Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message ...
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various clients and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like.



What do you mean by "storage method"?

Alias

"Alias~-" wrote in message ...
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message ...
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various clients and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I
like.



What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file (eg, Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text (mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress,
etc.

--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net

"Alec S." @ wrote in message
...
"Alias~-" wrote in message
...
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message
...
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various clients
and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I
like.



What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file (eg,
Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text
(mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for
backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress,
etc.

--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net



The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to
corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract or
DBXpress to retrieve messages. The OE replacement in Vista goes back to
storing each message as an individual file.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Answer in newsgroup. Don't send mail.

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote
"Alec S." @ wrote in message
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various clients
and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like.

What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file (eg,
Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text
(mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for
backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress, etc.

The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to
corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract or
DBXpress to retrieve messages.

True, but I've had few problems with it. Storing messages in individual files is usually a bad technique. While it provides better
access to individual messages and minimizes damage, it's highly inefficient. It increases storage waste, it increases access time,
it increases memory usage, and a bevy of other problems. Performance and resource wise, the single file method (eg PST) is best
(think database, WAD, etc.), but it makes corruption, etc. quite damaging. The DBX per-folder method is a good compromise, meeting
them both halfway.


The OE replacement in Vista goes back to storing each message as an individual file.


Which is one reason I don't intend to upgrade. I don't like Live at all.



--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net

"Alec S." @ wrote in message
...
"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote
"Alec S." @ wrote in message
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various
clients
and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like.

What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file
(eg,
Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text
(mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for
backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress, etc.

The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to
corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract or
DBXpress to retrieve messages.

True, but I've had few problems with it. Storing messages in individual
files is usually a bad technique. While it provides better
access to individual messages and minimizes damage, it's highly
inefficient. It increases storage waste, it increases access time,
it increases memory usage, and a bevy of other problems. Performance and
resource wise, the single file method (eg PST) is best
(think database, WAD, etc.), but it makes corruption, etc. quite damaging.
The DBX per-folder method is a good compromise, meeting
them both halfway.


You obviously never lost your messages. The issue is that of database
bloat. Users let their mailboxes fill up and get bigger and bigger. That
results in file corruption. File corruption results in loss of all the
messages in the file. Its a disaster for those who experience such.

Suppose you had a database of images. Some images are small and some are
huge. Suppose you have thousands of images. Do you put all those images
into the database file? No. You put links to the images in the database
and then you store the images separately. Otherwise the database file gets
unmanageable.

It is better to give up a little bit of performance over losing data.


The OE replacement in Vista goes back to storing each message as an
individual file.


Which is one reason I don't intend to upgrade. I don't like Live at all.


He referred to Windows Mail in Vista. Nothing "Live" about it. It is OE
renamed and retooled to some extent, and the messages are stored separately
from the database as individual eml files.

steve

/


--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net

"Steve Cochran" schreef in bericht
...

"Alec S." @ wrote in message
...
"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote
"Alec S." @ wrote in message
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various
clients
and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like.

What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file
(eg,
Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text
(mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for
backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress, etc.

The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to
corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract
or
DBXpress to retrieve messages.

True, but I've had few problems with it. Storing messages in individual
files is usually a bad technique. While it provides better
access to individual messages and minimizes damage, it's highly
inefficient. It increases storage waste, it increases access time,
it increases memory usage, and a bevy of other problems. Performance and
resource wise, the single file method (eg PST) is best
(think database, WAD, etc.), but it makes corruption, etc. quite
damaging. The DBX per-folder method is a good compromise, meeting
them both halfway.


You obviously never lost your messages. The issue is that of database
bloat. Users let their mailboxes fill up and get bigger and bigger. That
results in file corruption. File corruption results in loss of all the
messages in the file. Its a disaster for those who experience such.

Suppose you had a database of images. Some images are small and some are
huge. Suppose you have thousands of images. Do you put all those images
into the database file? No. You put links to the images in the database
and then you store the images separately. Otherwise the database file
gets unmanageable.

It is better to give up a little bit of performance over losing data.


The OE replacement in Vista goes back to storing each message as an
individual file.


Which is one reason I don't intend to upgrade. I don't like Live at all.


He referred to Windows Mail in Vista. Nothing "Live" about it. It is OE
renamed and retooled to some extent, and the messages are stored
separately from the database as individual eml files.

steve

/


--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net

"wierd" schreef in bericht
...

"Steve Cochran" schreef in bericht
...

"Alec S." @ wrote in message
...
"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote
"Alec S." @ wrote in message
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Alec S. wrote:
"Alias~-" wrote in message
Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird?

Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various
clients
and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like.

What do you mean by "storage method"?

The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file
(eg,
Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual
files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text
(mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This
makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for
backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress,
etc.

The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to
corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract
or
DBXpress to retrieve messages.

True, but I've had few problems with it. Storing messages in individual
files is usually a bad technique. While it provides better
access to individual messages and minimizes damage, it's highly
inefficient. It increases storage waste, it increases access time,
it increases memory usage, and a bevy of other problems. Performance
and resource wise, the single file method (eg PST) is best
(think database, WAD, etc.), but it makes corruption, etc. quite
damaging. The DBX per-folder method is a good compromise, meeting
them both halfway.


You obviously never lost your messages. The issue is that of database
bloat. Users let their mailboxes fill up and get bigger and bigger.
That results in file corruption. File corruption results in loss of all
the messages in the file. Its a disaster for those who experience such.

Suppose you had a database of images. Some images are small and some are
huge. Suppose you have thousands of images. Do you put all those images
into the database file? No. You put links to the images in the database
and then you store the images separately. Otherwise the database file
gets unmanageable.

It is better to give up a little bit of performance over losing data.


The OE replacement in Vista goes back to storing each message as an
individual file.


Which is one reason I don't intend to upgrade. I don't like Live at
all.


He referred to Windows Mail in Vista. Nothing "Live" about it. It is OE
renamed and retooled to some extent, and the messages are stored
separately from the database as individual eml files.

steve

/


--
Alec S.
news/alec-synetech/cjb/net