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.

Prof Wonmug wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

There are no real folders in Outlook. That's why Windows Explorer
operates differently. The display of "folders" in Outlook is only for
organizational purposes: to show an arbitrary hierachy of records in the
message store. All items are stored in just one file (.pst). The
database doesn't need folders to track records. That structure is
solely for the benefit of the user to organize the records. There are
no folders or files in Outlook's message store, just records inside of
one database file.

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.

And I can stack books in some order, too, but doesn't change that they are
still books despite how I stack them. The database is comprised of records
wherein each has fields some of which are used for keywords, like a "folder"
attribute. I don't know how Microsoft chains the pointers in these fields
to provide for an arbitrary and superficial hierachical to present an
organizational view to users. That Microsoft hasn't improved the search
tool inside of Outlook represents the effect of 2 events: no corporate
customer (i.e., the *real* customer base that can influence what Microosft
does with their code, not consumers like you and me) has requested
significant improvement in this function, and Microsoft already came out
with a better search tool that works not only in Outlook but with lots of
apps and files.

Software always has a fixed number of bytes so obviously only so many
functions can be coded into a program. That someone didn't consider your
personal wants is not a design defect. It is a shortcoming for YOU and a
populace of users of like mind but who are obviously not robust enough in
number to have insignificant effect on Microsoft to contemplate sustained
revenue by complying with this customer demand. The community that wants
the change is to puny for consideration by the software owner. You might
want it. That doesn't mean they have to add it, especially if it is not
expected to effect revenue.

The Advanced Find has never been "advanced". For the most part, it is a
simple search tool albeit you could enter some SQL-like search criteria (I
never bothered to learn the syntax) if you want more than the default search
input controls permit. I see no means to alter the form used to display
that dialog (versus changing the form used to view, say, the new-mail editor
window to add or remove fields).

If you want a better search in Outlook then why aren't you looking at
Windows [Desktop] Search, Google Desktop, Copernic, or another file indexing
and content cataloging utility? You could see if one of those gives you the
search results you want. Also, since Outlook was made extensible through
macros and add-ons, there is also the possibility that someone already coded
something up to improve on searching in Outlook. The folks over at
outlookcode.com might have some info or some code already written up for
download or mentioned in a forum post, or you could code it up yourself or
pay for someone to do it or you (or pay for an add-on that someone already
wrote up). Because Outlook is extensible, it could do just what you want.

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.

Prof Wonmug wrote:

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.

When you code your own software to distribute to others then you, too, will
realize there will tons of demands from users for picyune features that will
waste your time. Each user thinks their wants are important and universal.
If you want it then everyone must want it. If you contact with Microsoft to
contract with them a large sum of money to make changes then I'm sure they
will listen. Right now they listen to their biggest customers, and that's
not you or me. Corporations that buy thousands of licenses get heard.

Also, corporations often have the resources in programming talent to have
their staff create add-ons for their special needs. Outlook is extensible
through macros and add-ons. Of course, anyone distributing their work to
other users often wants to get remunerated for their effort, so what you
want might not be free. For example, there is Sperry Software's Global
Search and Replace add-on:

http://www.sperrysoftware.com/Outloo...nd-Replace.asp

I can't find a picture showing its search results to see what properties it
lists for a selected item. You'll have to ask them about its features or
find out if they have a trial version (since it is payware).

There probably was some noise from corporate customers for their employees
to more quickly find their prior e-mails and peruse their history of
communications. Instead of focusing on just one solution usable in just one
application, Microsoft decided to follow suit to other search engines and
provide a local search engine that you can use across many applications and
in more locations than just where Outlook puts its message store.

http://media.techtarget.com/digitalg..._Queries_A.jpg

The above shows a screenshot of Windows Search. There is a properties pane
at the bottom. I doubt that is the only properties that are collected for a
selected item. However, I don't bother running any search engine on my host
as they always seem to get in my way but then I already organize my data
very well and find it a waste of time to use a search engine, have it waste
background CPU cycles and disk accesses doing indexing, or locking up files
that I want to access during its indexing (I haven't retested lately to find
out if any of them will use Windows' Volume Shadow Service to permit access
to a locked file by instead indexing a shadow copy much how good backup
programs work).

There may be newsgroups that discuss Windows Search. If not, you could
start a new thread asking if Windows Search will give you more properties
for items found in Outlook's message store, like the entire hierarchy for
the folder in which the item is "stored".

That someone doesn't code their product to do something that you want is not
a bug. It simply means they didn't consider your needs. There's no way
that a fixed amount of code is going to encompass everyone's needs. We're
just users here like yourself. No one here has to apologize for anything
made by Microsoft. In fact, it's you that needs to apologize for stubbornly
choosing to use non-unique folder names that led to this problem. Your
shortsightness caused the problem. No one visits here works for Microsoft.
None of the MVPs work for Microsoft. You are asking for a feature that
doesn't exist in a product over which we have absolutely no control
regarding its code. Other than a macro or add-on to extend Outlook's
behaviors or by using a search engine (which are designed to index far more
than just Outlook's files), I'm not sure what else you think we are
supposedly to magically conjure up for you.

I think this conversation is over. Outlook doesn't have the native features
you want. You can call it a bug if that makes you happy. You can claim we
users here are apologizing for a product over which we have no control if
that makes you happy. Doesn't change the situation that you want more than
the product provides. The product is extensible and you now have the choice
of finding some add-on that does what you want or to roll your own or pay
someone to create one for you. You could ask about or trial the search
engines (Windows Search, Google Desktop, Copernic, etc) to see if any of
them give you the additional features that you want and do so without
forking out any money.

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
The above shows a screenshot of Windows Search. There is a properties
pane
at the bottom.

If you use Windows Search in Win 7 and then click on "Show more Results" at
the bottom, the resultant search pane shows the entire path within the
Outlook pst file of the message..

you can add your folders to the lookeen-index and it will index these folders and search them. that's what you want to do, right? (http://www.lookeen.net)

my opinion about outlooke is, that this tool is expensive but still the best email-client available.

iphone users also accept that the iphone is unable to play flash-videos. it's the same with outlook. if you use it, you should accept the philosophy if this tool.
it's also an advandatge that all outlook content is saved in one file (backup f.e.).

greets B.



Gordon wrote:

If you use Windows Search in Win 7 and then click on "Show more Results" atthe
10-May-10

If you use Windows Search in Win 7 and then click on "Show more Results" at
the bottom, the resultant search pane shows the entire path within the
Outlook pst file of the message..

Previous Posts In This Thread:


Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
Using VSTO Add-In To Automate Frequent Excel 2007 Tasks
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...n-to-auto.aspx

On Sun, 9 May 2010 12:36:43 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
what@ever wrote:

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.

An incurious/indifferent mind is likely more peaceful.

I don't even own any stock in any of my holdings.

Huh? How is that possible?

You, on the other hand, appear to have it in for them.

Now that sounds like a typical comment from an apologist. I criticize
the design of a M$FT product and you accuse me of having it is 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.

Now who has it in for whom? :-)

I guard my privacy zealously... something that many take for granted,
judging by the popularity of Google.

--
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 Sun, 9 May 2010 12:36:43 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| what@ever wrote:
|
|| 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.
|
| An incurious/indifferent mind is likely more peaceful.
|
|| I don't even own any stock in any of my holdings.
|
| Huh? How is that possible?
|
|| You, on the other hand, appear to have it in for them.
|
| Now that sounds like a typical comment from an apologist. I criticize
| the design of a M$FT product and you accuse me of having it is 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.
|
| Now who has it in for whom? :-)

On Sun, 9 May 2010 20:48:43 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Prof Wonmug wrote:

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.

When you code your own software to distribute to others then you, too, will
realize there will tons of demands from users for picyune features that will
waste your time. Each user thinks their wants are important and universal.
If you want it then everyone must want it. If you contact with Microsoft to
contract with them a large sum of money to make changes then I'm sure they
will listen. Right now they listen to their biggest customers, and that's
not you or me. Corporations that buy thousands of licenses get heard.

Also, corporations often have the resources in programming talent to have
their staff create add-ons for their special needs. Outlook is extensible
through macros and add-ons. Of course, anyone distributing their work to
other users often wants to get remunerated for their effort, so what you
want might not be free. For example, there is Sperry Software's Global
Search and Replace add-on:

http://www.sperrysoftware.com/Outloo...nd-Replace.asp

I can't find a picture showing its search results to see what properties it
lists for a selected item. You'll have to ask them about its features or
find out if they have a trial version (since it is payware).

There probably was some noise from corporate customers for their employees
to more quickly find their prior e-mails and peruse their history of
communications. Instead of focusing on just one solution usable in just one
application, Microsoft decided to follow suit to other search engines and
provide a local search engine that you can use across many applications and
in more locations than just where Outlook puts its message store.

http://media.techtarget.com/digitalg..._Queries_A.jpg

The above shows a screenshot of Windows Search. There is a properties pane
at the bottom. I doubt that is the only properties that are collected for a
selected item. However, I don't bother running any search engine on my host
as they always seem to get in my way but then I already organize my data
very well and find it a waste of time to use a search engine, have it waste
background CPU cycles and disk accesses doing indexing, or locking up files
that I want to access during its indexing (I haven't retested lately to find
out if any of them will use Windows' Volume Shadow Service to permit access
to a locked file by instead indexing a shadow copy much how good backup
programs work).

There may be newsgroups that discuss Windows Search. If not, you could
start a new thread asking if Windows Search will give you more properties
for items found in Outlook's message store, like the entire hierarchy for
the folder in which the item is "stored".

That someone doesn't code their product to do something that you want is not
a bug. It simply means they didn't consider your needs. There's no way
that a fixed amount of code is going to encompass everyone's needs. We're
just users here like yourself. No one here has to apologize for anything
made by Microsoft. In fact, it's you that needs to apologize for stubbornly
choosing to use non-unique folder names that led to this problem. Your
shortsightness caused the problem. No one visits here works for Microsoft.
None of the MVPs work for Microsoft. You are asking for a feature that
doesn't exist in a product over which we have absolutely no control
regarding its code. Other than a macro or add-on to extend Outlook's
behaviors or by using a search engine (which are designed to index far more
than just Outlook's files), I'm not sure what else you think we are
supposedly to magically conjure up for you.

I think this conversation is over. Outlook doesn't have the native features
you want. You can call it a bug if that makes you happy. You can claim we
users here are apologizing for a product over which we have no control if
that makes you happy. Doesn't change the situation that you want more than
the product provides. The product is extensible and you now have the choice
of finding some add-on that does what you want or to roll your own or pay
someone to create one for you. You could ask about or trial the search
engines (Windows Search, Google Desktop, Copernic, etc) to see if any of
them give you the additional features that you want and do so without
forking out any money.

Wow. Sorry to have gotten under your skin like that. I hope I didn't
ruin your whole day. ;-)

I'm not asking for a feature. I realize that no one here has any
ability to influence the product. I merely asked if it could do what
most competent search facilities can do. When I was told that it
can't, I commented on yet another of the many inadequacies of the
"products" from Redmond. That's when the apologists came out of the
woodwork. Not nice to criticize Microsoft.

I also made a couple of comments about the pathetic lack of
comprehension by some of the difference between the internal structure
of the Outlook folders and the external representation. As far as I
can tell, msot of the commentators still do not comprehend that. Oh,
well.

The Office division is the poor step-child at Microsoft. That's where
they send the developers who can't cut it in the OS divisions. But you
continue to tell anyone who voices a contrary opinion to sit down and
shut up.

Cheers

On Mon, 10 May 2010 23:05:08 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
what@ever wrote:

I guard my privacy zealously... something that many take for granted,
judging by the popularity of Google.

Really? And you think Microsoft is more careful with your privacy that
Google? How does that Kool-Aid taste?