Outlook 2007 - So slow I think I might lose my job !!

I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.

I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day, gigs of
memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook 2007 through most
of the company, and things seemed fine at first. However, the rage of my
users has been growing. I really *really* dont want to go back to 2003,
but our users have large mailboxes, rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that are
over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003 had NO problems with this, it worked fine.
Outlook 2007 is a disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails
results in 10 second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching folders
you can go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.

I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it certainly
doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode. Flipping through email
should not result in any network traffic (especially read email). There is
just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs of mail,
and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop up, over 7 GB its
terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this point.

The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The machines are
Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most less than 1 year old.

Office is SP1

Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the server is
idle most of the day.
What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important mail?

I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
Exclude folders from being cached via the Send/Receive settings and/or set
Sync Filters on the folders. Do this to a point that the ost-file drops to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Ryan M" wrote in message
...
I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.

I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day, gigs of
memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook 2007 through most
of the company, and things seemed fine at first. However, the rage of my
users has been growing. I really *really* dont want to go back to 2003,
but our users have large mailboxes, rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that are
over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003 had NO problems with this, it worked fine.
Outlook 2007 is a disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails
results in 10 second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching folders
you can go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.

I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it certainly
doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode. Flipping through
email
should not result in any network traffic (especially read email). There
is
just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs of mail,
and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop up, over 7 GB its
terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this point.

The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The machines are
Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most less than 1 year old.

Office is SP1

Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the server is
idle most of the day.
What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important mail?

I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

I have disabled indexing, pretty much everything I can find, plugins, etc.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?

That isn't my job to determine this, besides the answer I will get is "It
worked great in 2003".

Do this to a point that the ost-file drops to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

Are you serious? What century is MS living in? 1-2 GB? WHY SHOULD IT
MATTER? It worked before the office team BROKE IT. Yeah, I am going to go
to my bosses and say, MS recommends only having 2 GB of email. Does no one
care? Outlook 07 shouldn't worse (especially THIS worse) at handling large
amounts of email, it should be better, far better.

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

These are all personal folders no public caching.

OK, I am sorry for being frustrated, but this is beyond ridiculous. It is
2008, and email is a problem for MS Office? A problem it didnt have in the
previous version? I have literally had people tell me "I have 8 GB on my mac
and it works fine". Why can they figure it out?

AH!!!!

"Roady [MVP]" wrote:

Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
Exclude folders from being cached via the Send/Receive settings and/or set
Sync Filters on the folders. Do this to a point that the ost-file drops to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Ryan M" wrote in message
...
I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.

I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day, gigs of
memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook 2007 through most
of the company, and things seemed fine at first. However, the rage of my
users has been growing. I really *really* dont want to go back to 2003,
but our users have large mailboxes, rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that are
over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003 had NO problems with this, it worked fine.
Outlook 2007 is a disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails
results in 10 second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching folders
you can go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.

I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it certainly
doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode. Flipping through
email
should not result in any network traffic (especially read email). There
is
just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs of mail,
and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop up, over 7 GB its
terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this point.

The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The machines are
Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most less than 1 year old.

Office is SP1

Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the server is
idle most of the day.
What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important mail?

I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

Don't kill the messenger...

You wanted tips to increase performance and I gave you those. Note that you
can have as much mail as you want. I only recommended to cache less than 2GB
to the local system.

FWIW;
Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
That isn't my job to determine this,
Actually, as an admin it is, or at least it is important to know this.
Knowing what is critical system data and what not should be part of your
backup and recovery plan. But that is a different issue entirely so that's
why I noted it as a FWIW.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Ryan M" wrote in message
...
Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time
uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new
options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

I have disabled indexing, pretty much everything I can find, plugins, etc.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?

That isn't my job to determine this, besides the answer I will get is "It
worked great in 2003".

Do this to a point that the ost-file drops to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

Are you serious? What century is MS living in? 1-2 GB? WHY SHOULD IT
MATTER? It worked before the office team BROKE IT. Yeah, I am going to
go
to my bosses and say, MS recommends only having 2 GB of email. Does no
one
care? Outlook 07 shouldn't worse (especially THIS worse) at handling
large
amounts of email, it should be better, far better.

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

These are all personal folders no public caching.

OK, I am sorry for being frustrated, but this is beyond ridiculous. It is
2008, and email is a problem for MS Office? A problem it didnt have in
the
previous version? I have literally had people tell me "I have 8 GB on my
mac
and it works fine". Why can they figure it out?

AH!!!!

"Roady [MVP]" wrote:

Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time
uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new
options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
Exclude folders from being cached via the Send/Receive settings and/or
set
Sync Filters on the folders. Do this to a point that the ost-file drops
to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Ryan M" wrote in message
...
I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.

I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day, gigs
of
memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook 2007 through
most
of the company, and things seemed fine at first. However, the rage of
my
users has been growing. I really *really* dont want to go back to
2003,
but our users have large mailboxes, rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that
are
over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003 had NO problems with this, it worked fine.
Outlook 2007 is a disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails
results in 10 second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching
folders
you can go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.

I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it
certainly
doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode. Flipping through
email
should not result in any network traffic (especially read email).
There
is
just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs of
mail,
and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop up, over 7 GB
its
terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this point.

The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The machines
are
Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most less than 1 year
old.

Office is SP1

Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the server
is
idle most of the day.
What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important mail?

I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

Hello - I'm sorry to do it this way - but I can't seem to get this system to
permit me to send a new thread!!!

All of a sudden, my MS Outlook 2007 says "offline". I don't know why, or
how to change it. Also, now my e-mails are not "sent" unless I hit the
"send/receive" button before exiting Outlook.

ANY help you can provide would be so helpful.
Thanks.

"Roady [MVP]" wrote:

Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same time uses
the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and other new options.
In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a performance issue when you
have a large ost-file.

Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
Exclude folders from being cached via the Send/Receive settings and/or set
Sync Filters on the folders. Do this to a point that the ost-file drops to
below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).

If your users are only on the local network and are not remote workers I
would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and other user's
folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders they work in, in
their own mailbox. Then you can have the main benefit of reducing network
and server resources required while your users still have optimal
performance.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Ryan M" wrote in message
...
I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.

I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day, gigs of
memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook 2007 through most
of the company, and things seemed fine at first. However, the rage of my
users has been growing. I really *really* dont want to go back to 2003,
but our users have large mailboxes, rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that are
over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003 had NO problems with this, it worked fine.
Outlook 2007 is a disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails
results in 10 second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching folders
you can go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.

I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it certainly
doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode. Flipping through
email
should not result in any network traffic (especially read email). There
is
just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs of mail,
and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop up, over 7 GB its
terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this point.

The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The machines are
Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most less than 1 year old.

Office is SP1

Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the server is
idle most of the day.
What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important mail?

I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

File-Work Offline. Is it checked? If yes, uncheck it.

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Rita1107 asked:

| Hello - I'm sorry to do it this way - but I can't seem to get this
| system to permit me to send a new thread!!!
|
| All of a sudden, my MS Outlook 2007 says "offline". I don't know
| why, or how to change it. Also, now my e-mails are not "sent" unless
| I hit the "send/receive" button before exiting Outlook.
|
| ANY help you can provide would be so helpful.
| Thanks.
|
| "Roady [MVP]" wrote:
|
|| Outlook 2007 can sync a lot more to the ost-file and at the same
|| time uses the ost-file a lot more intensive because of indexing and
|| other new options. In that sense you're hit twice as hard with a
|| performance issue when you have a large ost-file.
||
|| Do your users really need to have those 10GB available offline?
|| Exclude folders from being cached via the Send/Receive settings
|| and/or set Sync Filters on the folders. Do this to a point that the
|| ost-file drops to below 2GB (or even better; below 1GB).
||
|| If your users are only on the local network and are not remote
|| workers I would recommend to disable caching of Public Folders and
|| other user's folders. Only have them enable it for the main folders
|| they work in, in their own mailbox. Then you can have the main
|| benefit of reducing network and server resources required while your
|| users still have optimal performance.
||
|| --
|| Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
|| Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
|| http://www.howto-outlook.com/
|| Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
||
|| http://www.msoutlook.info/
|| Real World Questions, Real World Answers
||
|| -----
||
|| "Ryan M" wrote in message
|| ...
||| I am about to give up. I do not know what to do.
|||
||| I have a 100 user exchange 2003 server. CPU idle most of the day,
||| gigs of memory free, been running for years. Updated to Outlook
||| 2007 through most of the company, and things seemed fine at first.
||| However, the rage of my users has been growing. I really *really*
||| dont want to go back to 2003, but our users have large mailboxes,
||| rougthly 5 GB+. We have some that are over 10 GBs. Outlook 2003
||| had NO problems with this, it worked fine. Outlook 2007 is a
||| disaster, terribly slow, just clicking between emails results in 10
||| second waits, typing randomly delayed and switching folders you can
||| go get a cup of coffee and come back in time for your mail.
|||
||| I have been trying to figure out what could be the problem, it
||| certainly doesnt seem server related, it runs in Cached mode.
||| Flipping through email
||| should not result in any network traffic (especially read email).
||| There is
||| just lag, constant lag for half of my users. I only have 2.7 GBs
||| of mail, and I have no issues. After 5 GB though, problems crop
||| up, over 7 GB its terrible, around 10, just use web mail at this
||| point.
|||
||| The machines these are on are either Vista (SP1) or XP. The
||| machines are Dell Optiplex systems, 2 GB Ram, fast drives, most
||| less than 1 year old.
|||
||| Office is SP1
|||
||| Would upgrading to Exchange 2007 help? I do not think so as the
||| server is idle most of the day.
||| What can I do? Is my answer just delete 8 gigs of your important
||| mail?
|||
||| I see countless articles about this on the web, but no fix, why?

I agree with the parent. I get the same questions he gets. It worked in
2003, why is 2007 slower. Its great that you know how to go in and disable
all the plugins and rename all the files. But honestly the end user
shouldn't have to do this. Outlook 2007 **should** work better not worse.
Thats the bottom line. Shouldn't have to change a thing. They should have
as big inbox as they want. Of course Microsoft really doesn't care about the
end user as much as their fat pocket books. It is a shame that they can't
code better in 2007 than in 2003. The problem isn't the end user its the
program. Anyone explain why 2007 is slower than 2003 when we have faster
hardware. We have better technology, but seems like office 2007 missed the
ride.