 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Problem with outlook
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:53 AM I run W98SE and Microsnot Office 2000. All has been reasonably well for some time - but on Friday the system fell over (sort of the way Wndows does, nothing different about it), and then after a couple of re-boots announced that Windows had found and fixed an error (that was unusual). Then I got the "bits of file that might not be doing anything" warning running scandisk after re-booting again. Since then if I try to delete any messages in Outlook, or to pick up mail, Outlook hangs and brings the system down with it. As far as I have tried, every other program is running OK (well, about average for a Windows system).. Running "repair" from the Office disk set also crashes the system. Unless anyone has some bright ideas this is starting to look like time to check my backed up data files and format C, and alas I think my "Ghost" file is corrupt so it will all have to be done the long way round. I am open to sensible suggestions before I get cracking (in maybe about an hour) in order to have a good office system for Monday morning. Is there a theoretical maximum size for the main .pst file? Mine is very very big (about twice too big to go on a CD-R for backup) because I put all my old emails into indexed folders as an electronic filing system which also holds the incoming and outgoing documents. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Jul 06 - 10:15 AM Have you tried simply reinstalling Outlook? Put it in the same palce (usually default) and it should clean up those files you weren't able to repair. That might help. When something like this happens I do some housecleaning. Get rid of the temp files, defrag, clear out the junk and tidy up. Run the usual programs that search for spyware and bots and such. (Spybot search and destry, Spyware Blaster, AdAware). I just installed a new version of Norton Security that says it isn't compatible with Spybot--so I'm (temporarily?) without it. I prefer some of the other email programs. Mozilla Thunderbird and Eudora are very good. Pegasus is a little ponderous, but very powerful. You download and install one of those (they have free sponsored versions) and set them up to receive your email. Dump Outlook and you'll probably be happier. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Susan of DT Date: 02 Jul 06 - 11:00 AM You can also try a restore to a few days before the problem. Is Outlook the only program being weird? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:08 PM You may well already know about this, but in case not: If you need to read your emails or send anything out, in a pinch you can access them online from a good mail website that I use as a homepage. It reads your messages right from the server, so they will still be on there when you do download them into your computer. You can also send and forward and cc. back to yourself any of your own correspondence, and send/receive attachments. All you need is your email address and your server password. The only thing to be aware of, though, is that if you delete something it will stay deleted, whereas if you merely read a message then close it again, it will land in your Inbox when you next download from your private programme. Also there are no filing facilities so you would have to leave everything in the main box. Not sure if they have any sort of anti-virus software running, so the usual cautions apply. Mail2Web has bailed me out of trouble a few times when MY Outlook was acting up. (I second Stilly's recommendation of Thunderbird.) http://www.mail2web.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:10 PM PS: It doesn't work for Yahoo mail, who insist on having Their Own little playground. Probably not Hotmail either, though I never tried it. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:37 PM I have to have Outlook in order to be able to read my .pst file(s), and I have to be able to read my .pst files because they contain all my old POP3 email. I have tried Thunderbird in the past and installed Mozilla for other people - but they do not integrate with rest of the Office suite so well. If I could live with no access to old emails I might be able to use a different POP3 system, but I can't. As far as I know (maybe I am wrong, in which case I would love to know) there is nothing else that will let me get at and read old .pst files. While stuff is on the server at either relevant ISP, F2S or Btinternet, I can read it in the inbox there - but to date Outlook has been set to delete messages off the server when taking them down to ist own inbox. I run 98SE (as I specified) so restore is not available - althought here used to be, and again if anyone can tell me what happened to it I would be grateful, a utility that did enable you to do restores and rollbacks on 98SE and other non-restore Windoze OSs. But haven't got it so I can't do that. Yes, also as stated, so far it is only Outlook that is being a problem. Actually that's not quite true, defrag stopped running a while back and alleges there is not enough memory. I have several partitions spread over two drives as follows: - Partition Size(gig) Free space Comment C 5.41g 2.31g Operating system D 149g 143g General Data E 5.39g 4.29g Ghost file F 25.1g 19.5g Specific Data G 25.1g 14.8g Specific (backups) I will give it a go to reinstate Office to its original state (rather than try to "repair" which as I said will not run and crashes the system) and then I could try uninstallng the whole of Office and reinstalling all its bits - I will report back on that. I could try the usual housecleaning, but I was reasonably up to date with it. More later. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Nick Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:41 PM I think that 2gb is the maximum size for a pst file - round about that amount thigs go decidedly wrong - I seem to remember something very similar when I had 98. I also think that once it has reached that size there is very little you can do to make it smaller - even deleting stuff out of it maintains its size. If you rename the pst file and start again you may be ok and I think there is another tool (apart from the windows one) that may help you repair it. Sorry not to be more specific but it's a few years ago since I came across this There is an article here that might help |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie Date: 02 Jul 06 - 01:26 PM Thanks Nick I will try the knowledgebase So far AdAware crashes Spybot crashes Creating extra spare backup of all datefiles crashes (should be unnecessary) Does anyone know a decent freeware defragger that works with 98SE? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie Date: 02 Jul 06 - 01:36 PM PSTsize will not run (maybe does not like 98SE), but the pst in question is 1,185,728KB, so it would seem not to be pst size causing the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Jul 06 - 03:20 PM Sounds like it is time to upgrade your OS. I hope you don't consider that suggestion insensible, but one reason people make the move to upgrade is when the old OS isn't up to the job. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Mike Date: 02 Jul 06 - 04:27 PM I have another problem with Outlook, windows used to remember my password but now it doesn't...and neither do I! Any suggestions how I can find my password or override it with a new one? (Win 98se)...thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie Date: 02 Jul 06 - 06:57 PM We are gaining! Not sure about the dialup yet but as you can see some functionality is back. No, XP is NOT going on my computer. I should volunteer to have all that spyware? Immediate aim is a non-corruptible Ghost storage. When I have used Ghost successfully I could do a format C and be back up within 15 minutes. Long term aim is to re-cycle some of the bits lying about and make a Linux machine running Open Office (or something with less bloatware), and probably Opera. Which brings me back, does anyone know of a freeware program that will let you read the individual messages in a .pst file? And a decent freeware defragger? Both for W98SE? Back off to install Office and some other bits.... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Richard Bridge with no cookie Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:39 PM Outlook is back - but I am going to have to move the default location of the .pst file and the archive.pst file... (haven't tested accessing the old .pst file yet...) But maybe not tonight.... And create a new .gho file And get a 2-layer dvd writer to put said .gho file on. And relocate "My Documents". And re-install a whole load of fripperies. What is the best free alternative to Winzip? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:39 PM Richard I don't use Outlook simply because it insists on giving me "features" I don't need; but I think the backup is the same as for Outlook Express. You should run a "Compact Folders" on the email, close Outlook, and then use Windows Explorer to copy the whole email folder to a safe place. After you've done that you can delete half your Outlook mail messages, compact folders, and copy that half of the messages elsewhere. Import the original email folder (all the messages) and delete the other half of the messages, compact folders and copy the second "half of messages" folder somewhere. The two (or more) smaller email folders should fit on CD for backup. Theoretically, you can move just individual subfolders within the email folder for backup; but importing from a backup of this kind is much less reliable than if you save an entire email folder, since a partial (folders) backup is likely to miss the "index" folder that's needed for clean re-import. Note that when your re-import the two separate backup email folders, a message that appears in both folders will appear twice in your newly imported message folder. Messages are identified only by a "record number" so two messages can have identical "names" without overwriting. Outlook may have the same feature as OE that allows a "File - Save As" and puts an individual message into a separate .eml file. The .eml file will include all the attachments, etc. Saved this way, you can double-click an individual message to open it in OE, and presumedly in Outlook if that's your preferred email program. Since these are not in "database" format, all your individual files will add up to a lot more disk space than the original database, but the individual files - once you've made them - may be handier for recalling "old stuff." (??) Observation: Re "all that spyware" in WinXP. WinXP has lots of patches for vulnerabilities, but with the patches installed it's much more resistant to spyware/viruses/malware than any other Windows OS. Win98 just has a lot of holes and no patches for them. WinXP does require, for full support, that you have a legal copy of the program, and they're making a pretty big deal about checking whether you do. If you do have a legal copy, it's no real hassle. If you don't, they'll still give you better protection from malware than you have with Win98. Your current problem probably is the result of malware that's gotten on your machine. That's just a guess, but your symptoms are not something known to happen from other causes that have been common recently. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:49 PM Guest Mike The password you use to log on to your email is a matter between you and the email service. Many services have a "Forgot your Password?" button at the login page that you may be able to use to have them send you a new password, and/or they may show a contact phone number on the home page for the service. Unless you wrote it down somewhere, the service provider is the only one who can give it to you. If the password is actually anywhere "on your machine," other than where you wrote it, it will be encrypted so you can't recover it from there. (If you find it and can read it you need a different service.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Richard Bridge Date: 02 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM Thanks John, I may try that compaction routine after restoring the old .pst file (I have found out how to swithc .pst files, if I can remember it) I only run clean software, but I object to being spied upon - by Microsnot or anyone else, and do run a full antivirus (not mcAfee or Norton, both are complete crap) with a firewall, and a firewall on my router, and Spybot and Ad-Aware. I ain't bullet-proof, but I am reasonably secure thanks. I think the fault was Windoze. I really would like a whole set of programs that were not full of unneeded features (EG CV formats that only the illiterate would use) - but enabled you readily to do what you need to do: like the exact opposite of the evil empire's stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: harpmaker Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:05 PM May I take the liberty of recomending a very good friend of mine Flamenco Ted, He works in a multi million pound leasure complex and has access to all the latest kit. And, knows all the tricks. He is very helpfull, so you could try giving him a PM with (all) your problem(s). Iam shure he would love to help you mudcaters. OR/ PM 'Gedpipes' who's a scientist. For my part, 'spybot' works best when ive just weeded the garden. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:16 PM SRS - (from 'way back at the top) The author of the Spybot S&D program has some comment on the Norton "incompatibility" at Safer-Networking News. There does not appear to be a real incompatibility, but you'll want to read what he has to say. (Scroll down to the second article. I believe there are some "earlier episodes" further down in the news file.) Incidentally, for those wondering if the warning about "Cool Web Search" that continues to pop up here is still a problem, the "history log" for Spybot indicates they are now identifying it as CoolWWW (the filename now being used by the malware) and have made 108 separate changes to Spybot identifications to keep up with new and current versions of this malware, since December 2005. This particular malware is still around and is getting progressively nastier. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Norval Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:38 PM If you are still looking for a better defragger, Windows ME defrag is said to have been improved over Win98 defrag. It runs faster and is compatible with Win98. I use it on this Win98se system and am happy with it's performance. The procedure to install it is very simple: 1. Rename defrag.exe to defrag.old (it's in \windows) 2. Download ME version of defrag.exe and copy to \windows Here is a blurb from the internet. http://www.duxcw.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/342.html Use the Windows ME Defrag Utility on Windows 98 Systems for Quicker Defragmentation May-27-02 "Some users report a significant reduction in the time it takes to defrag a drive with the substitution of the Windows ME defrag.exe. The algorithum used in the ME version, allows for defragging without ending all running tasks. Naturally, your results may vary." http://www.the-old-sea-dog.net/defrag.html The Windows 98 Defrag program is very slow especially in the first few lines of the process. Windows ME introduced a much faster defrag program and this is compatible with Windows 98. Download is available from this site. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:24 PM I still have a free trial version of 'Diskeeper Lite' (www.diskeeper.com) - it does not pack the free space, but only packs the fragmented files - the paid version is intended to run in the background (I'm using 98SE) defragging constantly. If you run it manually - you have to do 'the vulcan nerve pinch' to kill it out of your background task list once you cease defragging - it hangs around anyway and slows the machine down if you don't kill it. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Jul 06 - 10:42 PM Richard, You run Outlook as your email but you don't want XP as your operating system? We're the opposite--I had it with ME and those earlier systems. But I never used Outlook until one day when I was short a resident email program to test out my G-mail and I set it up just to try it. I'm probably going to set up Eudora to work two addresses instead of leaving Outlook in use. There are several Google ads right now addressing Outlook problems. And thanks John, for the link. I'll go read up on Spybot. I was planning to put it back in again, but hadn't done any poking around for information about that incompatibility yet. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 10:57 PM I'm a committed Eudora user. Tried Pegasus, but went back to Eudora. Each message folder is in 2 separate files - one content and one index. Outlook with its 'mungle it all together' approach always made me suspicious - too much past experience with things going wrong and causing too many unrecoverable side effects. I have tried the ME Defrag - it definitely runs MUCH faster. I DO have an APPLOG directory (WIN98SE) - I have set up a batch file that I run on demand - it wipes there and all known places where *.TMP files breed. I have some apps that seem to have an internal script that says "Fido, piss on the desktop first, even though there is not explicitly in the PATH", and then NEVER clean up... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jul 06 - 03:05 AM When you upgrade to Linux, you shouldn't need to worry about defrag. Some seem to say you never under any circumstances need to but I would guess that is stretching things to far but there does seem to be a general concensus that with most file systems in use on Unix/Linux, it is far less of an issue than with Windows file systems. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Jul 06 - 03:20 AM Cookie reset, I am me again. Still a few things to tinker with, and one of them will be to figure out how to extract email addresses from the old pst as I think it is time to keep the old one as an archive and slim Outlook down. Does anyone know of anything that will enable me to read a pst file other than Outlook itself, or to export a large pile of addresses from OUtlook (ie I'd have to address teh old .pst and then send a pile of addresses somewhere and tehn change pst files and import them into the new one, I suppose) I may try that defrag idea. In fact while I have a virgin system I'll see if the W98 defrag runs OK (and create a Gho file) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Jul 06 - 07:57 AM Hmm defrag will not run on the big drive - says I have not enough memory which seems odd as I have 512k (98SE does not readily handle more than that, I am told) and all other programs shut. Time to try that other defrag. It occurs to me I have a lot of pestering updates to run before making the .gho file... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jul 06 - 08:24 AM "defrag will not run on the big drive" It probably can't handle the number of sectors... it may exceed the old 'limits'... "(defrag) it is far less of an issue than with Windows file systems" Well FAT style file systems seemed to mostly work pretty well if the whole file is consecutive - that's the way the file system was 'designed', if that is not insulting the word 'design' (is a 'kludge' a 'design'?)... they also work reasonably if the size is not too big. UNIX based file systems work on another concept, in which consecutive sectors of the file logically have no physical relationship with needing adjacent physical sectors - I'm not a total expert with 'Linux' file systems, but if they hold to the UNIX file system 'design' that would be the case. UFS also were intended to span a file system across several pieces of HW - thus 'mount points'. FAT grew out of DOS which grew up on 'kludged' HW & SW with very humble origins, and like Topsy, 'just grew'. It was intended originally to cope with small size disks and a single 'user' running a single 'process' at a time from a single executable file and a couple of data files that were more or less emulations of 'tape drives' - gradually it coped (more or less well) with multiple overlay program segments and multiple open files, even ISAM. UFS grew out of another world, in which 'a hard disk' was much more than just a simple piece of HW with a spinning disk - there were often special SW algorithms ('elevator' style) in the disk drivers which automatically optimised the access to the relevant disk sectors and sorted the data flow to match up with the head movements. They were also intended from the beginning to cope with multiple simultaneous processes and users and files. They were usually small 'computers' in themselves, running their own dedicated 'operating system' to handle file accesses - I actually have the text code assembly printout somewhere for one such early 'disk operating system' which ran in the 'disk drive' that was implemented on an early "PC" - anyone guess what? ;-) (that'll bring 'em out of the woodwork!) Now as to running a SW UFS on a FAT based piece of HW... !!! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 03 Jul 06 - 08:30 AM Foolestroupe, 'Linux' file systems include EXT2, EXT3 and ReiserFS. I don't know if any of those are familiar to you UNIX wise. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jul 06 - 09:32 AM John, I needed to regurgitate the basic Unix desugn for exams - have not kept up with those you mention - had no real need at the time they first emerged. The original UFS concept was built on a 'tree structure' which had 'i-blocks' (these COULD be stored consectively - not really a FAT, but similar, but with different data therein) and 'data blocks' of varying chunks - this allowed small files to occupy a very small space, and larger ones to have bigger chunks assigned. There was no need to have these data chunks adjacent, especially since this was all normally handled by the 'DOS' out on the drive I referred to above. Indeed, there are many similar concepts involved in handling the 'Virtual RAM' in main memory... creating, allotting, linking, disposing... But each file system design works well only for certain patterns of access... I suppose I should use my spare time to start tracking down the basics of these new Linux FSes... hmmm, there is a start with Wiki, I see... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Jul 06 - 09:35 AM Ah-hah - number of sectors - so if I can get partition magic running again I could partition the big drive and be able to defrag maybe (not that it has much on it yet). Does anyone have an idea how big is too big? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jul 06 - 09:51 AM I think from memory you will find that Partition Magic has all the 'magic numbers' built in and will only let you make a choice from a selection of appropriate sized partitions depending on the sector size you choose. I used this concept to pack a large number of special partitions onto my 2 Gb drive on the old box - 'favorites' were very small files, so that partition had a minimum sector size, etc. I can't remember the magic numbers off hand, perhaps someone else can, if you want to plan on paper first. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:24 AM Richard, you need to be careful with the partitions--how many of them are going to be bootable? (Are you doing a single platform? Then as long as one can reach the right area you're fine. But don't make that first one too big if you want a second operating system to work in there. Partition Magic will spell it out for you.) I think this is important to what you are doing: the following is a statement in the instructions for the Seagate 300gig drive I put in the kids' computer last week. I'm sure they have the drivers to run a large partition, but I didn't want to fool with the research so for now they're operating on one 137gig partition. Also, what type of hard drive did you have and did you replace it with? The following is a SATA drive (Serial ATA).
Most OEM motherboards that support Serial ATA provide disc-device drivers that are optimized for that system. These drivers should support capacities higher than 137 Gbytes. See your system documentation for specifics and to check for driver updates. You need to do two things: look up your particular computer make and model and see what the specs are. They'll tell you the largest drive you can install in that system. And you need to find out what barriers exist. And if you can correct them with new cards or upgraded software. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:37 AM Hi SRS, there is an 80G drive (the original, with 4 partitions, as above) and another 160G. The 160G was going to be for general data, and was installed from blank (FDISK, FAT32, ETC). I half thought of music recording or whatever, but I never really got around to that so I used it to back up the entire hard drives of some old computers still on the same network and it is largely empty, and working absolutely fine except that I can't defrag it.. I do not at present intend to make any new bootable partitions. When I go Linux it will be on a separate machine. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Jul 06 - 09:29 PM Richard B My recollection was that Win98SE is not really limited to 512MB RAM, but that using excessive amounts of RAM could slow it down. When Win98SE boots, it tries to load "as much as possible" into RAM. If it needs more stuff loaded, it makes "virtual RAM" on the hard drive. Since the processor can only use what's in RAM, there can be lots of swapping between RAM and Virtual. Since the OS also has to keep track of where all the loaded stuff is, it creates a "paging file" in RAM that's used to access what's in RAM and in Virtual memory. Since Win98 always keeps available RAM nearly filled, transactions to move RAM-stuff to Virtual and retrieve from Virtual to RAM requires a lot of "bookwork," and with large amounts of RAM installed, the paging file simply gets bigger than the loaded files and the machine bogs down. Again relying on ancient memories, 512MB was the recommended "optimum" for most users, but for those using some programs that require more memory (CADD and some page layout publishing programs) I believe that 1MB was a "recommended maximum." That may have depended on having some SP packages that came out after the original Win98SE issue(?). Adding more than 1MB RAM could actually slow the machine down. Adding more free space on the hard drive, for Virtual memory is always a benefit, but a built-in limit prevents using more than a percentage (10%?) of available hard drive free space for Virtual memory. Some Windows versions have allowed you to change the percentage, but I don't recall whether Win98 was one of them. Microsoft removed most Win98 Knowledge Base articles when the termination of support was first announced. Some of them have crept back in, but finding the old ones remains rather difficult. The KB article number I have on file that I think dealt with RAM issues in Win98 doesn't come up. It may be back under a different name, but would be hard to find even if it's there. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Jul 06 - 09:59 PM Richard B - If your 160GB hard drive is fairly new, you may be able to download a "setup and diagnostics" program from the drive manufacturer's website that will do a much better job of nearly everything (for setting up, formatting, and usually for mirroring) than is provided in the general purpose stuff in any Windows system. Try looking under "support" or "downloads" at the mfr's site. These programs will generally look at what OS you're using and the drive type, and will only offer appropriate partitions/cluster setups. It's unlikely that one of these will include defrag, and DEFRAG is slow on large FAT32 drives under Win98. Part if the problem is just the sheer size of newer drives, but with FAT32 to "FAT" sections can have a variable size. The "dwell" at the start of a defrag is because these tables have to be sorted out, and in Win98 they must be at the beginning of the drive. Once that sorting is done, the defrag proceeds into the rest of the drive, but everytime it moves a file in a way that causes a change in the size of the FAT, it has to start over, and has to redo all of the drive up to where the change happened - before it can start on any new stuff higher up on the drive. (If you're mathematically inclined, think about sums over all n of 2n series - for n= number of files on your drive.) The WinME defragger appears to leave a few clusters open above the FAT sections, so that complete "re-do from scratch" cycles are reduced, but they're not eliminated. The FAT32 tables can contain lots of information, some of which is optional when folders are created, and the defrag usually attempts to add the missing optionals, so the tables change size frequently during a defrag. The problem pretty much goes away with the NTFS format, but of course Win98 can't use them. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 06 - 04:48 AM Thanks John, I'll see if I can identify the drive - may have to take the machine to pieces to do that! But what does not seem to be available it information on how large a drive (or partition) I can defrag in W98SE - nor does anyone (it seems) know a freeware defragger that is good. There used to be quite a good paid for one in Norton Tools, but the only Norton Tools I have is for W95! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:25 AM Norton has pretty much quit pushing Norton Tools, since many of the old ones duplicate utilities built into WinXP so there's not as much market for them, and several of the old ones simply don't work all that well with newer Win versions (even with Win2K and WinME). If you can install a partition, you should be able to defrag it with the built in Windows defrag. The only question really is whether you'll be around long enough to see it finish. With Win98SE, I think my record longest was about 18 hours for a defrag on a 2GB partition. It doesn't usually take that long, but especially a "first time" cleanup may look like it's not doing anything for a very long time. Note that for your large drive (160GB) you should NEVER attempt to do a "Low Level Format." Consult any hard drive mfr's website for info on this. You almost never can recover the full capacity of any recently made HD (any over about 8GB) once you've attempted a low level (FDISK FORMAT). You can use FDISK to set partitions, and then exit FDISK and use the FORMAT command to format each partition; but again, I'd recommend getting an HD maker's setup and diagnostics program, or perhaps use a recent Partition Magic. If you look in hardware manager (Device Manager? I forget which Win98 calls it), it may tell you a mfr's name, from the PnP ID it read from the drive, although often it's just by a generic drive type. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM An old question, probably no longer of interest, asked how large the .pst file could be. The .pst file has a different format and folder size limit in Outlook 2003 (KB No 830336) describes the limit on file size for the .pst file. It implies that the same 2GB limit is applicable to all Outlook versions prior to Outlook 2003. How to configure the size limit for both (.pst) and (.ost) files in Outlook 2003 (KB No 832925). Default size for the .pst file for pre-Outlook 2003 versions appears to be at 1.93 GB (only nominally 2 GB). Just filling in blanks.... John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:07 AM Hey, John, a quick question (I don't want to start a new thread and you've already started down this path here). I reattached the old hard drive in the kids' computer but find no way to explore the contents. The new drive is working fine and we've gradually gotten all of the parts installed (last to enter the system was the audio card driver, downloaded from Dell). I don't have any drivers to the old drive to the computer's attention. Any suggestions? I don't want to format it, I want to retrieve data from it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:16 PM So SRS, do mean by "I don't want to format it, I want to retrieve data from it." that the drive is being recognised but Windows thinks it need's formatting? That was were you were with that disk before wasn't it? If Windows is not recognising it at all, start with the BIOS. You might be able to see if that thinks it's there just by reading the messages as the system starts up. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jul 06 - 02:19 PM SRS - As Jon said, check the BIOS settings. The "magic key" varies somewhat with different makers, but I believe F2 during boot is pretty standard(?). It's pretty rare for PnP not to automatically recognize a hard drive unless there's a physical problem with the drive. With the problems you've had, it's possible that the drive has failed "mechanically." As suggested above, you may be able to download a setup/diagnostics program from the drive mfr's website that may help if you can't get to it in BIOS. These programs generally include "recognition" routines to find drives that don't pop up automatically, and usually - unlike PnP that expects only working drives - they can find one that's not fully setup and running. Note that the diagnostics in most of these programs include some "destructive tests" that can wipe out the data on a drive, so you do need to read the instructions. I've not attempted to use the program from one manufacturer to read another maker's drives; but in theory that should be permissible if you can't find the perfect fit. Look at "support" or "downloads" at the HD websites. While it may not be quite time for the drastic measures, this Horror Story may be of interest?????? John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Jul 06 - 02:42 PM "but I believe F2 during boot is pretty standard" It's F2 on my Dell laptop. The "del" key is the other common one. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Jul 06 - 03:05 PM Hmm... seem to be rather more than I knew of... this page gives some details. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jul 06 - 03:30 PM Jon - It's another case where everybody wants them all the same, but nobody's ever been able agree on the same same. The key to get into BIOS setup has to be a BIOS function since at the point where you need it the BIOS is the only thing running. Some BIOS apparently have more than one way you can do it, but they usually only tell you one way - even if there are alternates. Microsoft appears, in some of their KB articles, to believe that F2 always works, but I don't think that's quite true. Normal setup is to have the BIOS flash the makers name and version number at the beginning, and usually the key (or key combination) to enter setup will flash at the same time. Most of them can be setup to NOT flash, and if you set up that way you have to figure out the key combination to make it tell you (flash) which key combination gets you into setup. Usually there's also a different key or key combination to tell the BIOS to display the Boot steps without going to setup. User manuals sometimes are worth saving... John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Jul 06 - 03:38 PM I haven't got a (desktop) PC (currently between Pip and I, 2 came ready built and 2 are ones I've built/upgraded over time) here with a user manual as such but I have got the motherboard manuals, plus a couple from older builds... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 06 - 07:44 PM Normally I have found you just dangle the old drive on a spare connector from the harness, either the one to the new hard drive, or any of the optical drives and Robert is your parent's brother. You may need to set the jumper on the old drive to "slave". |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jul 06 - 07:47 PM PS, I am back up again, but so far have not yet been able to discover how I used to be able to access different pst files, other than saving the one i'm using, making a copy of the one I'm not, and putting the old one where the new one used to be.... It would really be handy if there was a utility you could use to read pst files. There are plenty for dbx files. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Jul 06 - 10:30 PM I don't find anything on readers for .pst files, but OL2002: How to Work with Personal Folders Files may be of some help. It does indicate that you can, from within Outlook, copy .pst files/folders elsewhere on the drive for storage, and can open them in Outlook from any location.(?) A "glitch" perhaps worth noting is I've seen several articles that say that (for OL2002 and later at least) you cannot import .pst (and some other) files directly to Outlook from a CD backup. Outlook cannot open files with "Read Only" attribute set and files on a CD are inherently read only. You have to copy to your hard drive and remove the read only attribute before you can read them in Outlook. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:05 PM slaps hand against forehead Of course. I wasn't thinking. I haven't tried the BIOS (F2 it is--this is a Dell), but as you also note, it probably would have noticed it was there if there wasn't something wrong with the drive. I'll take a look later once the kids are off the machine. We've rounded up the last of the drivers we noticed were missing (I had to download the audio driver and our machine had an upgraded video card that I had to find the driver for--the disks supplied with the computer didn't seem to have that second one. I probably could have found the audio driver but most times it is easier to find it online than it is to poke through a stack of CDs looking at the directories. We have them if we need them.) Rain most of the day today, so they've been inside giving the new drive a good workout. It looks fine at this point. Richard, I have been poking around in my old email files (saved to a CD ages ago) just out of curiosity. I used Pegasus for years, so these are the old directories and files with long strings of email with their file attachments. I'm going to make myself a sub directory in my current Pegasus configuration and move a couple of these old files into it just to see if it can open them. Have you tried that? Make a new directory, put something in it to see how it behaves, then coordinate your transfer to work with that directory. This doesn't have anything to do with compressing files, just moving them. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Jul 06 - 01:05 AM Jon - The motherboard info should tell you what BIOS is there, and there's always the web for details and updates. Stilly - I figured out a long time ago that keeping all the source disks and such on the bookshelf produced long searches when you wanted something. (We have 'way too many books.) I use a "plastic shoebox" for each computer with all the system disks, programs, small documents, etc in a separate box for each computer. Same for each printer, scanner, etc. Now the only problem is too many boxes on the bookshelf. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:31 AM Ah-hah - copied current small pst file to elsewhere, overwrote it at its old location with the large one I had just before starting this thread, and outlook opened with all my old messages - and I have a spare of the intervening messages between then and now. Deleted the last few messages before the crash, and after some thought outlook obliged, and I have since picked up messages successfully. I am going to need to relocate the default location for outlook.pst and archive.pst off the C drive onto the F, and figure out how to slim down the now working outlook.pst so that I can readily retrieve arcived files without doing all this fiddling any time I need to use arcived messages. I also need to reset "rules" so that messages from freecycle go straight to the freecycle folder for later browsing. We are gaining. SRS, did you get into your old hard drive? I once blew one up so thoroughly with a PSU failure that it did absolutely nothing and was wholly inaccessible. That PSU failure also took the motherboard, and processor, but left, for some reason, all the riser cards and optical drives and the floppy! I stll can't find the option in outlook to address a different pst file. I know it's there because I've used it before but the last couple of days it is eluding me! If I could find it then I could as you suggest make a directory with carefully named psts lined up in rows, and prety much flick between them as necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:42 AM Richard - I think the Microsoft KB article I linked indicates that you can copy individual (sub)folders from your OE messages to separate .pst files. You should be able to organize the emails in Outlook into two or three "master folders" and then copy each of the folders separately, each to a different .pst file. Once they're out of the Outlook default location, you can move/copy them anywhere you want to keep them for a backup. Just remember to clear the read-only attribute when you want to bring them back out of backup if you've had them on CDs. An article I think I remember seeing about importing/exporting stuff like address books etc to/from Outlook recommended that anything in a database format should be exported/saved as a "Text File: comma separated values" format (.csv). Outlook's database format is peculiar to it and it can't read the db files from other such programs - and they can't read the .pst; but nearly all db based programs I've run into can import/export the .csv format so it's usually a good format for transferring stuff, and should be good for a backup as well. I don't think you want to use that format for the messages, since I'm not sure how attachments would be handled, but for addy books it should be fine. In principle, you can actually read stuff from a .csv file. Since it's just ASCII text, you can open one in most any text editor. In practice it's pretty hard on the eyes and on the patience to do all the counting commas to see where things start and end and what each thing is, so you'd probably just want to put it back in Outlook to retrieve anything. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Jul 06 - 11:05 AM John, I also have a shoebox for each computer, but despite that, there are still files that somehow just aren't there when you need them. This Dell had the upgraded video card when we bought it and the driver was installed when it arrived, but I couldn't find that driver for reinstallation. I also hadn't installed the sound. (I'll burn a CD with both of these drivers to drop in that box for "just in case.") The computer came with a half-dozen software-laden files of the standard stuff, but they contain labels of only a couple of the contents of each. So when you start trying to guess which disk has the correct driver and then checking directories, you can already be there at Dell online and just download the thing. I did install a fair amount of the computer stuff from those disks, but not all of it apparently fit the upgrades to our hardware. BTW: when the house was burgled in February of 2005 that shoe box next to my computer was taken at the same time. The insurance company paid out more for software than they did for hardware here, because there were some big programs in there. And if I hadn't replaced some of them with academic versions they'd have paid a lot more than they did. I haven't tried the BIOS yet, but I should this morning since both kids are still asleep. :) Alas, I have to work. Maybe later. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Jul 06 - 09:27 PM Okay, setting the BIOS did the trick. The computer said "whoa, this is a messed up drive. . ." and did a check, found some bad sectors, reset everything so it knows it is the F: drive and not the C: drive (as near as I can tell that's what it was doing, anyway). The personal folders are inaccessible. That drive still thinks it is in the computer by itself and it hasn't been logged onto so it isn't letting logged on users into their old accounts. There is, of course, a Regedit file in the old Windows system files and I can find the permissions area but I am hesitant to just muck about, not wanting to make it harder to get in. Should I eliminate those permissions and accounts, would that turn those into normal directories we can access? I can't seem to add additional permissions that take it outside of what it thinks is the computer it was once in charge of, if you get my drift. It doesn't know it is contained within another computer (more or less) that as it happens was given the same name. Confused yet? There's a lot of stuff in the My Documents we want to move over to the new drive, but can't reach. That's what we're aiming toward. We plan to use this older drive for some of the downloads (if they're going to mess up a drive with a hefty download of games or music or whatever, it might as well be the old drive). Any ideas? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:51 PM SRS - WinXP help of course doesn't give much help with respect to what might happen if you delete the old user ident stuff. I'd be reluctant to try that except as a last resort. I assume that you've tried to access while logged on with Administrator privileges. I have encountered a similar problem with LAN connections to "her" machine from mine. The "mapped" drive that used to work well just by having her share a folder sort of went bonkers with some security fixes some months ago, and the only thing I've found is to actually log on to her machine as one of the users of that machine. The "fix" was to re-map the drive using a logon valid on her machine. Your "new machine" should have a "name" that may or may not be the same as your "old machine" name. You may or may not have to use the "machine name" along with the drive/folder name to do the mapping as required. In Windows Explorer, right click on "My Computer" and one of the options should be "Map Network Drive." You normally do not have to have a network set up to map a drive, or a folder, on your own machine to a different "drive letter." You may be able to just enter an F:\My Documents for the folder to be mapped as a new drive on your machine, or may have to use the "\\MachineName\F:\My Documents" format. There should be an option box to "log on as a different user" and if you check the box, you should get a place to enter a username and password. IF the F:\ drive is looking at its own info (assumed if it's blocking you) using the old username and password exactly as you would have typed them in under the old setup may let you access the drive as if it's on another machine and you've supplied the logon for a user on that other machine. NO GUARANTEES here, but it's the only thing I can think of at the moment. You have a "configuration" that apparently Microsoft doesn't think would ever happen(?). If your updates are in order, WinXP may think it should refuse to let you into the old C:\root, so for this to work you'll probably have to go for subfolders. If you provide the logon info for the user who could access a folder, it shouldn't matter if the folder has been shared. IF it works (??) you'll get a Z:\ drive in Windows Explorer that you can copy stuff from to C:\. When you're done with one logon, right click on the mapped drive (usually Z:\ if you take the default) and click Disconnect and that connection should disappear so you can proceed to the next user. As an alternative, you can map several drives at the same time (but I'd be prone to forget which was which). If you can get your data off the F:\ drive, this is probably one case where reformatting F:\ to get a clean start with it as a spare volume probably will be a good idea. Again, I'm speculating about the likelihood that this will work, but this is the procedure I use to access a drive that KNOWS it's not on my machine, and it could work for a drive that's gone berserk and just THINKS it's in a different world. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:34 AM Last things first! When you are done with getting what data you want /can get off, like John, I'd give that disk a complete fresh start, ie format. When you say the folders are inacessable, what do you mean? Is it ntfs permmissions stopping you, you can't find the folders or what? Depending on what the problem is, one thing you could try now you have got it at least in some sort of working order is to disconnect your new drive, revert to your old configuration and see if it will boot up. It could be easier to back up to CD that way if you can. (you could just try to boot on the old one with the new one in place but you might get confused and do something you don't want to). Go back to your new configuaration after. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Jul 06 - 08:54 AM Western Digital Answer at WinXP Installation for SATA HD. Problem: After reinstalling the operating system on the master drive, you receive "access denied" errors when attempting to access files and folders on the secondary (data) hard drive. Cause: All files and folders contained on the secondary (data) hard drive will still have permissions and privileges from the original installation of the operating system. Since the ownership of these files belong to a different user account (on the original installation of the operating system), you may see "access denied" errors when trying to access these files. Resolution: You will need to change the "ownership" of these files to the new user account. Please follow the directions below: For Windows 2000, please follow the directions in Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 268019 to take ownership of the files and folders on the hard drive. For Windows XP, please follow the directions in Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 308421 to take ownership of the files and folders on the hard drive. Accessory information: Western Digital Installation Info general page. Scroll down to external drives. (The "Full Installation" .pdf is the same document for SATAI and SATAII drives.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jul 06 - 05:05 PM Great stuff, guys! I pondered drive mapping today--I've had to do it when new servers were put in place at work and our networked computers had to know where to look for our data, so I know about that but it didn't quite fit. It looks, from the directions in this XP documentation that I was figuring the same thing, but at the regedit point instead of the right click mouse over folder point, which ends up written to the registry anyway. I'll let you know how it goes. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:21 PM We're oh-so close, but still skating around those permissions that aren't granted. I wonder if I just disassemble Windows, will I eventually get to a point where it stops asking? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 06 - 12:58 AM The so-prescient George Formby sang "When I'm cleaning Windows" |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Snuffy Date: 11 Jul 06 - 08:58 AM And Les Barker wrote Re-Installing Windows |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Jul 06 - 08:32 PM It will be a real pleasure to be de-installing Windows. (When the time comes. . .) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:36 PM The trick was, after telling the BIOS to acknowledge that the hard disk was there, to go into uncheck the "Use simple file sharing" box under Advanced Settings in the My Computer -> Tools -> Folder Options -> View area. And then rebooting. We didn't reboot before we tried it last night and it didn't seem to work, so the computer was turned off and we went to bed. This afternoon I heard my 14-year-old son in his "man voice," as his sister calls it, pronouce "Success!!" after he turned on the computer and gave it a try to take over those old files. The files are now all available, and I'll have the kids migrate what they want to the new drive then we'll format the old one. I think there's a setting (there was when you did it in MS DOS ages ago) to identify and flag bad sectors--I imagine the same thing will happen with a modern format using XP, don't you think? It used to feel like such a risky thing with those DOS commands alone. Now the GUIs make it a lot easier. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:51 PM SRS - Theoretically, if you do a full format (not the "Quick" version) the Format should mark any sectors with defects and exclude them. This isn't always 100% though. After you get the drive formatted (and preferably before you start putting stuff on it) in Windows Explorer right click on the drive and click properties. On the Tools tab, you should find an entry "Check for Errors." The "tool" that runs here is roughly equivalent to the old ScanDisk tool that you probably remember from ancient times, and should detect any bad sectors and exclude them from use. Note that since the test has to read each occupied sector, write it back, and then re-read it, or write a test fill and read it back for every sector on the disk, it is not an instant test. Allow for at least twice as long as it took to do the format - although it may be a little quicker than that. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Problem with outlook From: Mr Red Date: 13 Jul 06 - 01:09 PM Sounds like a soft error to me - the repair didn't work and you are chasing a chain of events who's audit has broken. Even a re-install of OS and Office will not repair your HDD. Without reading all the replies I would suggest buying a second hard disk, install it as the C: drive and install Windows SE on that. Then install your Office and if you need all your e-mails and stuff you have the files and the locations in the old and new - all you need is the names that mean anything. I am at work I can't remember the names but FWIW I often save Outlook files to one of my 3 HDD. The recovery is better than trying to dump in csv files and get them back - they always seem to change that way. I will return and peruse the above. |
| Share Thread: |