Re: STARGATE:SGU - "TIME"------WTF?????
David Barnett
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2nfbh5dts6r7v429d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:21:35 GMT, "David Barnett" <dbar...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>>"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote
<snip>
>>> You want posts relevant to SGU and you're still reading this thread?
>>
>>Yes, I am still reading this thread in the hope of reading some more
>>relevant posts.
>>
>>However, I have also replied to some OT posts, for example re Outlook
>>Express, which is discontinued in name only (as Windows Mail in Vista)
>>despite David Loewe's claim to the contrary.
>
> Actually, the full claim is that has been discontinued as of *Windows
> 7*. [1]
Thanks for the clarification.
> I will also say that Windows Mail and Outlook Express *are* different
> things. OE was considered a part of Internet Explorer. Windows Mail
> and Windows Live Mail are not.
To me Windows Mail and Outlook Express feel much the same, tho there are a
few very minor changes in the former. They both have the same toolbars,
icons etc.
> [1] I am running Windows 7 32-bit Ultimate Release candidate. I've not
> used Vista.
I was more or less forced to upgrade to Vista when XP went RS, and I was
unable to reinstall it.
I've read some adverse comments about Vista, but I like it better than XP
even tho it is sluggish at times in spite of upgrading to 3GB of memory.
Atm I don't feel like upgrading to Windows 7, as I have read some adverse
comments about it also.
I'm really due to get a new computer which would probably have Windows 7 on
it, but I am not looking forward to the hassles of transferring stuff &
ringing my online provider again to get the modem working.
Besides the "old" computer is going OK atm.
--
David Barnett
Anim8rFSK
"David Barnett" <dbar...@nospam.com> wrote:
Let me mention that Outlook Express just corrupted the database (not the
messages file) while I was attempting the periodic compacting. Because
the database is damaged, all my mail since my last back up is
unaccessible. There is a tutorial on how to rebuild and recover, but
it's wrong; it calls for you to access folders that don't exist. I've
googled about the errors I'm getting, and found nothing but people
asking for help for the same thing, going back 5 years, and apparently
never getting any.
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
A Watcher
That's what you get for using Outlook. Are you still using it?
Anim8rFSK
A Watcher <stoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This *just* happened, so, yeah. I've had Apple Mail delete my accounts
twice all by itself. So I'm not sure what to do.
A Watcher
I've used Thunderbird and the Mozilla predecessor for many years without
any problems.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:21:35 GMT, "David Barnett" <dbar...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>>"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote
><snip>
>
>>>> You want posts relevant to SGU and you're still reading this thread?
>>>
>>>Yes, I am still reading this thread in the hope of reading some more
>>>relevant posts.
>>>
>>>However, I have also replied to some OT posts, for example re Outlook
>>>Express, which is discontinued in name only (as Windows Mail in Vista)
>>>despite David Loewe's claim to the contrary.
>>
>> Actually, the full claim is that has been discontinued as of *Windows
>> 7*. [1]
>
>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>> I will also say that Windows Mail and Outlook Express *are* different
>> things. OE was considered a part of Internet Explorer. Windows Mail
>> and Windows Live Mail are not.
>
>To me Windows Mail and Outlook Express feel much the same, tho there are a
>few very minor changes in the former. They both have the same toolbars,
>icons etc.
Well, apparently, the underpinnings are different.
>> [1] I am running Windows 7 32-bit Ultimate Release candidate. I've not
>> used Vista.
>
>I was more or less forced to upgrade to Vista when XP went RS, and I was
>unable to reinstall it.
>I've read some adverse comments about Vista, but I like it better than XP
>even tho it is sluggish at times in spite of upgrading to 3GB of memory.
>Atm I don't feel like upgrading to Windows 7, as I have read some adverse
>comments about it also.
Every review I have read of Windows 7 says it is superior to Vista.
One plus is the smaller footprint. I have Windows 7 running just fine
on 2 GB of memory.
>I'm really due to get a new computer which would probably have Windows 7 on
>it, but I am not looking forward to the hassles of transferring stuff &
>ringing my online provider again to get the modem working.
>Besides the "old" computer is going OK atm.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
- William G. McAdoo
Dragon Lady
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-656B8...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
It's Microsoft. The only way you're going to get help is by paying them for
it. By the minute. Over the phone. Without any guarantee they'll be able
to fix the problem.
Dragon Lady
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:n97eh5hs8b49m435g...@4ax.com...
>>I was more or less forced to upgrade to Vista when XP went RS, and I was
>>unable to reinstall it.
>>I've read some adverse comments about Vista, but I like it better than XP
>>even tho it is sluggish at times in spite of upgrading to 3GB of memory.
>>Atm I don't feel like upgrading to Windows 7, as I have read some adverse
>>comments about it also.
>
> Every review I have read of Windows 7 says it is superior to Vista.
Considering Vista was so bad when it first came out that people actually
refused to buy computers that had Vista on them (I told Dell when I bought
my laptop that if it came with Vista on it, I was sending it back) and the
computer companies were letting people downgrade to XP in order to get
business, saying Windows 7 is superior to Vista really isn't much of an
endorsement.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
David Barnett says he *likes* Vista.
I like Windows 7 better than XP (other than the fact that I can't get
VuePrint to install in Windows 7).
--
"Learn to see in another�s calamity the ills which you
should avoid."
Publius Syrus
Anim8rFSK
"Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com> wrote:
Given that they have a tutorial on how to fix this on their site, and
it's WRONG, I guarantee their tech support ain't gonna be able to do
anything.
sctvguy1
Just switch to a good Linux distro, no fees, and they are more stable. No
virii, worms, trojans, etc. I broke away from Windows a long time ago,
WfWg was the last, the OS/2 from 94-2009, now Linux.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
And another arrogant Penguinhead chimes in with unsolicited advice...
--
"Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola."
Raymond Douglas Davies
whodunit
"Penguinhead", LOL. I'll have to use that one on my husband. For years
he's been trying to get me to switch to Linux on my computer (after
several hard drive crashes), but I can't find the right software yet for
my printer, my graphic programs (GIMP? Please.) and my video software
for home movies. :-) I do like the fact that it's basically virus proof,
especially after dealing with that MS virus last week.
David Barnett
> Let me mention that Outlook Express just corrupted the database (not the
> messages file) while I was attempting the periodic compacting. Because
> the database is damaged, all my mail since my last back up is
> unaccessible. There is a tutorial on how to rebuild and recover, but
> it's wrong; it calls for you to access folders that don't exist. I've
> googled about the errors I'm getting, and found nothing but people
> asking for help for the same thing, going back 5 years, and apparently
> never getting any.
I'm very sorry to hear that Anim8rFSK; commiserations.
A difference I haven't mentioned before is that I can't find any way of
compacting in Windows Mail.
OTOH one day Windows Mail asked me if I wanted to compact; I replied yes and
there was no mishap.
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
news:akdeh51ulrb7lek9k...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:22:14 -0700, "Dragon Lady" <dragon...@q.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:03:29 GMT, "David Barnett" <dbar...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>I was more or less forced to upgrade to Vista when XP went RS, and I was
>>>>unable to reinstall it.
>>>>I've read some adverse comments about Vista, but I like it better than
>>>>XP
>>>>even tho it is sluggish at times in spite of upgrading to 3GB of memory.
>>>>Atm I don't feel like upgrading to Windows 7, as I have read some
>>>>adverse
>>>>comments about it also.
>>>
>>> Every review I have read of Windows 7 says it is superior to Vista.
>>
>>Considering Vista was so bad when it first came out that people actually
>>refused to buy computers that had Vista on them (I told Dell when I bought
>>my laptop that if it came with Vista on it, I was sending it back) and the
>>computer companies were letting people downgrade to XP in order to get
>>business, saying Windows 7 is superior to Vista really isn't much of an
>>endorsement.
>
> David Barnett says he *likes* Vista.
As I have just posted previously, I think I have been very lucky with Vista
(Home Premium), and other people have had bad experiences with it.
> I like Windows 7 better than XP (other than the fact that I can't get
> VuePrint to install in Windows 7).
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
news:n97eh5hs8b49m435g...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Every review I have read of Windows 7 says it is superior to Vista.
It most likely is.
IIRC the adverse reports I read were about rebooting problems & Vista was
not mentioned.
My daughter uses Windows 7 at her work, and told me it was Icon driven
rather than Toolbar driven.
I am aged 80 and I think too old for new tricks.
> One plus is the smaller footprint. I have Windows 7 running just fine
> on 2 GB of memory.
Vista is sluggish at times even with 3GB of memory, but seems to be
improving in this regard with continued use!
I have a friend who hates Vista mainly because some of his friends have had
dreadful trouble with it.
So far it looks like that I have been very lucky with it.
--
David Barnett
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote
><snip>
>
>> Let me mention that Outlook Express just corrupted the database (not the
>> messages file) while I was attempting the periodic compacting. Because
>> the database is damaged, all my mail since my last back up is
>> unaccessible. There is a tutorial on how to rebuild and recover, but
>> it's wrong; it calls for you to access folders that don't exist. I've
>> googled about the errors I'm getting, and found nothing but people
>> asking for help for the same thing, going back 5 years, and apparently
>> never getting any.
>
>I'm very sorry to hear that Anim8rFSK; commiserations.
>
>A difference I haven't mentioned before is that I can't find any way of
>compacting in Windows Mail.
>OTOH one day Windows Mail asked me if I wanted to compact; I replied yes and
>there was no mishap.
OE keeps popping up when I start XP and asking me if I want to compact
folders. This despite the fact that I have been running Outlook (2003
and then 2007) and not OE since I got XP. Also despite the fact the
boot drive has approximately 60 GB of free space on a 120 GB and, thus,
has no need of compacting.
--
"Doctor, Doctor, help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man."
Raymond Douglas Davies
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
><snip>
>
>> Every review I have read of Windows 7 says it is superior to Vista.
>
>It most likely is.
>
>IIRC the adverse reports I read were about rebooting problems & Vista was
>not mentioned.
>My daughter uses Windows 7 at her work, and told me it was Icon driven
>rather than Toolbar driven.
>I am aged 80 and I think too old for new tricks.
AFAIK, it can be set to be toolbar driven.
>
>> One plus is the smaller footprint. I have Windows 7 running just fine
>> on 2 GB of memory.
>
>Vista is sluggish at times even with 3GB of memory, but seems to be
>improving in this regard with continued use!
>I have a friend who hates Vista mainly because some of his friends have had
>dreadful trouble with it.
>So far it looks like that I have been very lucky with it.
Whatever works best for you.
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones
peachy ashie passion
Why is it that his advice was "unsolicited" as opposed to everyone elses?
jill
whodunit <whod...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Penguinhead", LOL. I'll have to use that one on my husband. For years
>he's been trying to get me to switch to Linux on my computer (after
>several hard drive crashes), but I can't find the right software yet for
>my printer, my graphic programs (GIMP? Please.) and my video software
>for home movies. :-) I do like the fact that it's basically virus proof,
>especially after dealing with that MS virus last week.
Maybe try what we do? My computer boots in linux (fedora), ubuntu (I
dunno _what_ that is, the SO and the kids use it) and microsoft(the one
before vista). So, if I'm doing text editing I can use vi (ancient but
I like it), if I'm doing business oriented stuff I can get gnu stuff,
if I'm playing Lemmings (awesome games) I boot into microsoft. In our
case we don't allow microsoft access to the internet but you could set
it up differently. I bet you could mix and match to do what you need
to do.
Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
ji...@tuells.org
whodunit
> In article <hf8t9d$nr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> whodunit <whod...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Penguinhead", LOL. I'll have to use that one on my husband. For years
>> he's been trying to get me to switch to Linux on my computer (after
>> several hard drive crashes), but I can't find the right software yet for
>> my printer, my graphic programs (GIMP? Please.) and my video software
>> for home movies. :-) I do like the fact that it's basically virus proof,
>> especially after dealing with that MS virus last week.
>
> Maybe try what we do? My computer boots in linux (fedora), ubuntu (I
> dunno _what_ that is, the SO and the kids use it) and microsoft(the one
> before vista). So, if I'm doing text editing I can use vi (ancient but
> I like it), if I'm doing business oriented stuff I can get gnu stuff,
> if I'm playing Lemmings (awesome games) I boot into microsoft. In our
> case we don't allow microsoft access to the internet but you could set
> it up differently. I bet you could mix and match to do what you need
> to do.
>
> Jill
Well, right now his computer is linux based, and mine is MS. I do the
online banking, etc. on his, and the graphics stuff on mine...so far it
seems to be working.
A Watcher
I have both linux and MS WInXP on my PC. Recently I made the mistake of
doing some web browsing in WinXP and caught a virus despite having
BitDefender. LInux is on a 2nd HD, but the virus hosed the machine so
bad it wiped out the boot sector on the 1st HD and I couldn't even boot
linux. Fortunately I was able to use a live CD version of linux to
restore the boot sector so at least linux would come up. I guess I'll
have to reinstall Windows, or just do without on this PC. We do have a
spare laptop that I could use when I have to get on Windows.
Anim8rFSK
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:19:40 GMT, "David Barnett" <dbar...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Let me mention that Outlook Express just corrupted the database (not the
> >> messages file) while I was attempting the periodic compacting. Because
> >> the database is damaged, all my mail since my last back up is
> >> unaccessible. There is a tutorial on how to rebuild and recover, but
> >> it's wrong; it calls for you to access folders that don't exist. I've
> >> googled about the errors I'm getting, and found nothing but people
> >> asking for help for the same thing, going back 5 years, and apparently
> >> never getting any.
> >
> >I'm very sorry to hear that Anim8rFSK; commiserations.
> >
> >A difference I haven't mentioned before is that I can't find any way of
> >compacting in Windows Mail.
> >OTOH one day Windows Mail asked me if I wanted to compact; I replied yes and
> >there was no mishap.
>
> OE keeps popping up when I start XP and asking me if I want to compact
> folders. This despite the fact that I have been running Outlook (2003
> and then 2007) and not OE since I got XP. Also despite the fact the
> boot drive has approximately 60 GB of free space on a 120 GB and, thus,
> has no need of compacting.
How big is your messages folder? OE doesn't actually throw away the
trash until you compact, and your messages folder can quickly reach 2gb.
David Loewe, Jr.
I don't RUN OE. I run Outlook. Why does OE want to compact my folders?
If my folders are to BE compacted, shouldn't Outlook do that and not OE?
I have 61 GB free (out of 111 GB available on a nominally 120 GB drive)
on that hard drive. Space is not an issue here.
As for how big the folder itself is, you'll have to give me a name and a
path - as I have no idea where it is or what the name of it is. I
periodically delete old crud out of the Inbox.
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
Anim8rFSK
OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
it's own critical mass.
>
> As for how big the folder itself is, you'll have to give me a name and a
> path - as I have no idea where it is or what the name of it is. I
> periodically delete old crud out of the Inbox.
I'm sure it's different on a Mac, but
root
documents
microsoft user data
identities
(name of identity)
Messages (that's where all the messages actually are*)
Database (that's the directory that got corrupted on me)
If you compact, both of those should be significantly smaller, as it
will actually throw out the trash.
On a Mac, you compact by holding down the option key on launching. If
you hold down the option and control key, it will corrupt your database
and you'll lose everything. If you don't have enough space on your
drive, it will mess up and you'll probably lose everything. If it works
correctly, you'll have "old database" and "old messages" and "old
database cache" files in the same folder than you can toss. Some people
keep them for back up or safety, but they don't seem to actually be
accessible.
I'd dupe the whole 'identities' folder before you do this.
*that's the file that hits critical mass. Deleting old crud out of the
inbox doesn't help; OE just moves it to the messages file. It grows
relentlessy until you compact.
David V. Loewe, Jr
I appreciate that you are trying to help, but which part of "I don't RUN
OE." isn't registering?
If Outlook does the same thing then, fine, tell me about that. But,
don't talk to me about running OE when I run Outlook instead.
Outlook says that the total size of all folders is around 1.5 GB, so I
am well under 2 GB.
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
David V. Loewe, Jr
Looking around online, I see that neither Outlook 2003 (which I used to
run) nor Outlook 2007 (which I upgraded to) have this limit.
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
Anim8rFSK
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> I don't RUN OE. I run Outlook. Why does OE want to compact my folders?
> >> If my folders are to BE compacted, shouldn't Outlook do that and not OE?
> >>
> >> I have 61 GB free (out of 111 GB available on a nominally 120 GB drive)
> >> on that hard drive. Space is not an issue here.
> >
> >OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
> >available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
> >it's own critical mass.
>
> I appreciate that you are trying to help, but which part of "I don't RUN
> OE." isn't registering?
>
> If Outlook does the same thing then, fine, tell me about that. But,
> don't talk to me about running OE when I run Outlook instead.
>
> Outlook says that the total size of all folders is around 1.5 GB, so I
> am well under 2 GB.
I have no data on O; I was replying to your question quoted above
> >> Why does OE want to compact my folders?
--
David Loewe, Jr.
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I don't RUN OE. I run Outlook. Why does OE want to compact my folders?
>> >> If my folders are to BE compacted, shouldn't Outlook do that and not OE?
>> >>
>> >> I have 61 GB free (out of 111 GB available on a nominally 120 GB drive)
>> >> on that hard drive. Space is not an issue here.
>> >
>> >OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>> >available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
>> >it's own critical mass.
>>
>> I appreciate that you are trying to help, but which part of "I don't RUN
>> OE." isn't registering?
>>
>> If Outlook does the same thing then, fine, tell me about that. But,
>> don't talk to me about running OE when I run Outlook instead.
>>
>> Outlook says that the total size of all folders is around 1.5 GB, so I
>> am well under 2 GB.
>
>I have no data on O; I was replying to your question quoted above
You were badly misreading the question.
I don't use OE. I've never used OE on this install. Why would OE want
to compact *empty* folders? The only folders it could want to be
compacting are *Outlook* folders?
>> >> Why does OE want to compact my folders?
--
"I ain't ready for the altar but I do agree there's times
When a woman sure can be a friend of mine."
Gerry Beckley
Anim8rFSK
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I was explaining OE's rather abberant behavior. Beyond that I don't
know.
sctvguy1
> OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
> available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
> it's own critical mass.
Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just can't put
DOS behind them, can they?
sctvguy1
> I was explaining OE's rather abberant behavior. Beyond that I don't
> know.
That appears to be the 2048 DOS left-over bug, nothing larger was
permitted. Reason I dropped Windows after WfWG 3.11 for OS/2, now Linux.
David V. Loewe, Jr
No. You're weren't. You said it wanted to stave off getting to 2 GB in
the folder. I had already explained that the folder was *empty*.
--
"There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times when
tact is entirely misplaced)."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Of course, as I noted, Windows XP and later doesn't suffer from this...
--
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public."
- H. L. Mencken
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
Which part of 'Outlook 2003 and later does have this limit,' 'neither
does Windows XP and later' and 'OE is no longer offered as a product'
are not getting through to your Penguin addled head?
David Loewe, Jr.
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:42:53 GMT, sctvguy1 <sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:57:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>>> available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
>>> it's own critical mass.
>>
>>Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just can't put
>>DOS behind them, can they?
>
>Which part of 'Outlook 2003 and later does
I lost a 'not' in there.
>have this limit,' 'neither
>does Windows XP and later' and 'OE is no longer offered as a product'
>are not getting through to your Penguin addled head?
--
"A generation that ignores history has no past - and no
future."
-Lazarus Long
Anim8rFSK
sctvguy1 <sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
Well, this is on a Mac. Not sure where the limit originated, but it
seems to be what triggers OE asking for compacting.
David Loewe, Jr.
> sctvguy1 <sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:57:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>> > OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>> > available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
>> > it's own critical mass.
>>
>> Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just can't put
>> DOS behind them, can they?
>
>Well, this is on a Mac. Not sure where the limit originated, but it
>seems to be what triggers OE asking for compacting.
The folder size is ZERO.
--
"I took a shower and I put on my best blue jeans,
I picked her up in my new VW van.
She wore a peasant blouse with nothing underneath,
I said, Hi, and she said, Yeah, I guess I am."
Dean Friedman
Anim8rFSK
sctvguy1
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:42:53 GMT, sctvguy1 <sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:57:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>>> available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
>>> it's own critical mass.
>>
>>Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just can't
>>put DOS behind them, can they?
>
> Which part of 'Outlook 2003 and later does have this limit,' 'neither
> does Windows XP and later' and 'OE is no longer offered as a product'
> are not getting through to your Penguin addled head?
More like "OS/2 addled head, with Penguin in VirtualPC". You really need
to get a "dedicated newsreader, if you like windows, then there are many
choices, some free and others not. Pan, XPN(free), Agent, the top of the
line(not). You can get rid of almost all your newsreader problems by
getting off Outlook. Outlook was originally designed as a corporate
email, not as a USENET client. It is still not an ideal piece of
software. I think that is what others have been trying to tell you. It
is, of course, up to you what you use to read news. It is just easier to
get away from the "built-in Microsoft" solutions when you go to a
separate, dedicated news client.
David Loewe, Jr.
Thanks.
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:28:48 -0600, David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:42:53 GMT, sctvguy1 <sctv...@NOSPAM.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:57:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>
>>>> OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>>>> available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and reaching
>>>> it's own critical mass.
>>>
>>>Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just can't
>>>put DOS behind them, can they?
>>
>> Which part of 'Outlook 2003 and later does have this limit,' 'neither
>> does Windows XP and later' and 'OE is no longer offered as a product'
>> are not getting through to your Penguin addled head?
>
>More like "OS/2 addled head, with Penguin in VirtualPC". You really need
>to get a "dedicated newsreader, if you like windows, then there are many
>choices, some free and others not. Pan, XPN(free), Agent,
You can't be bothered to read previous posts or headers, can you?
>the top of the line(not). You can get rid of almost all your newsreader
>problems by getting off Outlook.
Outlook does not have *any* functionality as a news reader. Therefore,
you CANNOT use Outlook as a news reader. Nor have I ever even attempted
to do so.
I only use Outlook for e-mail, contacts and maintenance of a calendar.
Therefore, NONE of my NON-EXISTANT "newsreader problems" can be solved
by dropping Outlook.
>Outlook was originally designed as a corporate
>email, not as a USENET client.
And I'm asking why Outlook *Express*, a separate program from Outlook
altogether, is asking to compact either A) non-existent folders (as OE
has never been used on this computer) or B) compact Outlook's folders.
>It is still not an ideal piece of
>software. I think that is what others have been trying to tell you. It
>is, of course, up to you what you use to read news. It is just easier to
>get away from the "built-in Microsoft" solutions when you go to a
>separate, dedicated news client.
Since you can't/won't look at the headers, I'll paste the relevant one
for your immense edification...
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1117
--
"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront
your intelligence."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.
Rom
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:57:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> OE won't address a folder bigger than 2gb. It's not a matter of
>>> available space, it's a matter of OE being badly designed and
>>> reaching it's own critical mass.
>>
>> Wonder why? That is the old DOS limit of size? Microsoft just
>> can't put DOS behind them, can they?
>
> Which part of 'Outlook 2003 and later does have this limit,' 'neither
> does Windows XP and later' and 'OE is no longer offered as a product'
> are not getting through to your Penguin addled head?
Actually OE's name was changed when it was finally updated: Windows Mail. So
technically it is still offered (or rather, bundled with the OS), despite
the name change and tweaks and such.
On another note, does OE-QuoteFix work with Win Mail? I have Win7 in a
virtual machine I'll have to check that out later. Expect a response on this
soon with my findings.
-Rom