From: Mike '/m' 


I'm not saying increasing the file size limit is a bad thing.  However,
apparently having the file expand to the point where Outlook has
difficulties *is* a bad thing.

It's the little bugs like that, and like the dotted quad inconsistencies
that show me that Office development is not the attractive place to be at
Microsoft.  Definitely looks like the second string team is writing the
code there.   Who was that MS finance guy who used to hang at
canopus, Bruce something?  He once told me how the new grads coming into
Microsoft didn't want to work on Office, they wanted to work on the cool
stuff.

It's showing.

 /m

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:42:21 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>I would consider removing a 2g limitation to be a significant improvement in
>what I thought was a pretty mature product.
>
>Geo.
>
>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:g4j8k1llolslcjd9goijk86r90c1pgomm2{at}4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:15:47 +0300, "Antti Kurenniemi"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >Outlook prior to the latest 2003 versions had a 2G limit on
the pst file,
>> >and I think even Outlook 2000 would allow it to go crash &
bang -full.
>>
>> Now there's a formula for success.  ;-)
>>
>> It is beginning to become more and more obvious that the good
>> programmers at Microsoft don't want to work on the Office products
>> anymore.  Lots of weird bugs surfacing that really shouldn't have gotten
>> out the door.
>>
>>  /m
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5