Sorry I can't jump through your hoops of providing technical documentation
for the problems with Outlook data migration that we have seen, but it
doesn't exist. For you to assume that the only problems that are real are
those for which Microsoft provides documentation seems a bit naive to me.
Microsoft tends not to document issues they consider minor and that they
have no intention of correcting. I do know that the experience of the end
user community has been remarkably reproducible and consistent with the
problems we reported that were never fixed in the last beta. Outlook 2007
has become extremely intolerant of the PST file migration strategies that
used to work well in older versions, including simply placing a file with
the right name in the default location. Accordingly, that procedure in
particular is no longer recommended.
Apparently, most of the data migration problems arose because Outlook 2007
creates and connects to a data file much earlier in the profile creation
process than in earlier versions. In addition, the Outlook Address Book
Service can no longer be reset to use an imported data source in Outlook
2007. I'm sure you can imagine how much of a problem that creates for mail
merging. Feel free to consider this information here say if you prefer, but
its documentation would require that you have an NDA with Microsoft. On the
contrary, we have seen no issues that you suggest might arise because of the
change from ANSI to UNICODE. ANSI files remain perfectly compatible with
newer versions. The bottom line is that data migration issues are far worse
with newer versions than previous versions.
While some if these issues weren't relevant to your particular situation
with Outlook 2003, they are highly relevant to the user community at large
because some of the solutions you propose are no longer considered best
practice and may cause problems. It's fine if you want to chalk this up as
undocumented ramblings from an idiot who obviously knows far less than you.
But I'll continue to warn people about the potential pitfalls, as we do
every day in the Outlook groups. Your comments about anecdote are well
taken. The procedures you have always used still work well for you (except
this last time). Fine. Is that not anecdote? But they no longer work well
for a large number of other users. The experience of many is less anecdotal
than the experience of one. Admittedly, newsgroup postings are not a
reliable data source because of selection bias. As you aptly pointed out,
users do not post what works well, only what doesn't. But clearly there are
trends here that indicate a problem with Outlook data migration to which
neither you nor I have the final answers.
Thanks for the spirited debate. It was fun. Sorry you felt the need to
include so many ad hominum comments in your replies. I did my best to avoid
doing the same, but if I failed, I apologize.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
1. This particular case is not Outlook 2007, as was stated, it's Outlook
2003. But, I'm sorry I believe you are misunderstanding what was
explained to you. There are LESS likely to be migration/import problems
in newer verstions of Outlook, than with the older versions, meaning
Outlook 2003 and 2007 are vastly more compatible than say Outlook 97 or
2000 with Outlook 2003.
2. The main compatibility issues between older version of Outlook (a la
97) and newer versions is that older versions encoded their data using the
American National Standards Institue (ANSI) encoding scheme and newer
versions encode using Unicode Text Format with 8 bits per character
(UTF-8).
3. A secondary reason for incompatibilities is the changes in embedding
technology over the years. Back in the days of Outlook 97, Dynamic Data
Exchange (DDE) was used very often when you wanted to copy data from one
source application to another. This was repleaced by Obect Linking &
Embedding (OLE), and then ActiveX.
4. The procedure you list at the bottom of your last post is EXACTLY what
I've been describing. The only difference in my case(s) is that is is
unnecessary to put the file in a different location and set it as the
default because I intend for the file being copied in to replace entirely
the existing one. If you place an existing .pst file called "outlook.pst"
in the exact location of the automatically created one, there's nothing
else you need to do.
5. While the MVP community certainly has something to contribute to this
or any Microsoft product conversation, they are certainly not the last
word on any Microsoft topic and *they* should know and understand that.
Microsoft does recommend the usage of the Import option as a reliable way
of bringing data from one .pst into another and in my VAST experience
using it, I have found no reason whatsoever to dispute that. The
*problems* that you've repeatedly warned about are much less likely a
problem with the Import feature and much more likely problems relating to
what I've mentioned in items 2 and 3 above.
Again, you really haven't provided any technical information about what
you are talking about, which leads me to belive that you don't have any.
All you keep talking about is what you've heard. As someone who has been
in IT for nearly 20 years, my experience is that when you don't fully
understand something, it becomes easy to base your opinions on the
anecdotal evidence of others,. who may know much less than you do. When
you do understand how something works, it's much easier to work with it
and understand how to get it to do what you want it to do.
My problem in this case was that I had never had to have a 2003 product
access a '97 file and after some simple research and reasoning discovered
the simple answer that the software was not at fault, the file in question
was. Simply, creating a new file with the 2003 software (so that the file
structure would conform to the native format of the product in question),
rather than persisting with the '97 file solves this issue.
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook
Development Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users
started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST
files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier
Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The
explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred
over the years:
1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden
messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave
information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving
PST file.
2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has
changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file
migration which corrupts the receiving profile.
The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development
resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST
file connections are not a priority for development since they only
affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange
clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be
changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it
hasn't happened so far.
So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening
the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they
want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location
that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a
PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default,
then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file
(as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this,
to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not
the catastrophe you keep claiming it is.
I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does
recommend the procedure I used.
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do
so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not
the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other
users.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Scott M." wrote in message
...
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it
should be.
It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is.
To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never
been addressed is incorrect, however.
Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back
this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")?
The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well
documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file
from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file.
Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that
there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for
years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your
non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a
recommended path.
Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve.
Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I
did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could
cause problems for users who might assume they were correct.
You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted
ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems"
and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that
migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there
isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to
do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the
replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in
this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was
no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some
corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case,
creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing
the old content into it would fix the problem and did.
In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility,
or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the
thread. In whose posts do those occur?
So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an
attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would.
Would you characterize "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." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in
fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the
transfer had been done incorrectly? I would.
Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been
extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to
someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause,
and solution.
You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT
shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have
not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your
misguided opinions.
It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as
I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years.
I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to
correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents.
Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about
this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know
(should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just
how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread.
You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was
solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in.
Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be
"unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Peter Jamieson" wrote in message
...
Yours qualifies however.
An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His
case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that
may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given
much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file
and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME).
Peter Jamieson
http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote:
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.