Nick,

The reason you are having the trouble with your Inbox (and yes, this is
causing your "leak" - actually MS Internet Mail and News is - is because the
folders need to be "Cleaned up" every so often.

When you delete a message, it dosen't actually go away... To clean  up your
folders, and reclaim the disk space, click File, then Folder, Then Compact
Folders...  This will do the trick for you.

I know - MS should put something in there to do it automatically.  Well,
they didn't - and since I don't write the stuff, and it's already been
recommended to Microsoft a zillion times...

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Nick Demos
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 11:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Win NT workstation: How are the emperor's clothes holding
> up?
>
>
> I don't know about NT, but I found a "disc leak" in Win'95.  "You
> say a disk leak, you can have a memory leak but not a disk leak".
> Well it seems that way.  I kept losing disc space, WITHOUT adding
> any new files or systems.  I think I finally ran down the problem.
> I installed MS Internet Exploreer Version 4, which I believe also
> replaces Internet Mail, as well as some other things which I got rid
> of.  Well, anyway, the IN mailbox is over 150 MEGABYTES in size!  No
> wonder my disc space was being eaten up.  Either it doesn't compact
> correctly OR  it gets increased to the size of the largest mail
> download and stays there.
>
> Can anybody verify this?
>
> Nick (deleting inbox.mbx and crossing my fingers) Demos
> [log in to unmask]
> My opinions are my own and I stand behind them.
> Well WAY back sometimes.
> Performance Software Group
> Tel. (410) 788-6777 Fax (410) 788-4476
>
>
> From: Gavin Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> > This is somewhat off-topic, but...
> >
> > I remember when NT 4.0 came out how many people claimed it was so much
> > more stable as a workstation and development platform than Windows 95
> > was.  Lots of people I respect switched to it and reported vast
> > improvements.
> >
> > I switched from 95 to NT over a year ago after Windows 95 melted down
> > completely on me after getting more and more unstable over time.  NT
> > was wonderfully stable in comparison.
> >
> > Now I've been running NT about as long as I had been running Win 95 when
> > it started becoming unstable, and I'm starting to have all the same sort
> > of problems on NT that I had on Windows 95.
> >
> > I'm having to reboot once or twice a day due to the networking system
> > getting clogged up to the point that no data will transfer anymore,
> > running FrameMaker results in window controls and display elements being
> > drawn incorrectly until reboot, etc., etc.
> >
> > I'm beginning to feel that much of the perceived superiority of NT was
> due
> > simply to the fact that upgrading to it forced most people to
> essentially
> > do a clean install, which resulted in a clean and stable
> environment, and
> > that over time all the assorted software that gets installed onto the
> > machine (and possibly later incompletely deinstalled) leaves
> you with the
> > same kind of flaky patchwork operating system environment as Windows 95,
> > with all the problems attendant there to.
> >
> > Certainly NT is much better in many areas than 95, but when it
> comes down
> > to whether it is fundamentally more robust and stable when used in a
> > real-life developer workstation environment, I'm not sure it's
> really any
> > better than 95 was.  Install programs still vomit files all over the
> disk,
> > happily replacing whatever critical shared DLL files that they
> feel like,
> > and none of NT's security or kernel features seem to be used to prevent
> > applications from doing whatever their developers felt like to your
> system.
> >
> > So, I'm interested in whether this is just me or not.  How are other
> people
> > finding the reliability of NT as a *workstation* platform over time?
> >
> > G.
>