... option checked and does not have this issue (it flags for duplicates successfully). This machine is using the same release of Outlook as the working one. This Office install was removed and reloaded but the condition persists. A headscratcher. -- Steve Chandler Sr. Ssystems Engineer Premiere System Solutions Toronto, Ontario

... has this option checked and does not have this issue (it flags for duplicates successfully). This machine is using the same release of Outlook as the working one. This Office install was removed and reloaded but the condition persists. A headscratcher. -- Steve Chandler Sr. Ssystems Engineer Premiere System Solutions Toronto, Ontario

... a couple of desks away has this option checked and does not have this issue (it flags for duplicates successfully). This machine is using the same release of Outlook as the working one. This Office install was removed and reloaded but the condition persists. A headscratcher. -- Steve Chandler Sr. Ssystems Engineer Premiere System Solutions Toronto, Ontario

... in. Another user a couple of desks away has this option checked and does not have this issue (it flags for duplicates successfully). This machine is using the same release of Outlook as the working one. This Office install was removed and reloaded but the condition persists. A headscratcher. -- Steve Chandler Sr. Ssystems Engineer Premiere System Solutions Toronto, Ontario

...> On Dec 27, 9:05=A0pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote: On Windows (PIV 3 GHz), the program was not faster than the simple loopers (it took 2.116 seconds). After some headscratching I noticed your use of "," . This word is not optimized in iForth, because who would ever want to use such a monster when performance matters :-) Why a monster? Seriously I always was thinking...

... bug ( in literal, ), and one less inefficiency in "," :-) Hehe ;) On Windows (PIV 3 GHz), the program was not faster than the simple loopers (it took 2.116 seconds). After some headscratching I noticed your use of "," . This word is not optimized in iForth, because who would ever want to use such a monster when performance matters :-) Why a monster? Seriously I always was ...

... space, one less lurking bug ( in literal, ), and one less inefficiency in "," :-) On Windows (PIV 3 GHz), the program was not faster than the simple loopers (it took 2.116 seconds). After some headscratching I noticed your use of "," . This word is not optimized in iForth, because who would ever want to use such a monster when performance matters :-) With : , cp @ ! =CELL cp +! ;...

now tell me, who put the crack in the reply about headscratching-I certainly did not add this. It seems that lately all I've been directed to do is go down a deeper black hole. In my job I am not literate to what tech language professional IT developers/Support personnel use. If you are going to speak to a layman, please use layman terms please, that's all I ask. Dont reply by sending ...

... Storage key for the user in question/reboot works. In fact, somehow the old password seems to populate the pw field after opening Outl@@k for the first time after the surgery! Its a headscratcher!! ;O) Thanks to any and all for 'listening' and helping out if possible. -Joe OS wrote: Authough you have said you have checked the settings, it is probably a setting error...

... every so often. When I look at my code three years from now, I want to be able to check to make sure the math was right! A big AMEN to this - exactly what I do; painful headscratching at my own code has taught me this. Another thing I include in the comments is the set of assumptions used. It has always bugged me to see code written as interminable strings, with no spaces around the ...