 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Outlook / New Users / December 2005Speed of OL2003 over OL2000
I'm currently using Outlook 2000, but am considering an upgrade to Outlook 2003. One issue I'm concerned about is the speed with which Outlook lists various items in a Contact's "Activities" tab. After a fresh boot, Outlook 2000 takes as long as 2 minutes to list every related item in my .pst file. Is Outlook 2003 any faster, all things being equal? I've heard that Outlook 2003 is actually slower at searching than Outlook 2000, and I wonder if this also extends to the slowness with which it will display "Activities."  SignatureMichael I've never timed it, but I expect it will be about the same. They didn't work on that feature at all. SignatureDiane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide) Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/ Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter: EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQUEST@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > I'm currently using Outlook 2000, but am considering an upgrade to Outlook > 2003. One issue I'm concerned about is the speed with which Outlook lists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wonder if this also extends to the slowness with which it will display > "Activities." > I'm currently using Outlook 2000, but am considering an upgrade to Outlook > 2003. One issue I'm concerned about is the speed with which Outlook lists [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wonder if this also extends to the slowness with which it will display > "Activities." Michael, I moved from Outlook 2000 almost three years ago. 2003 seems to be the same. At the moment, I have 2,305 contacts. All have name, street city, state, ZIP, phone and e-mail addressses. Searches are of no consequence. (get to take a breath) > Michael, > I moved from Outlook 2000 almost three years ago. 2003 seems to be the > same. At the moment, I have 2,305 contacts. All have name, street city, > state, ZIP, phone and e-mail addressses. Searches are of no consequence. > (get to take a breath) Chuck, Thanks for relating your experiences. I tend to be impatient with Outlook's searches. When I'm on the phone with a client, and want to look up past correspondence and conversations, it's frustrating to tell him to wait a minute while my computer cranks away. SignatureMichael Is it any faster looking through a paper file? SignatureMilly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. After furious head scratching, Michael Ray Browm asked: || Michael, || I moved from Outlook 2000 almost three years ago. 2003 seems to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | look up past correspondence and conversations, it's frustrating to | tell him to wait a minute while my computer cranks away. No, but in ECCO Pro, my previous PIM, all history (calls and correspondence) would appear instantaneously under the contact. The same in ACT! and Lotus Organizer. I guess I'm spoiled. SignatureMichael > Is it any faster looking through a paper file? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > | look up past correspondence and conversations, it's frustrating to > | tell him to wait a minute while my computer cranks away. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.