outlook 2010 lag
at work there are several people in the admin office that were updated from winXP - office 2007 to win7 - office 2010
Their old pc's were intel duo's with 2gb or 4gb of ram. all of them have 2 or more .pst files that are in their personal network share, and they say they didn't have any performance problems in outlook
they were upgraded to intel i5 processors with 4gb of ram, and they all are saying that outlook 2010 is slower.
so the network is the same, they have 2 or more .pst file - some of which are pretty large but in xp with office 2007 they didn't have any problems. Now with newer better pc's and 2010 outlook they are slower? I tried the connection status thing in outlook and it seems like the connection isn't slow. I also tried the performance monitor but it didn't seem bad either. I even tried disabling indexing out of desperation because i was guessing that outlook might be disk intensive but that didn't help
lastly, i tried running outlook in safe mode - but again, no help there.
I was told that our exchange server is 2003, so i thought maybe that is the problem, but unfortunately, I have no access to it, so I can't run any performance things on it.
Is there some other way to check if the source of the slowness is the exchange server?
Their old pc's were intel duo's with 2gb or 4gb of ram. all of them have 2 or more .pst files that are in their personal network share, and they say they didn't have any performance problems in outlook
they were upgraded to intel i5 processors with 4gb of ram, and they all are saying that outlook 2010 is slower.
so the network is the same, they have 2 or more .pst file - some of which are pretty large but in xp with office 2007 they didn't have any problems. Now with newer better pc's and 2010 outlook they are slower? I tried the connection status thing in outlook and it seems like the connection isn't slow. I also tried the performance monitor but it didn't seem bad either. I even tried disabling indexing out of desperation because i was guessing that outlook might be disk intensive but that didn't help
lastly, i tried running outlook in safe mode - but again, no help there.
I was told that our exchange server is 2003, so i thought maybe that is the problem, but unfortunately, I have no access to it, so I can't run any performance things on it.
Is there some other way to check if the source of the slowness is the exchange server?
ASKER
1) they are actually win7 enterprise and believe it or not, they are 32bit. I happen to have a 64bit 8gb computer that I think I could try.
2) they all have 1 OST and 2 or more pst's. From my research trying to figure this out, I get the impression that people would target the pst's as the problem. But the problem with that is, on the xp machines everything was working fine. However, as I was typing this I realized that I haven't tried the scanpst utility. they are using the pst's that they used to use, but maybe it would be worth a shot.
3) i don't think they had high expectations. When I was upgrading them they didn't seem to indicate anything like that.
2) they all have 1 OST and 2 or more pst's. From my research trying to figure this out, I get the impression that people would target the pst's as the problem. But the problem with that is, on the xp machines everything was working fine. However, as I was typing this I realized that I haven't tried the scanpst utility. they are using the pst's that they used to use, but maybe it would be worth a shot.
3) i don't think they had high expectations. When I was upgrading them they didn't seem to indicate anything like that.
32-bit systems (XP or Windows 7) are slugs and do not permit much memory. Running Outlook 2010 on Windows 7 32-bit will be as slow as running it on XP. This probably explains what you are seeing.
SCANPST will fix a PST file, but if it came working from an XP machine then it should not be damaged.
Using a PST file from Outlook 2007, uninstalling Office 2007, installing Office 2010 should work just fine. I did that on the Windows 7 Pro 64-bit laptop I referenced above. Outlook 2010 was not available when I set up the laptop.
However, you can always try running SCANPST.
... Thinkpads_User
SCANPST will fix a PST file, but if it came working from an XP machine then it should not be damaged.
Using a PST file from Outlook 2007, uninstalling Office 2007, installing Office 2010 should work just fine. I did that on the Windows 7 Pro 64-bit laptop I referenced above. Outlook 2010 was not available when I set up the laptop.
However, you can always try running SCANPST.
... Thinkpads_User
ASKER
I agree that 32bit isn't the way to go any more. I'm not sure why they are so opposed to 64bit. My best guess is because of printer drivers, which I remember was a pain when 64bit was first coming out.
Any more though, I haven't had any problems with 64bit. But I'm the new guy at work, so I don't have much of a say in the matter. Although, I could use this as an example of why we should go to 64bit.
Interesting enough, scanpst did find some errors on the user that I am using as a "test bed". I was surprised because she wasn't having problems before the upgrade. So maybe this is an indication that 64bit will do the trick. My theory is that XP needs less resources, so the errors on the pst weren't noticed. Now that more resources are needed, the errors are more noticeable.
So did fixing the errors make it so that she will run fine, or will she still need a 64bit machine to handle larger resource demands? I'll find out tomorrow.
Any more though, I haven't had any problems with 64bit. But I'm the new guy at work, so I don't have much of a say in the matter. Although, I could use this as an example of why we should go to 64bit.
Interesting enough, scanpst did find some errors on the user that I am using as a "test bed". I was surprised because she wasn't having problems before the upgrade. So maybe this is an indication that 64bit will do the trick. My theory is that XP needs less resources, so the errors on the pst weren't noticed. Now that more resources are needed, the errors are more noticeable.
So did fixing the errors make it so that she will run fine, or will she still need a 64bit machine to handle larger resource demands? I'll find out tomorrow.
So did fixing the errors make it so that she will run fine, or will she still need a 64bit machine to handle larger resource demands?
My experience with PST errors is that they show up the same in XP and Windows 7. You may find a different answer in your case.
Windows 7 requires more resources than XP so that 32-bit Windows 7 will show up slowness as much or more than XP.
I have not used a 32-bit system in about 6 years, and printer drivers have been catching up. I go to the Windows Printer Update in the Devices and Printers dialogue box and do the printer updates there. That catches a number of printers and the more recent printers usually have proper software for new machines.
Please keep us posted. Thanks. ... Thinkpads_User
My experience with PST errors is that they show up the same in XP and Windows 7. You may find a different answer in your case.
Windows 7 requires more resources than XP so that 32-bit Windows 7 will show up slowness as much or more than XP.
I have not used a 32-bit system in about 6 years, and printer drivers have been catching up. I go to the Windows Printer Update in the Devices and Printers dialogue box and do the printer updates there. That catches a number of printers and the more recent printers usually have proper software for new machines.
Please keep us posted. Thanks. ... Thinkpads_User
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I would like to loose the pst files, but the exchange people have set limits on mailbox size.
I have read that pst's shouldn't be on network shares, but it's kind of a rock and a hard place scenario.
If you store the pst locally, you risk loosing them if the computer crashes.
If you keep them on a network share, you shouldn't loose your pst, however, they are not supposed to be on a network share.
I guess I could suggest storing the pst locally, and schedule a task to copy it up to a network share each night.
This will be a hard sell, since I'm sure on the user's mind is why was it working just fine before the upgrade.
I have read that pst's shouldn't be on network shares, but it's kind of a rock and a hard place scenario.
If you store the pst locally, you risk loosing them if the computer crashes.
If you keep them on a network share, you shouldn't loose your pst, however, they are not supposed to be on a network share.
I guess I could suggest storing the pst locally, and schedule a task to copy it up to a network share each night.
This will be a hard sell, since I'm sure on the user's mind is why was it working just fine before the upgrade.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I fixed her pst file over the weekend and this morning had her try the fixed pst file. but that didn't help.
I ran the performance data collection set on her computer and thought there might be networking issues
so i opened my performance monitor, and connected to her computer, but I'm not sure what counters to look at to look for network problems
Any suggestions?
I ran the performance data collection set on her computer and thought there might be networking issues
so i opened my performance monitor, and connected to her computer, but I'm not sure what counters to look at to look for network problems
Any suggestions?
Look in the Network Tab of the Resource Monitor and see what it running. Here is a snapshot from my machine.
... Thinkpads_User
... Thinkpads_User
ASKER
I can't use the resource monitor remotely, but the performance monitor can be run on a remote machine, so I was wanting to use it.
You would have to log into the remote machine to run it and see what it says for that machine.
... Thinkpads_User
... Thinkpads_User
ASKER
but the problem is that this user is in the admin department and is very busy. So I want to monitor the computer without her having to stop what she is doing. So in the performance monitor there is the option to connect to another computer, but not in the resource monitor. That is why I want to use the performance monitor.
ASKER
actually, the performance monitor isn't working either.
I open the perfmon, and connect to her computer, but when i add a counter, the counter shows my computer name instead of her's
I open the perfmon, and connect to her computer, but when i add a counter, the counter shows my computer name instead of her's
ASKER
ok, I got it, I setup a data collection set on her computer and that is working, I'm just not sure what would be the most useful counters to look at.
Yes, I don't know if you can do what you want remotely.
Is there anyone there who can run Resource Monitor on her machine, then minimize it, have her go on working, and then go back and take a snapshot of what is happening.
I think resource monitor wants to run locally in her profile to get meaningful results.
.... Thinkpads_User
Is there anyone there who can run Resource Monitor on her machine, then minimize it, have her go on working, and then go back and take a snapshot of what is happening.
I think resource monitor wants to run locally in her profile to get meaningful results.
.... Thinkpads_User
To you last post, you want to see what processes (by name) are running to somewhat tie back to what I displayed above.
.... Thinkpads_User
.... Thinkpads_User
ASKER
I found what works, but it is with the performance monitor.
In the perfmon, I connect to her pc, and create a data collection set, then choose the counters that i want, then run the collection set. after awhile, i stop the set and then get to her C drive
\\hercomputername\c$
and go to
C:\perflogs\admin\nameofda
and the data set is there, then i can double click on it and perfmon will open it and show the graph of the counters.
so I just was wondering which counters would reveal problems on the network.
In the perfmon, I connect to her pc, and create a data collection set, then choose the counters that i want, then run the collection set. after awhile, i stop the set and then get to her C drive
\\hercomputername\c$
and go to
C:\perflogs\admin\nameofda
and the data set is there, then i can double click on it and perfmon will open it and show the graph of the counters.
so I just was wondering which counters would reveal problems on the network.
I do not know what counters will relate to what processes. You need to know what is running on the network.
Did you map \\her\C$ or does she use \\her\C$? Users should not be using C$ top level folders. And if she it, Outlook could be trying to enumerate folders.
Make a specific map for the user: NET USE T:\\servername\outlookpstf
Also, take a BIG look at Outlook 3rd party backup tools, keeping the PST file local and then backing it up nightly.
.... Thinkpads_User
Did you map \\her\C$ or does she use \\her\C$? Users should not be using C$ top level folders. And if she it, Outlook could be trying to enumerate folders.
Make a specific map for the user: NET USE T:\\servername\outlookpstf
Also, take a BIG look at Outlook 3rd party backup tools, keeping the PST file local and then backing it up nightly.
.... Thinkpads_User
ASKER
Thank you for all the help - guess what worked!
After much searching - I found that Outlook has cached folder handling and there is a reg hack to make the handling in 2010 act like 2007.
This isn't cached exchange mode, it's how Outlook handles folders and in outlook 2007 it handles the folders in such a way that apparently works best with an exchange 2003 server which is what we have.
after applying the reg hack, all is well.
After much searching - I found that Outlook has cached folder handling and there is a reg hack to make the handling in 2010 act like 2007.
This isn't cached exchange mode, it's how Outlook handles folders and in outlook 2007 it handles the folders in such a way that apparently works best with an exchange 2003 server which is what we have.
after applying the reg hack, all is well.
@JeffBeall - Thank you for the informative update. I was happy to help you with this.
... Thinkpads_User
... Thinkpads_User
I had a Lenovo ThinkPad with a lesser processor and 8Gb of memory, Windows 7 Pro 64-bit and Outlook 2010 and zero lag 98% of the time.
I now have a Lenovo ThinkPad i5 with 8Gb of memory, Windows 8 Pro 64-bit and Outlook 2013 with zero lag 98% of the time. If the desktop lags once in a while, the laptop lags as well and at the same time.
I have a client with Exchange 2003 and most of the people are now using Outlook 2010 on Windows 7. I am not hearing about any lags, but I will ask.
1. I assume that your Windows 7 is (a) Pro and (b) 64-bit. Take one or two and upgrade to 8 Gb and see if it makes any difference.
2. Do the new machines have OST files (they should). Is synchronizing taking additional time? See if clients can discern the delay to be at the beginning and/or end of their Outlook session but not in the middle. It could be normal synchronization of the OST and Exchange.
You should see an icon when it is synchronizing. See how long it takes. Perhaps the OST files go larger while you were not looking :)
3. Do the people have high expectations for faster Outlook performance with new machines?
.... Thinkpads_User