"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other
users, so I corrected them.
1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and
PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail
merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating
PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper
procedures are well documented:
http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm
http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx
What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed
didn't you get?
2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a
cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that.
I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical
information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a
place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message
after message of people talking about their succes with Importing?
As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight
to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and
because you said so.
Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see
some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts.
Hmmm. I don't care what you think.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
If you have some technical information to share, please do so.
Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to
anyone.
Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame,
let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced
folks are happy to do that).
Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited
advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended
software approach with "I don't care what you think."
Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP
must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look
like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot.
You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a
problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical
nonsense.
PLONK
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours
qualifies however.
As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the
import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing
PST's will lose:
1. Custom Forms
2. Custom Views
3. Connections between contacts and activities
4. Received dates on mail
5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar
6. Journal connections
7. Distribution Lists
It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many
manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is
why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the
only *experienced user* out there.
Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I
say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing?
No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and
teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless
manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my
experience as legitimate.
To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are
ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your
comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant.
How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try
doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook
Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning
what transfer means? What drugs are you on?!
What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post
*accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I
suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly
you have trouble when people don't take it.
The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of
times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as
it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest.
To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the
Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed
and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to
scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in
the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism
in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable
answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully
genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work!
Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have
MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two
(perhaps even more than you do) about the topic?
Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like
"Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why
and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the
recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!".
Please!
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
"The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the
correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing
in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly.
Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not
be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups
and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful
that you post accurately when you post information for others to use.
Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import
function. Experienced users know better.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
Russ,
In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring
was tried to no avail.
The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so
initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was
necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that
any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders,
but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the
Outlook file was functioning flawlessly.
I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new
.pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have
been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also,
Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product.
Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works,
but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to
make sure you get all the information from all the categories without
duplication (especially calendar holidays).
FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's,
I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the
various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any
issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This
particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that,
I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with.
-Scott
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook
97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred
correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book
Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the
Outlook groups.
Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by
importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one
file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was
copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not
properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes
of Mail Merge.
The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and
then import the old data into the new .pst.
-Scott
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts
are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source
(BTW Outlook 2003 as well).
The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as
an address book.
Thanks