Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
From: Gordon on 6 May 2010 02:20

"Prof Wonmug" <wonmug(a)e.mcc> wrote in message
news:t9m4u5hshc1ktlf7qvkrkvpr9h71a9i4j9(a)4ax.com...
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
> structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
> tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.
>
> This is a design defect -- just one of many.

The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
in Windows explorer.

From: Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] on 6 May 2010 07:38
"Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OLUfBRO7KHA.3924(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
> (AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
> names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
> in Windows explorer.

Two points about this: 1) even if they are just "labels", as you call them,
they should still be searchable. If you can display them in the Nav Pane, you
should be able to display them in a search window. 2) File names and folder
names on disk are also just "labels". Files are laid out physically anywhere
on a disk. Nothing in a "folder" is colocated, except by chance or planning.
Structures in the metadata on the disk make the files appear to be in folders,
but they're just pointers to logical locations and then those logical
locations map to the physical locations, which can be anywhere. Windows file
system structures and Outlook folder structures are equally "real" or "fake",
depending on your point of view.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

From: Prof Wonmug on 6 May 2010 11:06
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:20:43 +0100, "Gordon"
<gordon.burgessparker(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Prof Wonmug" <wonmug(a)e.mcc> wrote in message
>news:t9m4u5hshc1ktlf7qvkrkvpr9h71a9i4j9(a)4ax.com...
>> This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
>> structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look like a
>> tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.
>>
>> This is a design defect -- just one of many.
>
>The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
>(AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
>names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
>in Windows explorer.

Please reread the statement you quoted.

The internal structure is irrelevant. It is displayed on the screen as
a tree structure so it should be treated as a tree structure.
From: Prof Wonmug on 6 May 2010 11:06
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:38:18 -0400, "Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]"
<tillman1952(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Gordon" <gordon.burgessparker(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OLUfBRO7KHA.3924(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with labels
>> (AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE file. The "folder"
>> names are just pointers or labels...they don't physically exist like folders
>> in Windows explorer.
>
>Two points about this: 1) even if they are just "labels", as you call them,
>they should still be searchable. If you can display them in the Nav Pane, you
>should be able to display them in a search window. 2) File names and folder
>names on disk are also just "labels". Files are laid out physically anywhere
>on a disk. Nothing in a "folder" is colocated, except by chance or planning.
>Structures in the metadata on the disk make the files appear to be in folders,
>but they're just pointers to logical locations and then those logical
>locations map to the physical locations, which can be anywhere. Windows file
>system structures and Outlook folder structures are equally "real" or "fake",
>depending on your point of view.

Exactly. Well said.
From: Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] on 6 May 2010 20:44
Sigh - it is not a folder structure, it is a database. That is why the
storage file is called a Personal Storage TABLE (.pst) - as in an Access
database table or SQL database table.

You are welcome to make any type of assumption about how Outlook works or
should work, but only the definition of the designers will apply.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
ALWAYS post your Outlook version.
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375


After furious head scratching, Prof Wonmug asked:

| On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:20:43 +0100, "Gordon"
| <gordon.burgessparker(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
|
||
|| "Prof Wonmug" <wonmug(a)e.mcc> wrote in message
|| news:t9m4u5hshc1ktlf7qvkrkvpr9h71a9i4j9(a)4ax.com...
||| This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. The actual storage
||| structure is a nerdy, engineering detail. Outlook makes it look
||| like a tree structure, so it should treat it like a tree structure.
|||
||| This is a design defect -- just one of many.
||
|| The problem is, it ISN'T a tree structure. It's a database with
|| labels (AFAIK)...that's why ALL Outlook data is included in ONE
|| file. The "folder" names are just pointers or labels...they don't
|| physically exist like folders in Windows explorer.
|
| Please reread the statement you quoted.
|
| The internal structure is irrelevant. It is displayed on the screen as
| a tree structure so it should be treated as a tree structure.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities