Heh, I guess the very title of this post is a blanket statement now that I read it. That’s OK, if Jason Busch can summarily make the following statements, I suppose it’s only fair that I make one too. At the beginning of an Outlook2007 performance horror story, Jason says:
"Hey, category managers in charge of IT spend. Want to make yourself a friend of the business for life? I’ve got a secret for you: don’t rubberstamp your CIO’s decision to upgrade to Vista or Office 2007. In fact, tack on a big "reject" to the request or the requisition. And don’t do it to save money. Do it to save your hide."
I really do feel for Jason as he’s clearly having some issues with Vista, Office and (in particular) Office 2007. I have zero doubt that his Outlook client isn’t behaving as snappy as it did XP. Of course, I don’t know why that’s the case and I’d be upset if I were him too. The fact is: everyone’s Windows computing environment is different because it’s an open system. Another fact: I’m running Vista and Outlook 2007 on machine with lower specs than Jason and it’s working just fine. I even have more mail to index and store than he does: 545 MB compared to his 150 MB. One last fact: I’ve run the same OS and Outlook 2007 client on a Samsung Q1 UMPC (both 900 MHz Celeron and 1 GHz Pentium) and while not super-speedy, it’s not the slow-grinding machine that Jason sees.
Do I doubt there’s an issue in his computing environment? Absolutely not and I hope it gets resolved for him. Do I think we should all summarily dismiss any software because someone has an issue like this: again, absolutely not, especially when it works fine in other computing environments.