Windows 95 machines limit message returned in Outlook custom form

How are you retrieving the message?

I create a reference to the public folder, then to the collection of items in the folder. I loop through each item, checking if the subject matches the one I'm looking for. If it does I get the Body of the message.

Remember, this works fine for the small messages - it's just the larger ones(16kb) that are a problem on Windows 95 machines.

Thanks

Are there any takers on this one - its been escalated to MS - who are battling to find a solution..

No comment has been added lately, so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area that this question is:
 - PAQ'd and pts refunded
Please leave any comments here within the
next seven days.

PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER !

Nic;o)

No solution, just a Q.

Remove.

I was just curious or Mohini did get a reply from M$ and/or solved the problem meanwhile.
I also think the fact that the problem has been escalated to M$ can provide others with the information to check/ask M$ :-)

Nic;o)

Yes, but next time I say to a questioner: "You can ask Microsoft. Call them at: BLAHBLAHBLAH".

I mean. We take Microsoft's place this way, except that we do not NEED to solve it...

Why do you write Microsoft as M$ anyway?

How would you want to abbreviate a company with an 85% profit on a product ?

As far as I can see they're a real star in earning huge amounts of $$'s by selling software that's not as good as it should be for that amount of money....
So when I saw someone using M$ iso MS I copied that :-)

Nic;o)

Don't abbreviate. They are called Microsoft and nothing else than that.

Every company earns money. A big company more than a small company. They are world leader in software, what do you expect?

So I take it you are not a Windows user?

Not to get into an argument, but we are professionals. Using abbreviations like Microshit and M$ is not professional behavior. But let's not get into that ;-)

CJ

Hi CJ,

I'm a Microsoft user because it's installed on all PC's I have to work with professionally, not because it's my professional choice.

In the old days I did work with OS/2 when the first Windows 3.xx was just on the market.
Then I could start under OS/2 a Windows session and when a blue screen appeared I just started a new session, saving me the reboot :-)
That's what I mean by solid professional software.
The time I've lost with reinstalling Windows and restarting after a new application is installed can't be measured anymore, not to mention all unexplained dumps by the system.

It's here again the same marketing story as with the video recorders, VHS was technically the worst, Betamax was better and Video2000 (ever heard of it ?) the best.
The sole surviver was technically the worst, but marketed the best...
As long as buyers choose for "marketing quality" iso "technical superiority", I just follow them but will have my own opinion on Microsoft.
As a reference to their product and their company, take a car and car manufacterer.
When the car is showing a malfunction you go back to the garage and it will be fixed for free. When there's structural damage, ten thousands of cars are called back and repaired.
Microsoft offers one or two SR's and after about a year or two they just offer a new suite. So effectively you pay for the old bug's that have been fixed and get new bugs for free.

I won't even mention the new license policy as that's already discussed in parlements and courthouses around the world.

As far as I can see they are not the world leader in "software" but the world leader in "selling software".
For me two entirely different things.
That's why I take the liberty to use M$, indicating they are damned good in "selling software" and I'll wait to see what Bill Gates last "software quality" initiative will deliver us, before I reverse the M$ back into the "MS" they use themselves for an abbreviation in their productnames.
A term as Microshit is indeed not professional, but the M$ is as far as I can see not harming them, as they can see it as a recognition of their "software selling quality" :-)

Nic;o)

Very well chosen reason! Not that I agree but I can live with that :-)

That's the nice thing, different opinions "living" together. Lots of world citizens can take that as a sample !

C U

Nic;o)

As long as you have a good reason! :-)

cya

If anyone is interested - the problem was due to a limitation of 64KB on the Body property of a message. (See email below) This restriction exists only on Windows 95/98 machines. I redesigned that part of the system.
Sorry, for leaving the question open for so long, I had just fixed this in April and then went on leave.
Thanks - Mohini

Glad you solved it! :-) Good information to know and be PAQ'ed!

Can we see the email?

CJ