Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about what or why Microsoft does
what is does. I don't work for them and am not one of their apologists. I
don't even own any stock in any of my holdings.

You, on the other hand, appear to have it in for them. As for Google
succeeding, good luck... and watch what your private information contains...
Google will get it... legally. And do with it what it wishes... legally.

--
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 17:44:27 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| what@ever wrote:
|
|| 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.
|
| Sigh yourself. What do you think a folder structure is, if not a type
| of database. Hell, everything is a database.
|
|| 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.
|
| Yeah, and you Microsoft apologists can make whatever excuses you want
| to about the half-baked crap coming out of Redmond.
|
| On my screen, the Outlook folders (that is what Outlook calls them, in
| case you are also confused about that) are displayed in a tree
| structure, so they ARE a tree structure. They should act like it.
|
| It doesn't matter. Microsoft has alweays been arrogant. Google (or
| someone) will do to them what they did to IBM because of their
| arrogance. I, for one, will be applauding. You can continue making
| excuses for their half-baked, overpriced software. Good luck.