Archive (2003)

Topic

New Reply

I’m quite happy so far with my upgraded 2003!! I’ve been wondering about Archiving though. If I normally delete messages I no longer want, and keep those I intend to keep indefinitely, is there any point in having an archive folder in addition to my personal folder? That is, does it actually make Outlook run better, or is it just something which will store older files?

Reply | Quote

Replies

If you manually keep the number of mail items reasonably small, there is no real need to AutoArchive your Inbox. If you keep your appointments in Outlook’s calendar, it makes sense to let Outlook AutoArchive them – no need to have all old appointments cluttering up your .pst file.

Reply | Quote

Thanks: The number of some of my old items is not exactly small, but I still wish to keep them, for possible access who-knows-when. For example, I have a large “Science” folder, but hardly use it–but want to keep it. In such a case, is there any value to archiving it–does that speed up the daily useage of Outlook?

kdoc

Reply | Quote

If you keep your Archive .pst open, all archived items will be available too.

I don’t know at what size a .pst file becomes slower.

Reply | Quote

Also: While fiddling with this, I first “showed” Archives, via Go–Folder List. And then later “Closed” or Hid Archives. Now, when I click Go–Folder List, no Archives Folder shows up: How do I reactivate it so I can search within it?

kdoc

Reply | Quote

To display a PST file in the Folder List, use File>Open>Outlook Data File and navigate to the file. It then should stay in the list until you close it again.

Reply | Quote

Thanks: And I did find out how to one more display “Archives” after closing it–you have to archive something–doesn’t matter what, just something. But my initial question still stands: what is the purpose or Archives: does archiving older items, and then closing Archives make Outlook run smoother and faster?

kdoc

Reply | Quote

Nowadays? With tons of memory and fast processors? Probably the difference would be marginal. But back in the Outlook 97 days, sure, putting unneeded material in an archive could help with performance. Or, if you don’t use a lot of folders (e.g., by subject matter), then archiving older material also would make searches or view changes run faster, since they have to be applied to a smaller set of items.

Random thought: I wonder what Microsoft’s help file says about when and why one might want to archive?

Reply | Quote

Random answer: nothing significant

kdoc

Reply | Quote

Look what popped up today! I think this is a generic message referring to the burden on the Exchange Server rather than referring to the performance of my own system. But whether that is true or not, I have no intention of making my “old ” even more difficult to find.

Reply | Quote

Yes: it’s because of that message I occasionally get, that made me ask the question?

kdoc

Reply | Quote

(Edited by HansV to make URL clickable – see Help 19)

I recall reading recently that MS does recommend archiving. And our IT department recommends it. My understanding is that the PST (and OST) files are limited to 2GB (see http://www.slipstick.com/problems/repair2gbpst.htm%5B/url%5D). Anything over that size becomes unusable, according to that article. Our IT department says that the PST files can become unstable if there over 500MB. So I regularly archive just for stability.

Brent

Reply | Quote

I never liked auto-archiving, because date cut-offs seem very arbitrary to me. Instead, I manually divided up messages into client and other folders, both to keep the PSTs a reasonable size (under 1GB) and to simplify finding past correspondence. As Microsoft and others improve the product’s search capabilities, the need to folderize everything may be reduced.

The new PST format in Outlook 2003 removes the 2GB ceiling; not sure about OST files. Nevertheless, it takes a very long time to back up even a 900MB file, so it’s probably a very bad idea to push the limit.

Reply | Quote

This is strictly a, For What It’s Worth, sort of input. I like to archive, but don’t really like using the archive.pst folders. For example, I help organize an annual conference, and I need to keep old emails – which may number close to 1000 – in a reasonable handy way to find and search. I discovered that Acrobat does a really super job of this. Just organize the emails in the way you most like them, e.g., oldest first or by sender, and then highlight all and send to Acrobat. Unlike TXT saving, it keep html emails, and makes everything look very nice. Then I just delete the old emails and save the PDF file.

If this isn’t clear, please tell me.
Best,
Michael

Reply | Quote

There are two main advantages of Archiving mail.

In a corporate environment if you archive mail it removes the mail from the exchange server and puts in on your file server so if you have mailbox size limitations you get around these.

Even without exchange… archiving gives you a pst file which is then portable from one media to another. For example I archive my mail annually then copy that information to both CD and my hard drive. If something happens to my hardrive I still have the information. Similarly, as a project comes to an end, we archive all mail relating to that project and keep it with the hard-copy file. This is particularly useful if you need to follow up on something and the person who conducted the project isnt available.

cheers

Reply | Quote

Thanks Karen, but why is archive.pst any more portable than outlook.pst, other than size?

kdoc

Reply | Quote

You can rename your archive.pst files. In your case you might have one called science. In mine, I archive all mail related to specific projects when they are no longer relevant. I can still load them if I need to. I also archive all my mail annually… So my folder list looks like
-Personal folders
-2004
-2003
-2002 etc

Reply | Quote