason behind using single pst file.
Thanks

 

[neo [mvp outlook]]

Best guess as to why a single PST... the programmers that designed Outlook
felt that one file that contains everything was the right thing to do
compared to say others that opt to use individual folders/file on a hard
drive or another's implementation of a .mbox file. As with all things, each
design decision made by a software vendor has its advantages and
disadvantages.

The best advantage I can think of, you know exactly file to backup to ensure
that you have your calendar, contact, task, journal, email, .etc. It is
easier to grab one file rather than many.

You can't avoid key support folders when creating a new PST. They just have
to exist to ensure that the product works as designed. Other than that,
what words of wisdom I can give...

1) You can delete the search folders that are listed under "Search Folders",
you just can't delete the folder named "Search Folders"

2) You can't delete the folder named Deleted Items. Again, this is a key
folder that must exist in every PST. Other folders that are considered key
for the default delivery location is contacts, calendar, inbox, journal,
tasks, drafts, junk, .etc. These folders do not have to exist in secondary
PST files. (Note: IMAP accounts will throw this off a bit because IMAP
accounts always get a dedicated PST and these account types don't support
special item types like calendar, contacts, journal, and tasks. Therefore
you end up with two PST files. One to support the IMAP account and the
other is for the special item types that don't get uploaded to the IMAP
server.)

3) Starting with Outlook 2003 and newer versions, I normally don't suggest
separate PST files since Microsoft raised the bar of how many items per
folder and/or that a PST file can grow bigger than 2GB. About the only time
I would, is when performance in Outlook because so ugly due to PST file
size, that it is time to remove/move items to a secondary file because they
are only looked at once in a blue moon.

 

[XtremeMaC]

Thank you Neo.

 

[John Mayson]

I don’t administer a corporate environment and have roaming profiles/pst
files, so maybe that’s the reason why I don’t get it but, why is Outlook
storing all the data into single pst files?

That's what I like and hate about Outlook. It is easier to move around a
single file. However should that file ever become corrupted and you don't
have a recent backup, you're out of luck.

I want to have separate pst files to some folders that I frequently use like
from my friends and from RSS entries. Well if I do that, immediately, folders
such as deleted items, drafts, junk e-mail, outbox, sent items and search
folders appear. And as of now I haven’t been able to hide or delete those
folders. Having those folders makes the mail folders list unnecessarily long
and useless.

Yeah, I would imagine. Do you have to use Outlook? I hate to suggest
alternatives on an MS-run forum, but you might have that option.

My reason behind using a separate pst file is to be able to decrease the
size of the main pst file and be able to compact more often and if I have to,
just backup/delete/etc on some of the pst files. And yes I know of the
auto-archive options and what not but its not what I want.

I worked for a very email intensive company. Everyday I received between
150 and 200 emails, many laden with attachments. I saved everything.
Each year I started a new .pst file and mine never grew larger than 1 GB.
If I considered that too large I could've created a new .pst quarterly or
monthly. You can have a .pst file open without the view being expanded.
Perhaps you wouldn't have to review older .pst files as often and could
keep those collapsed?

I tried thunderbird, though it seems nice, I’m very used to outlook and I
like most things about it, also I use a winmo PDA and sync my
calendar/emails/etc so I really love outlook, but I don’t get why everything
is archived into 1 single pst file, and that when we create a new pst file
we’re not able to get rid of redundant folders. Yes I know outlook express
does what I want, but its functionalities are limited..

I'm more of a Mac and Linux guy and I find Outlook very useful,
particularly in a corporate environment.

What would one have to do to accomplish this? Or can someone point me to a
Ms kb article or something explaining the reason behind using single pst file.

The argument I've read against Thunderbird is you have to backup multiple
files versus the single .pst file with Outlook. But that's also Outlook's
weakness in the event of corruption (which, BTW, I never had with Outlook
2003 or 2007, just older versions). I think the single file is just how
Microsoft wanted it.

John