Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
From: VanguardLH on 7 May 2010 08:06
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.
From: Gordon on 10 May 2010 02:57

"VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:hs7olb$8bj$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> 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..

From: Prof Wonmug on 10 May 2010 14:53
On Sun, 9 May 2010 12:36:43 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
<what(a)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? :-)
From: Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] on 11 May 2010 02:05
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(a)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? :-)


From: Prof Wonmug on 11 May 2010 12:54
On Mon, 10 May 2010 23:05:08 -0700, "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
<what(a)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?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Faxing over the network
Next: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities